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
ShiaChat Mod

Black Lives Matter [OFFICIAL]

ShiaChat Mod

Note: This topic is of a sensitive nature dealing with current events, with a range of opinions presented, which some readers might find objectionable. Please refer to credible sources when assessing any factual claims presented. Racist language of any kind will not be tolerated, per ShiaChat guidelines.

Message added by ShiaChat Mod

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, notme said:

Being born outside of a legal marriage does not invalidate the sanctity of a life. 

Personally, I'm opposed to legal marriage. I think who marries who is a religious matter and none of the government's business. According to some of y'all, my kids' lives don't matter. 

Change your name to straw woman.

At this point you are just trolling, are you really comparing a religiously sanctioned union to fornication with random women?

I knew people like you would defend the concept of 'baby-mamas' but I didn't want to just state it because it would be slanderous, but here you are admitting it openly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ali_Hussain said:

Change your name to straw woman.

At this point you are just trolling, are you really comparing a religiously sanctioned union to fornication with random women?

I knew people like you would defend the concept of 'baby-mamas' but I didn't want to just state it because it would be slanderous, but here you are admitting it openly.

Could you clarify what you’re talking about? I don’t understand where you got this from. Are you claiming she’s defending extramarital childbearing? Where in her post is that indicated? 
 

If that’s the case, I’m giving you a chance to recant the statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Reza said:

I thought Islamic etiquette mandated excuses for others (I am Muslim) and the benefit of the doubt, but not in my case apparently. You presumed I’m a “deliberate” patronizing jerk on a power trip, rather than someone trying to challenge views earnestly, even if harsh and contentious. Surely a long standing veteran member of this forum like yourself would understand that.

So far what you’ve said about me on this thread (examples of your public etiquette, just to remind everyone, and with no consequences btw):

1. I have “reading comprehension issues” (not in the polite misunderstanding way, but basically implying I’m an idiot)

2. “like to ascribe evil motives to people” (but you’re the one who assumed I was deliberately being patronizing)

3. “religious allegiance is clearly secondary to their politics” (Assuming I’m being included in that. A serious allegation, but I let it slide)

4. “false sense of superiority“

Again, where is my benefit of the doubt?

I didn't accuse you of being on a power trip.

Number 3 didn't include you, as is fairly obvious from my last post on the subject.

As for the rest, unlike the accusation of racism, I'm not accusing you of sinning. I'm drawing conclusions from the content and tone of your posts. Of course, there is more than enough ammunition to accuse people on this thread of having issues with Whites or Jews (which is not exactly uncommon in the Muslim community), but I didn't do that. 

However, I didn't accuse you of both ascribing evil intentions to people and having reading comprehension issues. I said it either was one or the other. That was me making excuses for you. Unfortunately it is sometimes the case that the information in front of you doesn't leave you with any good options, but suggesting someone has issues with comprehension, when they repeatedly misrepresent what you are saying, isn't a sin as far as I know. Of course, ideally I could say that it was an innocent misunderstanding, but the repeated nature or it, and the tone you took, precluded that.

I have no idea why you would think it was suitable to challenge views in a 'harsh and contentious' manner from the get-go. What is to be gained from such an approach, especially as you are an admin on this forum? It is perfectly possible to amicably disagree with someone and not create a negative atmosphere in the discussion. To be fair, you weren't the only one guilty of it, or even the worst. I would suggest that admins and moderators think a bit more about how they engage in discussions with others. I think you have a responsibility to model better behaviour than what we have seen here, and to try to foster a cordial atmosphere, rather than be needlessly confrontational with other members just because they have views you object to.

Anyway, I will quote your posts, and explain why I came to the conclusions I did.

 

Quote

This theory is ahistorical in content, presuming all groups are on equal footing relative to one another to force a logical consistency. Of both mirror examples, only one side has yielded significant actionable consequences in a real world context, while the other is negligible in comparison in the macro sense.

Why the insistence of crowning both with the same term then? And if one admits both are “racist”, then how does one subsequently go to qualify and quantity the obvious dissimilarity in impact? What additional term could be used? Or is the reality that no term is used, and it’s all obfuscated because “everyone can be racist”, so therefore everyone is off the hook, even the worst offenders? When everybody is guilty, nobody becomes guilty. Circular whataboutism.

 

Quote

The African identity, language, religions, social structures were all forcibly removed and forgotten, something that no other group experienced of any comparible magnitude. Does the effect of this need to be spelled out, or is it not obvious?

This were your first posts in the thread. Not really the tone to take if you are looking to start a constructive discussion, and from the start you imply I'm trying to let racists off the hook. You build up this great strawman, and feel quite comfortable from the beginning accusing me of 'circular whataboutism', even though you were completely off the mark. Is this how you join a discussion? But then maybe that's just you looking to be harsh and contentious.

By the way, when I corrected you on your claim that African identity was forgotten, you just dropped the line of argument without comment. This isn't indicative of someone who wants a discussion, but rather a debate. So you stick to the lines of attach that you think are favourable, while dropping those that aren't.

 

Quote

What’s going to happen? Reverse enslavement? 

What am I supposed to make of this? Sarcasm? Being extremely obtuse?

