Near my house is the mosque of “Rifqa Bary” fame…the girl who fled to Florida to live with a Christian minister because she was afraid of her father’s reaction to her converting to Christianity…whole ‘nother story. Anyway, one day I went to the mosque which is no more than 7 to 10 minutes from my house. I have to say at least from the outside it is beautiful. Grounds are well kept, LOTS of parking so I can only assume that they must have many congregants, and no minarets although a lovely dome…I am assuming that it might be because of zoning laws. Just like churches can no longer ring their bells throughout the day due to zoning issues I am assuming the same is true for other houses of worship. From a non Muslim eye the structure is lovely and huge! and I personally don’t think it loses any of it’s attractiveness because it doesn’t have minarets. Physically speaking it fits the area well and I think that they have done a lovely job architecturally. As for minarets being Muslim identity, that may be true, however, even the typical church “look” is changing. It is no longer easy at an immediate glance to tell if a church is what kind of church and it also seems that the usual bell tower is either less obvious or not there altogether in the newer churches. As time moves forward so do architectural designs and I personally don’t think that is a bad thing. It doesn’t diminish the worthiness of a house of worship whatever it may be.

If you drive around the Algarve in southern Portugal (I don’t know about the rest of Portugal) all the houses have chimney’s reminiscent of minarets. It’s very charming. And I don’t think any of the locals associate it in any way with there Islamic past. It just became part of the architecture.

My parish church, when I was a child, not only had no bell tower, it had no steeple. It was ‘new’ architecture, built in the round. Actually, it hearkened back to early Greco-Roman architecture, but with modern flourishes.

I understand the need within the Muslim world to couch every criticism of something by calling it un-Islamic, but this one takes the cake. There isn’t a Muslim alive today who remembers the world of Islam before minarets. If you look at photos of Saudi Arabia, there are many many minarets, and I doubt anyone is reminded of Christian bell towers anymore.

Other than that, I do think the minaret is a cultural reminder rather than a banner promoting Islamic dominance in Europe. Muslims in Switzerland should involve themselves in the existing system. Use the court system to attack this silly law. Make the right wing look stupid by showing how integrated you really are.

I thought people needed the minaret to climb up it and call to prayer but with the advent of the loudspeaker probably technically unnecessary.

Quote: what is said rhetorically by a man at a time when he was still part of an Islamist hard-core group involved in a heated debate in the Turkey of 1990s should not be even considered as a statement of any worth..

And why not? Because it is inconvenient? Because Erdogan has another song now? Because he is in power? because it reflects poorly on Islamic intentuions?

Like it or not, the minaret is a symbol of Islam, one of several, just as the cross and steeple are a symbol of Christianity. The issue is not the tower but the religion. The vote is simply a reaction to Islam. It is a manifestation about how some people feel about Islam. The questions that must be asked are: 1. Is the vote wrong? and 2. Is it unreasonable to be apprehensive about the presence of Islam? Yes and no, respectively. The vote is also a loud and clear message of the people to their government about the policies of multiculturalism and the political correctness.

The Economist says that the vote “was still a troubling landmark in Europe’s dealings with Islam, and in the global relationship between the monotheistic faiths.” This comment shows how out of touch Europe’s elites (media, government and most institutions are with their subjects. The vote was morally wrong but probably necessary. Hopefully it will cause these elites to consider what they are doing. I doubt it. It should also cause Muslims to consider what they are doing and why. I doubt that this will happen, either. Muslims have too often proven themselves to the incapable of moral reflection when the issue is their faith.

The Economist also says: “Western governments, including the Vatican, have refused to play a game of reciprocity, where the freedom of their own Muslim citizens is held hostage to the status of Christians and other minorities in the Islamic world. But as the Swiss vote suggests, European governments may find it hard to resist populist calls for a tit-for-tat approach”. But then again, maybe a tit-for-tat approach should be tried since for over a generation the approach adopted by Europeans has been an abysmal failure. Doing more of what Europe has been doing is a recipe for disaster. The only ones to gain with present policies are the right-wing parties. If this happens, and I believe it will, the blame rests on Muslims and Europeans leaders.

Be prepared for more actions and reactions of both sides. Take note of the increasing radicalization of Muslims, not just in Europe, the US and even Turkey. The future will not be nice.

Excellent article from Arab News! Thanks, John.

