no, i don't subscribe to this. there's too much generalizing and stereotyping. besides, not everything that's written here is true.
a case in point-- "In fact, devout Muslims demand that women are subservient to men in the Islamic culture. So much so, that often they are beaten for not wearing the 'hajib' or for talking to a man who is not a direct family member or their husband. Yep, the Muslims are all for women's rights, aren't they?"-- in societies where these happen to be the case, it's not so much because of islam but more of a people's culture and tradition.
this guy knows the practice of arabs in saudi arabia and had concluded that it is so throughout the muslim world. it isn't so. not in indonesia or malaysia, not in some parts of the arab middle east, not in turkey and other muslim countries in eastern europe, and definitely not in our muslim mindanao.
hey, we know better than shelving people with stereotypes and generalizations. americans wouldn't want to be called indiscrimate f_ckers just because hollywood people give the impression that they are. filipinos aren't all drug mules just because three of our compatriots were executed in china for the offense.
we may have less misunderstandings if we do away with cultural stereotypes and giving these religious labels (which strikes at the core of a people's reason for being), or what are we as christians? christian f_ckers? we've become used to the label of 'muslim terrorist', but were those terrorists in europe decades ago (italy's red brigade, germany's red army faction aka baader-meinhof gang, ireland's i.r.a., etc.) ever labeled as christian or catholic or protestant terrorists?
and while we're at stereotyping and generalizing, lest we forget, people from luzon look down on us bisayas as promdi. are we? do we like the label? or must we be thankful that at least we are not called catholic promdi?
Linkback:
https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=39967.0