NationStates

Christian Confederation wrote:

Duvniask wrote:No.

If it worked for the clan it can work for him

You know the Klan still exists, right?

Mostrov wrote:

Page wrote:
If a government wants to criminalize a person's foreign travel, it should be on that government to provide the evidence of one's intentions. If I want to go to Kabul and they think I am a terrorist, then they can prove that I am a terrorist, it isn't on me to prove that I only went to Kabul for some innocuous reason like smoking pure Afghan opium.

This is completely impractical. A warrant would be required to access a person's communication, putting them under suspicion of committing a crime without having necessarily done so. Of course there may be situations where they could travel to a second country. It is also important for the dealing with people who may not necessarily committed a crime otherwise, or if they have yet with insufficient proof, and need to be monitored if they return. See: the ISIS brides. How would you legally deal with their situation?

Depends on whether the ISIS brides were minors when they left and their current ideological beliefs. I will point out in general that people are successfully deprogrammed and rehabilitated from cults all the time.

Christian Confederation wrote:

Duvniask wrote:No.

If it worked for the clan it can work for him

Why the heck do you think people should give themselves up to de-radicalizing a stranger on the internet? I'd rather he just get the hell off of this site.

Duvniask wrote:

Christian Confederation wrote:If it worked for the clan it can work for him

Why the heck do you think people should give themselves up to de-radicalizing a stranger on the internet? I'd rather he just get the hell off of this site.

Going to play devils advocate for a second here... but In a round about way, that's kinda the point of a debate forum though, isn't it? Meet strangers on the internet, listen to their ideas and share your own in a mutual exchange of ideas and thoughts, and try to change peoples mindsets when they are blatantly in the wrong hopefully for the better.

Paddy O Fernature wrote:

Duvniask wrote:Why the heck do you think people should give themselves up to de-radicalizing a stranger on the internet? I'd rather he just get the hell off of this site.

Going to play devils advocate for a second here... but In a round about way, that's kinda the point of a debate forum though, isn't it? Meet strangers on the internet, listen to their ideas and share your own in a mutual exchange of ideas and thoughts, and try to change peoples mindsets when they are blatantly in the wrong hopefully for the better.

I generally assume that debates on NationStates, at least the ones that I take seriously, are aimed towards influencing the view of any third-party observers reading the exchange rather than the person actually being debated against. The latter is generally not open to changing their position no matter how the argument may go.

Duvniask wrote:Why the heck do you think people should give themselves up to de-radicalizing a stranger on the internet? I'd rather he just get the hell off of this site.

You're not removing me from this website, so let it go.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/13/asia/afg ... index.html

Afghan women proposing alternatives for what they should wear that still conforms to Afghan culture but is outside of the Taliban's dress code. Pictures included.

Paddy O Fernature wrote:

Duvniask wrote:Why the heck do you think people should give themselves up to de-radicalizing a stranger on the internet? I'd rather he just get the hell off of this site.

Going to play devils advocate for a second here... but In a round about way, that's kinda the point of a debate forum though, isn't it? Meet strangers on the internet, listen to their ideas and share your own in a mutual exchange of ideas and thoughts, and try to change peoples mindsets when they are blatantly in the wrong hopefully for the better.

You're misunderstanding something here. Another user suggests we do "everything in our power" to deradicalize a him... which is fucking dumb. I don't know about you, but I can think of more productive things to do, even within the confines of NSG, than doing EVERYTHING in my power to convince Nazis or fascists.

And don't tell me debating normal people is equivalent to throwing one's lot in with debating a Nazi. Nazism is the death knell of any sort of rational discussion or good faith for that matter; it is anathema to all the things you're trying to extol the virtues of in your post. The most you can get out of it is self-clarification, amusement and the hope that any third party watching gets turned off by their bile - it's simply not worth it trying to convince the guy as an end in itself.

Saiwania wrote:

Duvniask wrote:Why the heck do you think people should give themselves up to de-radicalizing a stranger on the internet? I'd rather he just get the hell off of this site.

You're not removing me from this website, so let it go.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/13/asia/afg ... index.html

Afghan women proposing alternatives for what they should wear that still conforms to Afghan culture but is outside of the Taliban's dress code. Pictures included.

You must be the gentleman I've heard so much about

Paddy O Fernature wrote:

Miternet wrote:
This a forum though.

And...?

Free Speech is just exactly that. So long as said speech is within established parameters for this forum, people are allowed to voice their opinions regardless of if they meet your standards of approval or not.

I think Nazis don't meet most people's standards of approval but if you're happy to have Nazis here...