When I read about this vote, I can only see it in the context of that particular Far Right party gaining ground in the last number of elections with a general “the immigrants are stealing our jobs” platform that is working better than usual because of the economy.

I agree with Tarek Kahlaoui, but I think he misses the party politics behind the vote; and that the fear mongering minaret/missile or bayonet works because the Swiss have little concept of the real meaning of a minaret or the mosque to the Muslim diaspora, which in Switzerland is small, Eastern European in part, and Turkish, with a few North Africans.

Kahlaoui gives an interesting history of the minaret, but as has been pointed out, architecture, including religious architecture, evolves. The nearest mosque to me is a major, well-funded, brand new one, and its design is urban contemporary, along with its surroundings. Any semblance of a minaret is a token. However the mosques in the suburbs have minarets that do make them visible from the highway, and easier to locate. Having negotiated my way walking around various Moroccan cities, minaret to minaret, or former bell tower, to former bell tower, I can see their function as a visual rallying point for the community–not a political call to arms.

Jay–thanks for the tip I will look for the Economist article.

BTW All–I have started my own blog, Chez Chiara, where my previous posts of the last 5 months appear: http://www.chezchiara.com (the www must be typed in for now). All are welcome to read, enjoy, and comment!

John–you are on the blog roll but I don’t see it as one of those strict reciprocity, Christmas card list, type things. LOL

Chiara…here is the link to the Economist

http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15017128

Might have to copy and paste

“The Economist says that the vote “was still a troubling landmark in Europe’s dealings with Islam, and in the global relationship between the monotheistic faiths.” This comment shows how out of touch Europe’s elites (media, government and most institutions are with their subjects. The vote was morally wrong but probably necessary. Hopefully it will cause these elites to consider what they are doing.”

What do you think happens to mainstream media organizations, businessmen, politicians, and diplomats who offend Arab rulers or who insult Islam? If they don’t get slain by terrorists they get banned from profit-seeking contacts. So The Economist writers and editors may even admire what the Swiss did, yet find it impolitic and unsafe to say so.

The minaret was earlier used to spread the sound of azan (Islamic call for prayer) to a long distance. However, nowadays everywhere the loudspeakers are used for this purpose and minaret has become a decorative piece of architecture, retained in the mosque only for the sake of tradition – it is never used.

I have been following the stories of this event and am quite impressed by the democratic world’s concern of the growing right-wing’s fear of Islamisation of the West and hence, their opposition to this Swiss ban. However, by now several other aspects have emerged from this controversy.

In some places it has been remarked that majority of the voters were women. While the democratic groups wouldn’t explicitly blame the women for the wrongs done in a society as it happens in traditional societies, somewhere in the subconscious of even these democratic groups, this idea lies that women are responsible for this uproar and the tarnishing of the image of Switzerland. Throughout history, men have made innumerable mistakes in making political decisions, but it is never remarked that the majority of those policy-makers were men!

This is not an issue of Islam vs Christianity. There are other issues like rising immigrants in Switzerland involved here. These immigrants are not only Muslims. It needs to be asked – will Switzerland – and Europe – take similar attitude towards Sikhs, Hindus, Jains and so many other communities? If not, why not? Why single out the Muslims? Are these different communities perceived differently by the host population?

Seeing the extent of outrage about the minarets, it is necessary to ask – why don’t the same democratic forces raise a strong opposition to the encroachment upon religious freedom in the Islamic countries and against the gross violation of human rights taking place there in the name of Shariah-rule? What stops these people from taking the Islamic countries to account in those violations, which are much more serious than a piece of architecture?

Are we compelled by our need for oil and gas and our business with the West Asia so much that we must turn a blind eye to the human rights violations taking place there and oppose only Switzerland?

Why can’t we oppose both Switzerland AND the Islamic countries for religious encroachment and for draconian laws the Islamic countries have? Are our indices of democracy different for different parts of the world and guided by our self-interests?

On some sites it has been remarked that Switzerland is a democracy and “more enlightened”, thereby implying that West Asia is ideologically “backward.” I feel this is ideological arrogance and doesn’t reflect the reality. The truth is that West Asian countries not only understand the norms of democracy, in this case they have demanded a democratic treatment from Switzerland. If that is so, then they should return the courtesy by following these norms in their own countries and it is only fair that the world should demand from them this courtesy.