Quote

It’s interesting liberal academics are singled out for this practice of “re-defining” when many right wing figures will start with a “racism exists and should be condemned in all forms” disclaimer, then when presented with every real world example of racist actions, will deny race has any relevancy to the matter. They unilaterally decide incident X is “not racist”, and make every excuse to attribute another reason or narrative. Conveniently there’s nothing to condemn because their definition of racism doesn’t ever seem to be met. What about that kind of re-defining?

This makes absolutely no sense. I'm talking about redefining a word in such a way that it can only apply in one direction, which is clearly unjust and unislamic, and it was in reference to a previous post where I quoted some BLM member who was talking about blacks being superior to whites and having to hold herself back from killing whites. At every turn you seemed to do your best to misunderstand what was being said, or not take the time to understand it. You seemed more interested in being confrontational.

Quote

So this is the worst thing a white person can experience, called a bunch of names? A much better deal than what other races go through.

Perhaps this could be interpreted as an involuntary social tax for an overall more prosperous demographic. But for most people outside of academics, Fox News, and Twitter, these terms are not in daily use or consciousness, not on an individual level at least. 

Again, consistently being needlessly confrontational, and making insinuations by bringing up Fox News. For all your talk of people being blinded by hatred of the left, you seem to have your own issues with the right.

Quote

So white guilt and sensitivity is the most pressing matter? Racial tensions will be improved if white people feel less collective shame? Why are their feelings the overriding factor, as if that’s the biggest violation that has occurred? The quantity of your posts here harping on it seems to suggest that, even though this thread is about “Black Lives”. You’re talking about white people more than anybody else here.

Guilt is a form of humility. If enjoying the “benefits of civilization” built on the backs of slaves and the poor past and present requires a mental asterisk of shame and guilt, that’s the social tax. So be it. You’re still enjoying the benefits. Maybe more guilt and shame would have prevented interventionist foreign wars, because there would be less enthusiasm for “sharing our values” by force.

Harping? Nice choice of words. I never said, nor implied, that white guilt or sensitivity were the most pressing matter. So why say that? You seem to be trying to imply that I've got some kind of agenda to stick up for White people over Black people, when this isn't the case.

The thread isn't about 'Black Lives', it's about the dangers of the Black Lives Matter organisation. How is it possible you don't even check the first page, jump in on page 6, and try to tell me what my own thread is about?

 

Quote

From what I’m reading in this topic, there isn’t agreement on diagnosis, and some are denying issues because their hatred of the left is stronger than their acknowledgement of reality. Some people on here I will definitely not think of the same way again.

Where did you get this idea that people hate the left more than they acknowledge reality? Is it not perfectly possible to 'hate the left' and acknowledge reality at the same time, but simply have a different take on the situation that you? And thinking less of people? Seriously? How does that not indicate feeling a sense of superiority?

Quote

Brother, this is off topic so I’m not going to respond. My recommendation is to lay off YouTube.

This is clearly a put-down, however you want to disguise it. If you are going to be this blatant, it's a bit much to ask for benefit of the doubt, especially given the pattern of behaviour in the thread. Just as I wouldn't suggest giving the benefit of the doubt to someone making clearly racist statements, but that's not what happened here.

 

So yeah, if you're going to post like this, then what do you expect? It's understandable that if someone is rude towards you that you might reciprocate, but you started like this without provocation.

Anyway, there were a lot of misunderstandings on this thread, the biggest being what this thread was actually about. I suggest the admins or mods remove the title of 'official' from this thread, allow those of us who want to discuss the issues with the BLM organisation/movement to do so, and make a new 'official' thread in support of BLM, if that's what you wish to do. Of course, people are still free to disagree in those threads, but at least there won't be this huge misunderstanding about what the topic of conversation is, and why it is people are being so negative towards BLM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, notme said:

Being born outside of a legal marriage does not invalidate the sanctity of a life. 

Personally, I'm opposed to legal marriage. I think who marries who is a religious matter and none of the government's business. According to some of y'all, my kids' lives don't matter. 

This is just incredible. Literally nobody said this, or implied it. Do you have no shame to be making statements you know for a fact are false?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Reza said:

Could you clarify what you’re talking about? I don’t understand where you got this from. Are you claiming she’s defending extramarital childbearing? Where in her post is that indicated? 
 

If that’s the case, I’m giving you a chance to recant the statement.

I don't think she is defending it (at least not explicitly), but unfortunately she's got this habit of misreading statements about the nuclear family and marriage to mean something they don't. When BLM-types talk about destroying the nuclear family, they don't mean that we should live in 'extended families' in the sense that most of us would understand the term, but notme chooses to read it in that way. Similarly, when people are talking about the issue of illegitimate children, the problem isn't that the marriage isn't 'state sanctioned', as if they would have an issue with an Islamic marriage that wasn't state sanctioned, but again she appears to read it in this bizarre way. So understandably, it creates confusion. In reality, I'm sure notme understands exactly what people mean (and in the case of the nuclear family it's been explained to her), so I'm not sure why she keeps doing this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Reza said:

Could you clarify what you’re talking about? I don’t understand where you got this from. Are you claiming she’s defending extramarital childbearing? Where in her post is that indicated? 
 

If that’s the case, I’m giving you a chance to recant the statement.