If this offends and upsets you that badly, then perhaps NS isn't for you.

Or maybe the Nazis should leave.

Chess Reloaded wrote:That's interestingly exactly how the Meccans looked upon and treated the Muslims trying to emigrate to Medina

I view them as more similar to the Khawarij in all frankness. In short, they're heretics who sow disorder among the Ummah. And the penalty for that is hudud. Y'know, the stuff you were supporting before? :^)

Mostrov wrote:How would you legally deal with their situation?

Allow the legal authorities of Syria to put them on trial according to Syrian custom and laws. We have no ethical obligation to accept them as citizens, asylum seekers, or refugees given they're both traitors and war criminals as a rule. The so-called "war brides" were the bitches flogging women and girls who defied ISIL, and that should not be forgotten.

Insaanistan wrote:Taliban Admit to BBC That Relations Between Mullah Baradar and Haqqani Have Intensified Since Last Week

I... this phrasing is unfortunate...

Saiwania wrote:You're not removing me from this website, so let it go.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/13/asia/afg ... index.html

Afghan women proposing alternatives for what they should wear that still conforms to Afghan culture but is outside of the Taliban's dress code. Pictures included.

This kinda emphasizes the point I made earlier. The black/blue niqab/burqa often associated with extremist Salafis and Deobandis isn't actually the traditional garment of Muslim women in most places, and has often been a recent introduction.

Fahran wrote:

Insaanistan wrote:Taliban Admit to BBC That Relations Between Mullah Baradar and Haqqani Have Intensified Since Last Week

I... this phrasing is unfortunate...

Saiwania wrote:You're not removing me from this website, so let it go.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/13/asia/afg ... index.html

Afghan women proposing alternatives for what they should wear that still conforms to Afghan culture but is outside of the Taliban's dress code. Pictures included.

This kinda emphasizes the point I made earlier. The black/blue niqab/burqa often associated with extremist Salafis and Deobandis isn't actually the traditional garment of Muslim women in most places, and has often been a recent introduction.

Hmmm, Abu Hanifa, Imam Malik and Imam Ahmed all say covering the face is required. Imam Shafi'i says it's preferred.

Old Tyrannia wrote:

Paddy O Fernature wrote:
Going to play devils advocate for a second here... but In a round about way, that's kinda the point of a debate forum though, isn't it? Meet strangers on the internet, listen to their ideas and share your own in a mutual exchange of ideas and thoughts, and try to change peoples mindsets when they are blatantly in the wrong hopefully for the better.

I generally assume that debates on NationStates, at least the ones that I take seriously, are aimed towards influencing the view of any third-party observers reading the exchange rather than the person actually being debated against. The latter is generally not open to changing their position no matter how the argument may go.

Well said, and I agree with you. Which is sad because the number of closed minds on NS these days seems to be ever increasing.

Duvniask wrote:

Paddy O Fernature wrote:
Going to play devils advocate for a second here... but In a round about way, that's kinda the point of a debate forum though, isn't it? Meet strangers on the internet, listen to their ideas and share your own in a mutual exchange of ideas and thoughts, and try to change peoples mindsets when they are blatantly in the wrong hopefully for the better.

You're misunderstanding something here. Another user suggests we do "everything in our power" to deradicalize a him... which is fucking dumb. I don't know about you, but I can think of more productive things to do, even within the confines of NSG, than doing EVERYTHING in my power to convince Nazis or fascists.

Agreed, you are well within your right to move along and not choose to debate with said person if you so choose to do so which is the part of the beauty that is honest debate.

Duvniask wrote:And don't tell me debating normal people is equivalent to throwing one's lot in with debating a Nazi. Nazism is the death knell of any sort of rational discussion or good faith for that matter; it is anathema to all the things you're trying to extol the virtues of in your post. The most you can get out of it is self-clarification, amusement and the hope that any third party watching gets turned off by their bile - it's simply not worth it trying to convince the guy as an end in itself.

Your opinion has been noted.

Miternet wrote:I think Nazis don't meet most people's standards of approval but if you're happy to have Nazis here...

So long as people are civil and stay within site rules, I'm personally happy to have just about anyone here, as I've stated multiple times. While I can't speak for everyone, I'm pretty sure most people would agree with that statement.

Miternet wrote:Or maybe the Nazis should leave.

Why? Again, if someone is truly not bothering anyone besides just "existing" and are being civil, then they have just as much of a right to be here as anyone.