I have also come across some writings from Muslim writers from the Arab world, who have talked about the hypocricy of the Islamic countries and have said that they shouldn’t demand a democratic treatment from Europe when they are not willing to follow the democratic norms themselves. I do feel their approach is commendable – they have the honesty and the courage to denounce the wrongs being done in the Islamic countries.

There are many explanations of the swiss vote, but I as far as I can se the main reason is that the muslim population hasn’t really delivered.
The main reason isn’t as Chiara writes that “the immigrants are stealing our jobs”, but the other way around, that they don’t work enough. All over Western Europe muslim are are under employed, and draw heavenly on social benefits, it may be social benefits, unemployment support or disability pensions, take then that they have big problems coping in schools, and the young men is involved in a lot of petty crime. The politicians has promised that all this will be solved by the second or third generation but it looks like it’s not gonna happen. One of the reason is of course poverty creates poverty, but some groups has very difficult to adopt to the traditions in the society where they live. The muslim groups is being seen as groups that make demands and claim rights without giving enough.

Accelerated Links: Hanukah, Israel And Obama…

Golda Meir to Poland: Don’t send us your sick or disabled Jews.
Hanukah and mosque burning.
Analysing Ross Douthat’s stance on Muslims in the west.
The myth of Israel’s settlement myth.
Obama and the Noble prize – a man of con…

They usually mount the microphones (usually 4-one for each direction) in the minaret- so they can more readily compete with the neighboring mosque on who is the noisiest. I wish we would go back to someone just calling the prayer. The way it is now, feels like an assault.(I’ve never liked to be yelled at)

There was a 16th century Hindi poet in India called Kabir, whose devotional poetry is highly respected in Hindi literature and also because he talked about communal harmony between various communities in India. He also opposed the meaningless rituals in all religions. Following is a couplet from him regarding the call of the Islamic prayer –

“A mosque has been built by piecing together stones and gravels. The Muezzin climbs on top of the mosque (on minaret) and calls in a loud voce – has Allah become deaf? (so that he needs to be called in a loud voice?)”

He may be a wonderful gifted poet- but he missed the point on the call to prayer. The Muezzin isn’t calling Allah to the prayer- but members of the community.

Just to clarify, I didn’t say that the problem is immigrants stealing Swiss jobs, but rather that the Far Right wing party that proposed and campaigned for this ban has been running on a platform of scaring the Swiss about immigrants taking jobs, and has been steadily gaining ground in each new election. Switzerland for all its internal cohesion has been difficult about immigration generally, preferring to bring in “guest workers” than to foster an immigration program where people would stay and their children born on Swiss soil would be automatic Swiss citizens.

It seems to me that most people are addressing this issue in the same emotional, clash of cultures way that the Far Right wing party wants them to, rather than see it as trumped up against a very small religious minority, most of whom are European Muslims, in order to gain votes to advance their own economic and social agenda.

He knew the purpose of the azan (call for prayer) – he was half Muslim, though didn’t pray through any organised religion. The point he was making was that the truly devoted people should pray on their own and without disturbing others; there is no need for the Muezzin to call them for prayer at the top of his voice. In his verses he also emphasised on good humane conduct as more important than spending most of one’s time in praying through organised religion and not engaging in humane conduct.

Then his poem didn’t make his point. There is a place for community worship in many faiths- and the adhan ritually calling people can be very beautiful, as can the act of community prayer. And it does not exclude praying on one’s own or engaging in humane conduct. That said, sadly most of the adhans I hear are too loud- and sometimes ugly.

And you can’t be half Mulsim. If you believe in Islam you are one- if you don’t you are not.

Well, he had nothing against the azan or community worship, but he was making the point against the people who invest a lot of energy in prayers – in any religion – but not in engaging in beautiful humane behaviour. What’s the point in beautiful azan or church bells or beautiful devotional hymns in a Hindu temple or in a Buddhist monastery if the devotees only lay importance on these rituals and not on good humanitarian conduct and why do people have to be reminded of prayer time if they really love God? That was his point and I think it was a valid one.

Indians tend to experiment with a very wide dimension of religiosity because this country has had thousands of years of interfaith interaction between all the major religions of the world. Hence, in a country like India, religiosity has very fluid boundaries – it’s not as clearcut as believing or not believing in Islam or in any other religion. Very often you’ll find people following practices from different religions together – they tend to borrow and share with each other’s practices. And this is regarded as a strength of the Indian people – it enables them to live together peacefully.