Yes that is what I am saying that she has no issue with fornication and illegitimate children being born en masse in the African-American community. What do you think she is talking about? What is the context of her statement, enlighten me please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ali_Hussain said:

Yes that is what I am saying that she has no issue with fornication and illegitimate children being born en masse in the African-American community. What do you think she is talking about? What is the context of her statement, enlighten me please.

See my post above in response to Reza for what I think she meant. She may or may not have an issue with it, but her post gives her deniability. I don't think it's worth fighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Haydar Husayn said:

 

 

 

 

What a racist.

 

It's a sad day when Don Lemon is more conservatively minded than many Muslims. Although the Muslims in question don't want to live the lifestyle that they defend, they just believe that these poor oppressed blacks can't help themselves, which is not only insulting and condescending but also racist. 

It is another example of how they are refusing to apply Islamic ethics to a situation because it wouldn't suit the narrative, in Islam you should want for others what you want for yourself. Even if the narrations specify that that is between Muslims, as members of a society we should also want good for our peers.

Edited by Ali_Hussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Haydar Husayn said:

When BLM-types talk about destroying the nuclear family, they don't mean that we should live in 'extended families' in the sense that most of us would understand the term, but notme chooses to read it in that way. Similarly, when people are talking about the issue of illegitimate children, the problem isn't that the marriage isn't 'state sanctioned', as if they would have an issue with an Islamic marriage that wasn't state sanctioned, but again she appears to read it in this bizarre way. So understandably, it creates confusion. In reality, I'm sure notme understands exactly what people mean (and in the case of the nuclear family it's been explained to her), so I'm not sure why she keeps doing this.

Definition of "nuclear family". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_family

Why are you assuming something other than what is said is meant? 

And as for legal/legitimate marriage, why are you willing to assume that I, a white Muslim middle class person, am legitimately married without state approval, but you are unwilling to make the same assumption about poor black families? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ali_Hussain said:

It's a sad day when Dom Lemon is more conservatively minded than many Muslims. Although the Muslims in question don't want to live the lifestyle that they defend, they just believe that these poor oppressed blacks can't help themselves, which is not only insulting and condescending but also racist. 

It is another example of how they are refusing to apply Islamic ethics to a situation because it wouldn't suit the narrative, in Islam you should want for others what you want for yourself. Even if the narrations specify that that is between Muslims, as members of a society we should also want good for out peers.

Don Lemon was, back in 2013. This is the 2020 version:

 

But yeah, I agree with you. People seem to want Blacks to be helpless victims, and instead of promoting voices that want to take responsibility and reform their communities, which is an Islamic principle, they want to promote the voices that seek to blame others while taking no responsibility. They then arrogate to themselves the authority to label others racist for going against this narrative, even though there are plenty of Black people who are at the forefront of trying to counter it.

Here are a couple of verses to ponder on:

For his sake there are angels following one another, before him and behind him, who guard him by Allah's commandment; surely Allah does not change the condition of a people until they change their own condition; and when Allah intends evil to a people, there is no averting it, and besides Him they have no protector. [Qur'an 13:11, Shakir]

And a burdened soul cannot bear the burden of another and if one weighed down by burden should cry for (another to carry) its burden, not aught of it shall be carried, even though he be near of kin. You warn only those who fear their Lord in secret and keep up prayer; and whoever purifies himself, he purifies himself only for (the good of) his own soul; and to Allah is the eventual coming. [Qur'an 35:18, Shakir]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Haydar Husayn said:

Forget Black on Black crime, it's Black on Black racism that needs to be dealt with. Maybe some people on the forum could go and teach them...

We can build of Malcolm X's statement about Liberals, they purposely defend this street culture that has been imposed on the African-American community through social engineering (films & music) in order to keep them down, they obviously have no interest in them getting out of the hole that they are in because as they are now, they can be used as a weapon. 

Not the Muslims liberals, they are just useful idiots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

 

 

Edited by Ali_Hussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, notme said:

Definition of "nuclear family". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_family

Why are you assuming something other than what is said is meant? 

And as for legal/legitimate marriage, why are you willing to assume that I, a white Muslim middle class person, am legitimately married without state approval, but you are unwilling to make the same assumption about poor black families? 

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or do you just not know anything about these issues? Why don't you watch some of the videos I posted above. I'm guessing these people from the Black community have a better idea than you, 'a white Muslim middle class person'.

If you genuinely just have no clue about these issues, then just say so, and I'll happily provide you with as much material as you would like to prove my point. But if that is the case, then a little humility would be in order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Haydar Husayn said:

Why don't you watch some of the videos I posted above.

I don't watch videos. 

And this is all missing the point anyway!

My point was that a life is not less valuable because the person was born into any non-standard family structure. And if that wasn't the purpose of bringing up "nuclear family", then how is it relevant to this discussion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Haydar Husayn said:

I didn't accuse you of being on a power trip.

Number 3 didn't include you, as is fairly obvious from my last post on the subject.

As for the rest, unlike the accusation of racism, I'm not accusing you of sinning. I'm drawing conclusions from the content and tone of your posts. Of course, there is more than enough ammunition to accuse people on this thread of having issues with Whites or Jews (which is not exactly uncommon in the Muslim community), but I didn't do that. 