French colonialst propaganda from their occupation of North Africa urging Muslim women to stop covering their faces
https://www.middleeasteye.net/sites/def ... lonial.jpg

It was a very brutal process what the French did there

Chess Reloaded wrote:French colonialst propaganda from their occupation of North Africa urging Muslim women to stop covering their faces
https://www.middleeasteye.net/sites/def ... lonial.jpg

It was a very brutal process what the French did there

I... am not surprised, given what happened to the Catholics during the French Revolution.

Christian Confederation wrote:

Saiwania wrote:
You're not removing me from this website, so let it go.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/13/asia/afg ... index.html

Afghan women proposing alternatives for what they should wear that still conforms to Afghan culture but is outside of the Taliban's dress code. Pictures included.

You must be the gentleman I've heard so much about

I know that in the Christian faith, you're basically told that no one is beyond redemption through christ, that the lord will find his own and all, but please don't try on nazis. You just get pulled into arguments that legitimize their position in their minds.

Chess Reloaded wrote:Hmmm, Abu Hanifa, Imam Malik and Imam Ahmed all say covering the face is required. Imam Shafi'i says it's preferred.

That's actually not wholly accurate. The broad consensus of scholars, beginning with the Sahabah, seems to be that it is permissible to conceal one's face but that it is not necessarily obligatory to do so. The insistence that it is an obligation and that a woman errs in not doing so is, broadly speaking, the minority position in most schools of Islamic jurisprudence historically and today. Hence why even many Islamists do not demand the burqa or niqab be made an obligation. Hijab and modesty are sufficient.

In instances where a just government has abolished the practice, I'm inclined to wonder what the position of scholars would be given that it is not an obligation but heeding a just government is.

Fahran wrote:

Chess Reloaded wrote:Hmmm, Abu Hanifa, Imam Malik and Imam Ahmed all say covering the face is required. Imam Shafi'i says it's preferred.

That's actually not wholly accurate. The broad consensus of scholars, beginning with the Sahabah, seems to be that it is permissible to conceal one's face but that it is not necessarily obligatory to do so. The insistence that it is an obligation and that a woman errs in not doing so is, broadly speaking, the minority position in most schools of Islamic jurisprudence historically and today. Hence why even many Islamists do not demand the burqa or niqab be made an obligation. Hijab and modesty are sufficient.

In instances where a just government has abolished the practice, I'm inclined to wonder what the position of scholars would be given that it is not an obligation but heeding a just government is.

That concealing the face is an obligation is a wholly legitimate position, regardless of whether or not it is a minority position currently. What I have stated is true about the four imams. In fact Imam Ahmed went further and said the hands and feet must also be covered although Abu Hanifa held that they were not awrah. The article you cite by Qaradawi (a notorious slimeball who says KFC is halal because America is a Christian country so it's considered Ahlul Kitab, he praised the Taliban when they came to power, then urged Muslims to fight the Taliban when America invaded, then praised the Taliban when they defeated America) is about different scholars within the schools, I'm citing their namesakes specifically. What you're doing is like taking Albani saying covering the face is not obligatory and using that to prove that's not a predominant position among Salafis.

Now as for the position it is not an obligation to cover the face, this has always been common. It may have predominated sometimes. But it was always considered preferable to cover the face. And the position it was required was always considered valid if disputed. I myself do not have the expertise necessary to give a definite answer on which is the more correct opinion but I do regard both as having weight

Chess Reloaded wrote:French colonialst propaganda from their occupation of North Africa urging Muslim women to stop covering their faces
https://www.middleeasteye.net/sites/def ... lonial.jpg

It was a very brutal process what the French did there

Wow, a poster.

Such brutality.

Much oppression.

The Two Jerseys wrote:

Chess Reloaded wrote:French colonialst propaganda from their occupation of North Africa urging Muslim women to stop covering their faces
https://www.middleeasteye.net/sites/def ... lonial.jpg

It was a very brutal process what the French did there

Wow, a poster.

Such brutality.

Much oppression.

Wtf I love France now

Lady Victory wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:Wow, a poster.

Such brutality.

Much oppression.

Wtf I love France now

Do you really love France, or are you just saying that because you fear the wrath of the vintage Air France advertisements?

The Two Jerseys wrote:

Chess Reloaded wrote:French colonialst propaganda from their occupation of North Africa urging Muslim women to stop covering their faces
https://www.middleeasteye.net/sites/def ... lonial.jpg

It was a very brutal process what the French did there

Wow, a poster.

Such brutality.

Much oppression.

The virgin Taliban forcing women to wear the burqa

vs

The chad French urging women to stop covering their faces

Diarcesia wrote:The virgin Taliban forcing women to wear the burqa

vs

The chad French urging women to stop covering their faces

Does this mean the Muslim Brotherhood are chads too?