As for Kabir, his mother was a Hindu widow, his father had died before his birth and his mother died in childbirth. This orphaned child was raised by a Muslim weaver as his own child. Thus, his early life was influenced by both Hindu and Muslim religiosities, because he interacted with both communities. Perhaps this kind of childhood resulted in his rejecting the meaningless rituals of the organised religion if they were not accompanied by humanitarian conduct, which for him was more important. He criticised the meaningless rituals of both Hinduism and Islam and stressed that people should live in harmony with each other and should emphasise on humane values rather than just empty devotionalism. Hence, he can’t be called either a Hindu or a Muslim, but at the same time he was not an atheist – his poetry is very devotional in nature. He believed in a divine power that couldn’t be bound within the boundaries of any religion. So you can see why I said he was a half Muslim, eventhough that’s not an accurate description of his religiosity.

In fact, India has many mosques which regularly call the azan from the loudspeakers, though not installed over all the 4 minarets, so the sound is not all that blaring and disturbing and no one minds it, eventhough muslims are in a minority here. The minarets are also not all that tall here.

Thank you for the background. I do agree that rituals without the behavior to back them up are meaningless- the the verse still doesn’t get that point across to me. Maybe it loses something in translation.

I guess in a situation like this he is whatever he says he is. If he does not claim to be a Muslim, he isn’t one- if he says he is- who am I to judge? Maybe he would say he is “influenced” by Islam. I would say also, that not all Muslims believe that divine power is bound up in one faith.

He never claimed to be either Hindu or Muslim. That’s why he is regarded as a fine example of the composite inter-faith religious culture of India, which as I said, is looked at positively here. Yes, you are right, he was influenced by both religions. Perhaps the translation doesn’t carry the implicit meaning it does in the original verse – you may be right about that.

Oby, thank you for the link… I should have put it in….

Even more interesting than the article are the comments. Initially about 90% favor the ban. Later a bunch of Muslims jump in and the debate heats up. I am sure we will see more of this type of dialogue.

For those of us that have an interest in Arab culture, I give you an interesting link about “15 things to never discuss with an Arab.”

http://www.kabobfest.com/2009/12/15-things-never-to-discuss-with-an-arab.html

I tend to agree with NielsC when he says part of the reaction to the vote might be because of the Muslims failure to deliver on their responsibility to contribute to their adopted societies. I read recently that in Denmark Muslims are 5% of the population but consume more than 40% of the social services. A well off country has nothing to gain by allowing people(Muslims or not) to enter their country and then live off the system. I do think that there has to be a certain caring for people who are persecuted and allowances be made for those who might other wise be killed…but wholesale immigration of people who can receive social services for generations is not in any countries’ best interest. I am NOT saying people don’t need help or a hand up, but often rather than be a temporary thing it becomes long term. It was not meant to be a lifestyle. It was meant to be a helping hand. Everyone can need help now and again. Our family needed social services when we were kids temporarily, but as soon as things got better and my dad found employment(he worked three jobs at times) we got off the social services. It didn’t become a way of life.

Look at America 100-125 years ago or so…anyone coming to this country for the most part knew that there was no social services, no safety net to help them, no one to support them through a few generations and they most likely were never going home. Many of the first and even second generations lived in poverty because they were poor laborers with few skills, but the difference they had was a work ethic(they had to or they starved) and the idea that they were now “Americans” and with that came the dream that their children could become whatever they wanted. Was it a valid dream? For many probably not. Did they experience racism? You bet. But it propelled them forward and they pushed their children to get their education and learn, they took English lessons and maybe most importantly they fully embraced their new country and looked upon themselves as “Americans” all the while retaining their cultural heritage. We have so many customs that we think of as American that are really from somewhere else, but the people who brought them adapted so well that it has become part of the culture.

We have generational welfare in the USA too. People who live that lifestyle and then pass it on to their children and they in turn pass it on to their children. For some reason each generation has lots of kids (which can only make it tougher.) Why? They are poor and there is no need for help as there was in agricultural families.In many ways I believe these social services have taken away people’s need/desire to work to their full potential.They don’t have the same drive.