However, I didn't accuse you of both ascribing evil intentions to people and having reading comprehension issues. I said it either was one or the other. That was me making excuses for you. Unfortunately it is sometimes the case that the information in front of you doesn't leave you with any good options, but suggesting someone has issues with comprehension, when they repeatedly misrepresent what you are saying, isn't a sin as far as I know. Of course, ideally I could say that it was an innocent misunderstanding, but the repeated nature or it, and the tone you took, precluded that.

I have no idea why you would think it was suitable to challenge views in a 'harsh and contentious' manner from the get-go. What is to be gained from such an approach, especially as you are an admin on this forum? It is perfectly possible to amicably disagree with someone and not create a negative atmosphere in the discussion. To be fair, you weren't the only one guilty of it, or even the worst. I would suggest that admins and moderators think a bit more about how they engage in discussions with others. I think you have a responsibility to model better behaviour than what we have seen here, and to try to foster a cordial atmosphere, rather than be needlessly confrontational with other members just because they have views you object to.

Anyway, I will quote your posts, and explain why I came to the conclusions I did.

 

 

This were your first posts in the thread. Not really the tone to take if you are looking to start a constructive discussion, and from the start you imply I'm trying to let racists off the hook. You build up this great strawman, and feel quite comfortable from the beginning accusing me of 'circular whataboutism', even though you were completely off the mark. Is this how you join a discussion? But then maybe that's just you looking to be harsh and contentious.

By the way, when I corrected you on your claim that African identity was forgotten, you just dropped the line of argument without comment. This isn't indicative of someone who wants a discussion, but rather a debate. So you stick to the lines of attach that you think are favourable, while dropping those that aren't.

 

What am I supposed to make of this? Sarcasm? Being extremely obtuse?

This makes absolutely no sense. I'm talking about redefining a word in such a way that it can only apply in one direction, which is clearly unjust and unislamic, and it was in reference to a previous post where I quoted some BLM member who was talking about blacks being superior to whites and having to hold herself back from killing whites. At every turn you seemed to do your best to misunderstand what was being said, or not take the time to understand it. You seemed more interested in being confrontational.

Again, consistently being needlessly confrontational, and making insinuations by bringing up Fox News. For all your talk of people being blinded by hatred of the left, you seem to have your own issues with the right.

Harping? Nice choice of words. I never said, nor implied, that white guilt or sensitivity were the most pressing matter. So why say that? You seem to be trying to imply that I've got some kind of agenda to stick up for White people over Black people, when this isn't the case.

The thread isn't about 'Black Lives', it's about the dangers of the Black Lives Matter organisation. How is it possible you don't even check the first page, jump in on page 6, and try to tell me what my own thread is about?

 

Where did you get this idea that people hate the left more than they acknowledge reality? Is it not perfectly possible to 'hate the left' and acknowledge reality at the same time, but simply have a different take on the situation that you? And thinking less of people? Seriously? How does that not indicate feeling a sense of superiority?

This is clearly a put-down, however you want to disguise it. If you are going to be this blatant, it's a bit much to ask for benefit of the doubt, especially given the pattern of behaviour in the thread. Just as I wouldn't suggest giving the benefit of the doubt to someone making clearly racist statements, but that's not what happened here.

 

So yeah, if you're going to post like this, then what do you expect? It's understandable that if someone is rude towards you that you might reciprocate, but you started like this without provocation.

Anyway, there were a lot of misunderstandings on this thread, the biggest being what this thread was actually about. I suggest the admins or mods remove the title of 'official' from this thread, allow those of us who want to discuss the issues with the BLM organisation/movement to do so, and make a new 'official' thread in support of BLM, if that's what you wish to do. Of course, people are still free to disagree in those threads, but at least there won't be this huge misunderstanding about what the topic of conversation is, and why it is people are being so negative towards BLM.

Good god man, just own up to the things you said and apologize. I don't have energy for this endless catfight. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Reza said:

Good god man, just own up to the things you said and apologize. I don't have energy for this endless catfight. 

Own up to what? Look at yourself in the mirror first. You seriously think the way you engaged in this discussion what the best way?

If that's the case, then let's just agree to disagree. I don't have the energy for this either. Others can make up their own minds on the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Haydar Husayn said:

Own up to what? Look at yourself in the mirror first. You seriously think the way you engaged in this discussion what the best way?

If that's the case, then let's just agree to disagree. I don't have the energy for this either. Others can make up their own minds on the matter.

I don’t have to engage in discussions by your standards or expectations. 

Answer to your own statements and claims. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, notme said:

I don't watch videos. 

What a shame. If you did, you would have learnt that there are plenty of Black leaders saying exactly the things that you are claiming are racist. Does that not bother you?

6 minutes ago, notme said:

And this is all missing the point anyway!

Whatever the point is, it's important to be honest. It's hard to believe you really think that even a tiny fraction of the children born out of wedlock in the African American community are born to parents that are married in some 'non-official' way. Especially when you must know that in the vast majority of these cases, the father leaves the home, if he was ever there in the first place. There is a reason people talk about the problem of Black fatherlessness.

Now, since I've been accused of not sufficiently giving the benefit of the doubt, let me assume you are genuinely just a very well-meaning person who either never heard these things, or if you have, assumed they were racist lies, and this is why you got so angry in this thread. So here is some written material:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_family_structure

6 minutes ago, notme said:

My point was that a life is not less valuable because the person was born into any non-standard family structure. And if that wasn't the purpose of bringing up "nuclear family", then how is it relevant to this discussion?

Nobody said they were less valuable. Please quote me anything anyone said that could even remotely be taken to imply that.

The purpose of bringing up the 'nuclear family' is that stable families are the bedrock of successful communities. Having large amounts of families where the kids don't know who their father is, or never see their father, is a recipe for disaster, especially for boys who need a position male role model in their lives. This is a well-known issue. Here is Obama talking about the issue:

Quote

Of all the rocks upon which we build our lives, we are reminded today that family is the most important. And we are called to recognize and honor how critical every father is to that foundation. They are teachers and coaches. They are mentors and role models. They are examples of success and the men who constantly push us toward it.

But if we are honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that what too many fathers also are is missing — missing from too many lives and too many homes. They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it. 

You and I know how true this is in the African-American community. We know that more than half of all black children live in single-parent households, a number that has doubled — doubled — since we were children. We know the statistics — that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.

How many times in the last year has this city lost a child at the hands of another child? How many times have our hearts stopped in the middle of the night with the sound of a gunshot or a siren? How many teenagers have we seen hanging around on street corners when they should be sitting in a classroom? How many are sitting in prison when they should be working, or at least looking for a job? How many in this generation are we willing to lose to poverty or violence or addiction? How many?

Yes, we need more cops on the street. Yes, we need fewer guns in the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. Yes, we need more money for our schools, and more outstanding teachers in the classroom, and more after-school programs for our children. Yes, we need more jobs and more job training and more opportunity in our communities.

But we also need families to raise our children. We need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception. We need them to realize that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child — it’s the courage to raise one.

We need to help all the mothers out there who are raising these kids by themselves; the mothers who drop them off at school, go to work, pick up them up in the afternoon, work another shift, get dinner, make lunches, pay the bills, fix the house, and all the other things it takes both parents to do. So many of these women are doing a heroic job, but they need support. They need another parent. Their children need another parent. That’s what keeps their foundation strong. It’s what keeps the foundation of our country strong. 

https://www.politico.com/story/2008/06/text-of-obamas-fatherhood-speech-011094

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Haydar Husayn said:

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or do you just not know anything about these issues? Why don't you watch some of the videos I posted above. I'm guessing these people from the Black community have a better idea than you, 'a white Muslim middle class person'.

If you genuinely just have no clue about . . .

Salam Bro.

Your wording needs a little detente ---relax the tension. A Florida bro a few years ago talked himself into a corner and ended up banned. Which was sad because he wrote like he was having a nervous breakdown online.

Secondly, l do not think the demonstrators have any idea about what they are protesting and all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Haydar Husayn said:

But yeah, I agree with you. People seem to want Blacks to be helpless victims, and instead of promoting voices that want to take responsibility and reform their communities, which is an Islamic principle

You can't reduce the concept of systemic/institutional racism like this. That being said, I think the best way of overcoming institutional racism is through personal responsibility rather than government dependency. Perhaps some reforms like making the courts more culturally compatible could help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ali_Hussain said:

We can build of Malcolm X's statement about Liberals, they purposely defend this street culture

Street culture is fine. Gang culture is the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

Street culture is fine. Gang culture is the issue.

It depends what you mean by street culture, there is also a thing in America called 'corner culture' which seems to be somewhere between the two and is used pejoratively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ali_Hussain said:

corner culture

Is that like hustling on street corners or is it prostitution on street corners? Edit: or is it dice-rolling on street corners?

Edited by AmirioTheMuzzy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

You can't reduce the concept of systemic/institutional racism like this. That being said, I think the best way of overcoming institutional racism is through personal responsibility rather than government dependency. Perhaps some reforms like making the courts more culturally compatible could help.

I'm not denying the existence of systemic racism. I just think it's not the biggest issue facing Black communities, or at the very least, it would be more productive to focus on personal responsibility. Even if we eliminated all racism tomorrow, Black communities would still have massive issues to do with the family structure, crime, etc. People complain that too many Blacks are put in prison for relatively minor crimes like drug offences, but even if they weren't put in prison, the fact that they are taking or selling those drugs is still going to be an issue for the community. The Nation of Islam have actually had good success in cleaning up neighbourhoods, and could serve as a model for moving forward.

Quote

The situation in Chicago is so desperately broken that alternative solutions bear considering. One of the few sources of strong leadership in many of these communities is the Nation of Islam. 

The religious organization has long endured controversy over allegations that it is a virulently anti-Semitic and extremist black-nationalist group. The inflammatory rhetoric of some of its leaders — including its current leader, Louis Farrakhan — lend credence to such claims. These extremist elements should be sternly and unequivocally condemned. On the other hand, more moderate Muslims have made it a point of standing up for their communities. 

David Muhammad, a retired mechanic who lives on the West Side of Chicago, was featured in the CBS News “48 Hours” documentary “The War In Chicago” for his work in documenting drug dealing in his neighborhood. For more than a year, he recorded live video of an open-air drug market that had set up shop in front of a Baptist church, and posted the videos to YouTube. The radical strategy garnered Muhammad scores of death threats from local drug dealers, but the spotlight ultimately proved more than they could endure and they eventually moved on. 