I do understand that poverty is a grinding situation that is difficult to climb out of…my own immigrant relatives had to work their hearts out and make it better for their children who in turn did so for theirs and so on.

I think one of the differences in societies today is that people come from poorer countries but they don’t embrace the culture that they join. They make use of the resources and then either leave or remain in these little enclaves where they are not required to speak the language, learn or embrace the culture and continue to live as they did in their home countries. They don’t make an effort to assimilate or identify themselves as American, Swiss,German or whatever-pick a country. When my great grandparents were growing up (we lived right outside of NYC) and the neighborhood was full of every kind of culture imaginable and the Jews knew the Catholics and the Hungarians said hello to the Italians and kids from every nationality and tongue played together so they got to know each other. Even though they were different, they were neighbors and that made them invested in each other. That whole dynamic has changed. And I don’t think it is for the better.

As unpopular as this opinion will be, I think it is wrong to demand your “rights” but be unwilling to give those same rights that you want for yourself to others. If they want minarets and the freedom to express their identity why don’t the countries of the Middle East offer those same freedoms to non Muslims? You can’t always declare what you want and not give a little. Obviously, I realize that these people are not responsible for that, but maybe the Swiss vote is a tit for tat reaction…I don’t know. But fair or unfair it was voted on in a democratic election. And though I might not agree with the result, I am concerned that it would be overridden by the government. What does that say about democratic votes? That they are only OK when it goes the way we want? If that is the case why have the vote at all? I didn’t vote for Obama, but I must go with the majority vote…that’s the way it works.

And yes I see the irony between freedom of religion and the democratic process. Not sure what the answer might be.

Oby,
You are right. This is what I argued above, though in a different language.

A problem in Europe–and I think it’s a huge problem–is that democratic votes can be overridden by various EU bureaucracies and treaties. It works for some things, but on the whole, I think, tends toward ‘lowest common denominator’ decisions, those things which can gather wide support rather than necessarily being good policy.

But then, I’m one who believes good government is small government that stays out of the way of the people, and individuals, most of the time.

If I’m understanding you correctly, you could say it’s a problem in the US as well. For example we have some basic standards- which are enormously difficult to change even if the majority were to vote for it. Some “minority rights” trump any “majority vote”. We have a constitution which (in theory) has to be abided by. We cannot just reinstate slavery for example. (an exagaration, but it makes my point).

Unless you’re talking about EU over-riding a member country policy. But even that is similar to the whole “states rights” vs. national in the US.

Well, in the US, “states’ rights” arguments went into an eclipse following the fights over racial equality. They’re becoming important again, to some degree, as federal courts seem to be paying more attention to federalism issues, though that’s the Supreme Court more than the District Courts, so far as I can tell.

Maybe it’s must my sense of individualism, but I see great benefit in allowing members of a union or federation to go off in their own directions, particularly on social issues. Let them individually try things out. If they fail, they fail. If they succeed, they might be usefully adopted by other members. I do think that trying to cram disparate pegs into holes of a specific shape is usually the wrong choice.

First I would say, that I don’t think that banning minarets is that wise, although a lot of the minarets (and mosques) after my humble opinion from a architectural point of view are characterized by a pseudo ‘orientalism’.
The swiss vote points back to a tradition for a rough discussion in the public sphere which was a part of the western european societies in century leading up to he second world war. Often immigrants forget that the western societies not always has been what they are today. In fact the development since the war has been extremely fast (could by thats why many pakistanis didn’t feel so different in England in the fifties, when they first arrived) but since then the culture and daily life has changed a lot. And as a child of the fifties I have to say mostly to the better.
One of the thing that changed was that the political discourse have been more civilized. The experience from the totalitarian regimes, and the headache after colonialism has meant that the western elites some times are overly self critical and tolerant. The swiss vote, but a lot of other developments in the last years has shown that in parts of the public, but also deep in the elites there’s feeling, that important to preserve the culture and the insights that have been developed in the last generations.Hopefully it can be done without to much muslim bashing.
It’s of course not right to se muslim immigration as a threat, simply because there is no such thing as a muslim migration. Muslims are divided by nationality, ethnicity, social classes and politics just like they are in their home countries.

Oby, you have no idea. Actually you do, but it may be worse than you image. I am in the welfare business, kindof. I deal with a certain class of people and with those in government that service them.