Some might be perplexed as to why a Muslim would risk his life protecting Christian worshippers, but for Muhammad, the answer was simple. “In Islam, we’re taught to protect all institutions of God. So it was like a slap in my face for them to deal drugs right out of the door of the church.”

Security firms affiliated with the Nation of Islam began informally patrolling communities beset by violence in the late 1980s, and proved quite effective in several cities — including Washington, D.C., Baltimore and Chicago. The basis of their presence was to establish respect among the community and serve as a presence teaching young men how to carry themselves with dignity. A largely unarmed force, they were able to achieve consistent and dramatic reductions in violent crime in the neighborhoods they patrolled. Ultimately, security firms affiliated with the Nation of Islam entered partnerships with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to guard HUD-operated government housing projects in several cities.

Although few complained about the effectiveness of the Nation of Islam in reducing violence and crime, its relationship with HUD created a political firestorm that resulted in most of its government contracts being rescinded. Most notably, in 1995 HUD abruptly canceled the security contract of a firm affiliated with the Nation of Islam to secure Baltimore public housing buildings, citing bidding irregularities and other violations that were widely viewed as a smoke screen for a political battle raging in Congress over the group’s anti-Jewish rhetoric.

Tenants of the city’s seven high-rise public housing projects complained bitterly. Wells Fargo Security, a competing firm that was eventually granted the security contract, drew the ire of residents who complained that crime, vandalism and violence had skyrocketed within a mere two months of the takeover. Within two years, Wells Fargo’s contracts were also canceled and the firm was chased out of town amid a rapidly disintegrating quality of life in the city’s housing projects.

The fact is, the Nation of Islam brings to the table things that other private security firms and the police don’t: Credibility within the community. It is one of the few community-based organizations that actually recruit in the prisons and also offer transitional services to ex-offenders. One of the problems cited by HUD with regard to the group’s Baltimore contracts was that it had hired ex-offenders as guards. But this was actually a strength. The Nation of Islam had in fact cleaned up ex-offenders, taking them off the streets, getting them off drugs and instilling them with discipline before redeploying them in neighborhoods where they were known and now respected. 

https://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/255970-the-nation-of-islam-could-be-chicagos-savior

 

Again, this isn't a popular narrative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, hasanhh said:

Secondly, l do not think the demonstrators have any idea about what they are protesting and all.

Clearly not:

Quote

Protesters in Wisconsin drew condemnation late on Tuesday after tearing down the statue of abolitionist Hans Christian Heg, smashing windows at the state house and assaulting a state senator, marking a departure from previous demonstrations targeting symbols of colonialists and Confederate figures.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/isabeltogoh/2020/06/24/madison-protesters-condemned-for-toppling-statue-of-anti-slavery-activist/#1625229d6961

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my community, the "official" BLM organization is avoided by people in the know because the leader has a history of abuses of his power. However, there is another civil rights organization which doesn't go by the BLM label but does use the slogan/sentiment. Currently, they are working toward getting police to release their use of force records using the Freedom of Information Act, and they are also working on combating systemic racism in education. There is nothing here that I can disagree with. Black Lives Matter. 

If problematic individuals or organizations agree, that does not invalidate the truth. 

The Black Lives Matter movement was started in response to police targeting of black communities, and police brutality being allowed and covered up to the point that people were being murdered and murderers were not being punished. If you disagree that these two things are problems, there is no point discussing, there is no hope for you. I don't know how to convince you to care about human life. 

Edited by notme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, hasanhh said:

Salam Bro.

Your wording needs a little detente ---relax the tension. A Florida bro a few years ago talked himself into a corner and ended up banned. Which was sad because he wrote like he was having a nervous breakdown online.

Secondly, l do not think the demonstrators have any idea about what they are protesting and all.

For the most part, they know exactly what they are doing. That's why some statues remain untouched.

It's worth noting that there are many groups out there. Some of the native front-liners guarding the neighborhoods have run off white supremacist groups bent on destruction. And a few people are out there just venting. That's  probably what happened to the statue of Heg in Wisconsin after yet another arrest. The protestors explained that removing " Forward" was justified because the state's race relations were not moving forward.

Most people know what they are trying to accomplish and I'm proud of them. Asking nicely for years didn't work. Getting votes and orders for removal were blocked by injunctions. Now folks have stopped asking for permission and trying to use a failed system. As my grandpa said...You can only kick people for so long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, notme said:

In my community, the "official" BLM organization is avoided by people in the know because the leader has a history of abuses of his power. However, there is another civil rights organization which doesn't go by the BLM label but does use the slogan/sentiment. Currently, they are working toward getting police to release their use of force records using the Freedom of Information Act, and they are also working on combating systemic racism in education. There is nothing here that I can disagree with. Black Lives Matter. 

If problematic individuals or organizations agree, that does not invalidate the truth. 

The Black Lives Matter movement was started in response to police targeting of black communities, and police brutality being allowed and covered up to the point that people were being murdered and murderers were not being punished. If you disagree that these two things are problems, there is no point discussing, there is no hope for you. I don't know how to convince you to care about human life. 