I estimate that 15% of the people in the US are functionally illiterate and/or have no skills that will allow them to hold a job. Then there are those with “behavioral” issues – these would add maybe another 10% to the equation. Of course these groups overlap.

I hate to say it, and I know that I am over-generalizing, but these people have no purpose in life beyond getting a welfare check, watching Oprah or providing employment to corrections officers. I even feel sorrow for them. Note this does not include the “cheaters” that steal from taxpayers by receiving benefits through fraud. I have a nice collection of pictures of Mercedes, Beamers, Humvees, Lexus and other vehicles driven by people going to their periodic interviews with caseworkers.

Welfare has its time and place. It is also a cancer that kills people and society. It not only kills initiative but it stimulates an unproductive, unhealthy lifestyle. I am in favor of welfare, but at an uncomfortable level.

As if this is not enough we have a contributing and not unrelated problem in American schools. Many schools don’t teach and even those that do leave a lot to be desired. Consider the recent case of test results in Detroit schools. One official said:”These numbers are only slightly better than what one would expect by chance as if the kids had never gone to school and simply guessed at the answers.” These results were for 4th and 8th graders. It was almost as if the kids never went to school. Eight years in school and they score 30% on a 4-choice multiple question test?

Welfare policy and educational theory are, in my view, responsible for a large part of the poverty and decay we see in the US. As it we don’t have enough problems, our “educators” are going to inflict something called “21st Century standards” (P21) on our kids. This latest concept promises to promote “critical thinking” rather than content or rote learning. This is just another stupid idea from the educational establishment that will go the same way as whole language, new math, history standards and other educational fads.
Add to these the ideas of Multiculturalism and “political correctness” and we have a time bomb. Now not only are things bad, but we can’t criticize anybody (except the dominant white culture) because it is “not their fault” and we must be non-judgemental about other cultures, so they tell us. Of course, there is also the fact that the poor and immigrants can be counted on to vote for certain parties so some people maybe like this situation.

The US, Europe, Canada and Australia are all afflicted by this in different degrees. Because of stupidity, or compassion, our leaders have made decisions that will cause much grief to all of us. They reward speculation, tax personal industry, promote laziness and destroy the family. They feed our worse spirits. They send jobs overseas for an extra dollar of profit and then hire illegal labor to save another 50 cents. Worse yet, the people that promote these policies are proud of themselves because they see themselves as doing good.
So the poor, the uneducated and the immigrant are used and abused. They will not have the same chance that immigrants had 100 years ago. Of course some immigrants will prosper, but many will be trapped in a tangle of policies and behaviors.

What I am saying is that we cannot fault Muslims for all the problems they cause and will continue to cause. Our leaders have helped create this mess. It would be really nice if they would take responsibility instead of blaming the common people, as in the case in Switzerland. The fact that the Econmist believes that “decent, right-thinking” people would not support the ban on minarets shows what the elites think of us.

So only indecent, evil people would vote for the ban. And remember that this is a country that defines multiculturalism with two very different religious heritages and four languages. The fact that this has happened in Switzerland shows that things have changed. There is something rotten in Denmark, I mean Switzerland, I mean the West. The elites had better stop blaming the people, or else.

Kactuz

PS: NeilsC – two things: 1. the elites care little about our culture, only about their egos. 2. yes, there is something called Muslim immigration and it is perfectly logical to see Muslim immigration as a threat given the very basic differences in values.

I think citizens of a country can be justly worried about ‘Muslim immigration’ when groups of those Muslims start arguing that Shariah law should become part of the nation’s law. I think that Shariah law is extremely limited in its utility, as Saudi Arabia is discovering. If it were perfect, there wouldn’t be legal reform going on in the Kingdom.

But particularly when cultural values are mingled with religious law, people get very nervous. Death for apostasy? Honor killings? Secondary status for women? Bigamy? These are all argued as being religious values by some Muslim. They are also pretty antithetical to most contemporary Western values.

If it is to be argued that perceptions can be false, it should also be argued that those who project false perceptions (or erroneous perceptions) are not without fault.

Kactuz: I don’t think there’s anything wrong with ‘critical thinking’ education, per se. But for it to be useful presupposes a basis of facts. Criticizing things in a vacuum doesn’t accomplish much, and cultural relativity–particularly when it’s purpose seems to be to denigrate the dominant culture–doesn’t leave anything to compare or be critical about! Scatter-shot criticism isn’t criticism, it’s cynicism, a very different and corrosive thing.

J. Kactuz

I think some of the problem to a big degree is the dual whammy of victomhood and entitlement. Hey,when your condition is not your fault and those in authority around you be it politicians, religious leaders and others tell you that you deserve better in life and it is someone else’s fault that you are uneducated, unmotivated and poor why look inside yourself for the answer?

What makes people’s condition of today worse than 100 years ago? It isn’t…it is far far better even with the welfare. Ask the people who lived in tenements in NYC at the turn of the century where whole families were jammed in one or two rooms with no running water and the whole building had to share an outhouse, TB was rampant and children often worked to supplement the families income or missed school to take care of their little siblings while the parents worked. It was a grinding and TOUGH existence, but people worked as hard as they could to get out of that condition because they wanted MORE for themselves and their families. And they passed that work hard and make something of yourself ethic to their children.

John, I will be the first to admit I am cynical. Actually, to be just cynical I will have to be somewhat more trusting of human motives. It would be a step up. I am beyond cynical. It is a good thing I am not god because if I were you humans would be in deep trouble.

Critical thinking is a 5-cent word that means nothing, like “self-esteem” and “diversity.” As you say unless one has a basis for thinking – a store of experience and knowledge – there is nothing to critically think about. It is a concept educators use to hide the fact that they are actually teaching very little. My opinion. As far as I know, there is no study to show that so-called “critically thinking” works better, or even works. If a child knows little or nothing, his/her thinking is limited by his/her limited understanding of life and all its complexities and processes. Last year I met two college students that didn’t know who Fidel Castro was. Why blame the kids in Detroit?

Oby, I hate to say it but you nailed it again. And yes, people are better today than 100 or 50 years ago, even the very poor. Most of them are not undernourished, either (Bite your tongue, old man!). Sadly, to a person on welfare, working more can mean having less because of welfare rules on income and eligibility.

This minaret thing is just a bump in a rocky road. On the other hand, it is things like the following that will lead to revolution and violence because there is a point beyond which people cannot be pushed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235604/Single-mother-living-2-6m-mansion–Labours-housing-benefit-crackdown.html

Is there any rational explanation for this? There were 1000+ comments. When those people vote BNP will it be because they are racists and evil? To a lesser degree the minaret ban can be traced to things like this elsewhere in Europe.

Are we mad? Why have we taken leave of all common sense? Do we hate ourselves? I can’t really answer these questions. I guess that would be critical thinking and I don’t do it. At least I’m not the only one asking questions.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1235638/MELANIE-PHILLIPS-Just-Archbishop-right-Treating-Christians-cranks-act-cultural-suicide.html?ITO=1490

The only thing I am certain of is it will get worse. The BNP, SVP, FPO, VB, PP DPP and all rightwing parties will only gain because liberals have abandoned all pretense of equality, justice and basic human values and replaced them with cute but empty words that they use selectively, at best. I am glad I don’t have to make that choice.

K.

PS: I am not just cynical, I have a pessimistic side too.

Well, I’m mostly with you, though I am an optimist.

Critical thinking is necessary, as voting is necessary, but they don’t spring out of the void fully formed. I’ll certainly agree with you that contemporary education is, well, crap. Fluffy non-thinking is taught in the name of being sensitive to other threads of history. That need not be the case. One can accept that other people view things differently without making value judgments, particularly negative ones about one’s own culture and history. One can, but modern schools do not seem to do that.

It’s more than ironic that we work to get the schools in certain countries (e.g. the KSA) to stop demonizing ‘the other’ while American schools seem quite content to demonize the self.

I’ll certainly be skeptical; I can be snarky. I try to avoid cynicism, though, as a cancer of the soul.

I deal with undergraduate students from various US universities regularly. They come from prestigious as well as lesser-known universities, a wide range of disciplines and ethnic backgrounds. All are born and brought up in the US and are American citizens. It is indeed shocking to see the low level of understanding they have of the world – its history, polity, geography, religion, culture and economy and the students from well-known universities are no exceptions. An Indian student from an Indian college has a much higher level of understanding of these aspects. This is obviously the result of the kind of pre-college education the American students get.