For what it's worth: SG says most Shia communities have "serious racism problems" and can hardly be expected to understand race issues in the US until the Shia community here "grows up and faces reality ...or the old people die off. "

Shia folks commenting from outside of the US he just ignores.

 

I dunno. Not my circus. Got enough issues in the Church. It seems some church officials got a little miffed about statues of a couple of priests being removed. Lol. They won't be going back up. Good riddance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a good thing Canada is accepting and there are rights movements there. Every mosque in Toronto is accepting regardless of race, color, or background. I feel sad for what happened currently. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, notme said:

In my community, the "official" BLM organization is avoided by people in the know because the leader has a history of abuses of his power. However, there is another civil rights organization which doesn't go by the BLM label but does use the slogan/sentiment. Currently, they are working toward getting police to release their use of force records using the Freedom of Information Act, and they are also working on combating systemic racism in education. There is nothing here that I can disagree with. Black Lives Matter. 

If problematic individuals or organizations agree, that does not invalidate the truth. 

The Black Lives Matter movement was started in response to police targeting of black communities, and police brutality being allowed and covered up to the point that people were being murdered and murderers were not being punished. If you disagree that these two things are problems, there is no point discussing, there is no hope for you. I don't know how to convince you to care about human life. 

The whole issue here is not the fact that police brutality exists, or that there is racially-motivated police brutality, or even that there is racism in society. All of these things every reasonable person can agree to, and agree that they should be addressed. The area of disagreement is on how it should be dealt with, and which other controversial issues are being bundled in with the uncontroversial ones. Because it is fairly clear that there is a wider agenda here than simply dealing with racially motivated police brutality. Surely it is not controversial to disagree with someone on the means of dealing with an agreed-upon problem? Your rhetoric implies that criticism of the Black Lives Matter movement is illegitimate, and is no different to some saying that because Dictator X, Y or Z is evil, we have to support the U.S. proposing regime change. It was perfectly possible to hate Saddam Hussein, while strongly disagreeing with the Iraq War. Why is this any different?

Here is the wiki article on the BLM movement:

Quote

Black Lives Matter (BLM) is an organized movement in the United States advocating for non-violent civil disobedience in protest against incidents of police brutality against African-American people.[2] An organization known simply as Black Lives Matter[a] exists as a decentralized network with about 16 chapters in the United States and Canada, while a larger Black Lives Matter movement exists consisting of various separate like-minded organizations such as Dream Defenders and Assata's Daughters. The broader movement and its related organizations typically advocate against police violence towards black people, as well as for various other policy changes considered to be related to black liberation.[7]

In July 2013, the movement began with the use of the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter on social media after the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the shooting death of African-American teen Trayvon Martin in February 2012. The movement became nationally recognized for street demonstrations following the 2014 deaths of two African Americans: Michael Brown—resulting in protests and unrest in Ferguson, a city near St. Louis—and Eric Garner in New York City.[8][9] Since the Ferguson protests, participants in the movement have demonstrated against the deaths of numerous other African Americans by police actions and/or while in police custody. In the summer of 2015, Black Lives Matter activists became involved in the 2016 United States presidential election.[10] The originators of the hashtag and call to action, Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi, expanded their project into a national network of over 30 local chapters between 2014 and 2016.[11] The overall Black Lives Matter movement is a decentralized network of activists with no formal hierarchy.[12]

The key phrase here is " as well as for various other policy changes considered to be related to black liberation", and this is where the issue is, because a lot can be hidden in there. For example, here are some of the agendas of the 3 organisations cited in the wikipedia article:

Quote

We are unapologetically Black in our positioning. In affirming that Black Lives Matter, we need not qualify our position. To love and desire freedom and justice for ourselves is a prerequisite for wanting the same for others.

We see ourselves as part of the global Black family, and we are aware of the different ways we are impacted or privileged as Black people who exist in different parts of the world.

We are guided by the fact that all Black lives matter, regardless of actual or perceived sexual identity, gender identity, gender expression, economic status, ability, disability, religious beliefs or disbeliefs, immigration status, or location.

We make space for transgender brothers and sisters to participate and lead.

We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.

We build a space that affirms Black women and is free from sexism, misogyny, and environments in which men are centered.

We practice empathy. We engage comrades with the intent to learn about and connect with their contexts.

We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise).

https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

 

Quote

DREAM DEFENDERS ARE ABOLITIONISTS:
We are fighting for a world without prisons, policing, surveillance and punishment. We know that prisons aren’t about safety or accountability but about control and domination over large segments of the population, especially Black people, in order to make a profit. We are different from prison reformers because reformers often create situations where incarceration becomes even more entrenched in our society. Instead, we are fighting for solutions that will produce decarceration, fewer people behind bars and a future world without prisons. This is why Dream Defenders will never fight for the conviction of a police officer: prisons are not about safety, accountability, or justice.

In order to get us closer to this vision, we must begin to build community alternatives to dealing with harm and violence. Dream Defenders practices transformative justice, an abolitionist way of dealing with conflict and holding people accountable in opposition to the punitive nature of the prison system that treats people as disposable, locks them up and throws away the key.  

DREAM DEFENDERS ARE FEMINISTS:
Black feminism at its core is about fighting against hierarchy, violence, disposability and domination and for a world in which all humans – men, women and gender nonconforming people – are seen and valued. 

Today, the leading cause of death for Black women ages 18-34 is death at the hands of her partner. 1 in 3 women are raped. On top of this, Black women are the fastest growing prison population. Women face violence not only at the hands of the state but also in our communities.

If we are serious about fighting for a world without prisons and police, then we must be serious about fighting against the violence women experience within our communities.

If we are serious about fighting for a world without prisons and police, then we must be serious about fighting against the violence women experience within our communities. Abolition isn’t just about getting rid of buildings full of cages. It’s also about getting rid of societal oppression and inequalities through punishment, violence, and controls.  Black feminism is the new world we are fighting for. 

DREAM DEFENDERS ARE SOCIALISTS:
The Freedom Papers is Dream Defenders liberatory socialist vision for Florida and the world. Currently, we live in a capitalist police state, where the 1 percent uses systems of domination and control to make more and more money for themselves at the expense of the rest of us. But we can live in a world where we all take care each, where everyone has what they need to live a full life, and the needs of the common good are prioritized over the selfish desires of a few. Dream Defenders itself is building an organization with socialist ideals and principles. That means, we are fighting for this world and we are actively experimenting with these concepts inside our organization in how we relate to one another.

[...]

Like many revolutionary organizations, we believe that it is not enough to simply oppose capitalism or to fight for freedom within it, but that we must be actively fighting for a new alternative. We believe that socialism is this alternative. 

https://dreamdefenders.org/ideology/

Quote

OUR POLITICS: WHAT WE BELIEVE

Deepen
We believe Black liberation requires long-term commitment & strategy, and a dedication to study of theory, and the radical strategies and tactics that have propelled the Black Liberation movement forward. We intentionally develop and train young Black people in the Black queer feminist tradition and in the spirit of Assata. We prioritize this work to help prepare young Black people to contribute to the Black Liberation movement and to carry it into the future.

Escalate
We believe in resistance and in the power of civil disobedience. Our campaigns agitate the status quo and directly confront the systems of our oppression. Our demands are not requests, they are an assertion of Black power and an insistence on self-determination. We encourage and support others to do the same.

We believe mass movements are built by organizing local communities. We are based in Washington Park- an historic Black neighborhood on Chicago's South Side.  We organize ourselves and our neighbors against gentrification and police violence, to win material improvements in people's lives,  and to alter the relations of power between community members and institutions of power.

Sustain
We believe in providing holistic nourishment, especially to those working to actualize Black Liberation. We believe in providing revolutionary services that will help alleviate the need for the oppressed to focus on surviving, and will contribute to their ability to thrive and focus on eradicating oppression and creating the world they want to see. We believe in living our politics, which means providing the young Black people we serve with food to combat hunger, money for their labor, guidance through this capitalist society, and assistance during critical times. We sustain our members so that they may sustain the movement. 

https://www.assatasdaughters.org/

 

Hmm... Why is it that every major organisation involved with the BLM movement seems to be pushing a radical left-wing agenda? Is this a coincidence? Surely if your goal really was to eradicate police brutality, then you would try to build the widest possible coalition, around issues as many people as possible would agree to, rather than pushing some fringe agenda? Or is it rather that they want to use the issue of police brutality as a Trojan horse?

I have no problem with the slogan 'Black Lives Matter'. Of course they do. Neither do I have an issue with the principle issue they claim to be complaining about. But only simpletons rally behind a slogan without carefully examining the platform and those behind it.

When the Abbasids rose up against the Umayyads, their slogan was "kitaab Allah wa-sunnat nabiyihi wa'l-bay`a lil-rida min al-ahl bayt Muhammad rasul Allah". Who could disagree with that, or indeed of getting rid of the Umayyads? But Imam al-Sadiq (a) kept out of it. He knew what the real intention was, and we saw how the Abbasids treated the ahlulbayt. They were worse than the Umayyads (apart from Yazid)! So again, we don't blindly rally around slogans and vague ambitions, even if in themselves they are virtuous.

Now, let's say the people who are opposed to BLM are wrong. Of course, it's perfectly possible. But how does a legitimate difference of opinion, that has been clearly explained, merit the level of hostility and outright slander that you have been showing on this thread? At the very least, I'd like you to explain this.

 

Quote

The Black Lives Matter movement was started in response to police targeting of black communities, and police brutality being allowed and covered up to the point that people were being murdered and murderers were not being punished. If you disagree that these two things are problems, there is no point discussing, there is no hope for you. I don't know how to convince you to care about human life.

Please just stop. Your last paragraph is entirely irrelevant, other than as an attempt to mischaracterise your opponents. Given that you've been proven wrong time and time again on this thread, why don't you consider toning down the emotion and just discuss the matter rationally and in good faith, rather than assuming things about others that you don't actually know? I can't see how that is an unreasonable request. Your post would have been perfectly fine without that last paragraph, but for some reason you just couldn't help yourself to throw it in.

You know nobody here has a problem accepting that police brutality goes on and gets covered up. If you disagree, then please quote people saying the opposite. If you can't, then just stop pretending that they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...