They are not only unaware of many aspects of different regions of the world, they also have the arrogance that they come from the most powerful country in the world, which makes it very difficult to teach them anything that they don’t know. They don’t like to accept that they may be wrong about something. And this problem is more serious with the students from well-known universities – they are not only citizens of the most powerful country, but they also study in a prestigious university – sometimes because their parents happen to be rich. It’s very difficult to teach such students with their large egos.

I am in fact a strong advocate of education based on critical and innovative thinking and certainly in this life I can never understand what it feels like to be born as the citizen of the most powerful country in the world. But I do feel that the American school – and undergraduate level education – is seriously flawed. There should be a balance between teaching the contents and critical and innovative analysis. I wouldn’t lay too much emphasis on either of these, with exclusion of the other. Especially in school level, the students must be taught various aspects of all subjects, including about different regions of the world. And in this increasingly globalised world, there should be a strong emphasis on the non-Western world.

I also agree with Oby and J. Kactuz about welfare money actually inducing the people not to work. We don’t have this system in India – people here have to either take care of themselves or fall below the poverty line. But I do know the case of an American middle-aged man, who used to stay for 6 months in the US, collect his welfare money and come to stay in India for 6 months, where his money got multiplied in Indian currency. He never did any work and his family in the US had disowned him. He had made friendship with Indian students and when he needed money, he used to borrow from these students, by playing on their sympathy because he was discarded from his family and had no one in the world etc.

But the examples which J Kactuz has given from Daily Mail are really shocking.

I feel it’s a good system that the State takes care of its helpless citizens, so that they are not left to starve and die as in India where the government doesn’t have money to give to the helpless, but there should be some measures to cross-check how the people are using this money and whether they are in fact misusing it.

Self-criticism in any country is very democratic and enlightened and perhaps a need of a multi-cultural, democratic society. But continuous criticism of only the dominant group – by themselves or by others, and ignoring the faults of other less-dominant groups can create hidden wounds in the society that run deep and can erupt suddenly to take ugly forms.

India too is beginning to feel it now. The various clashes between the social groups that erupt sometimes are the symptom of these hidden wounds running deep. But there are not many takers for this idea of mine. I hope it’s not too late before people realise it.

What is required is self-criticism from all groups, with an honest acknowledgement of their faults and also appreciation of each other sometimes.

Back in the 1990s, American welfare got a bit of reform. One of the major changes was that one could not just sit back and collect payments indefinitely. They put a time limit on how long one could remain on the dole, unless there were extenuating circumstances–health, children, mental ability, etc. To the surprise of some, this did not lead to mass starvation or rising crime rates. It did lead to more people getting jobs.

In a bad economy, it is going to be harder to find those jobs, but the practice remains.

John,
In a bad economy there won’t be any money to give away in welfare! But it’s a good idea to give them this money for a limited period so that they don’t just collect money without working. Yes, now that you say it, I can understand now – after about 2 years this man went back to the US to find a job for himself.

I am a little late back to the party! Hectic 24 hours…anyway, as you mentioned John, there have been changes thankfully, for recipients of welfare which I think is a good thing. But I’ll tell you IMO what one of the big problems with welfare is that it rewards bad behavior. For every child that they have they give them money. Now, I think children are a blessing, BUT when you don’t have two nickels to rub together I think it completely unfair and ludicrous that the government reward people for having more wards of the state. That to me is an insult to every tax paying citizen. I think everyone has a right to however many children they want IF I AM NOT SUPPORTING THEM AND THE PARENTS ARE. I’ll give you an example. My brother and his wife several years ago were earning in the lower middle class range…bought a small home, NOTHING great but theirs and making regular payments on it. They were OK financially but not really making enough to save a lot. My brother had his ear to the ground for a new job. Meanwhile, despite precautions they got pregnant with twins. Now, at 6 people they were just about at the poverty line. Still making it but barely. Junker cars, used furniture, etc. they wouldn’t go on welfare due to a sense of pride though I lobbied him very hard for it at least temporarily. My brothers boss didn’t come to him and say “Hey Joe…you now have two more mouths to feed. Tell you what… I am going to give you a raise to take care of those two kids.” Heck No! He had to make what went for 4 stretch to 6. Why should a man who is hardworking and being responsible for his family have LESS than someone on welfare….it makes no moral sense. I think that there needs to be a limit on the amount of support a person gets for the kids…if you chose to have more it is up to you to manage the money and make it spread like everyone else NOT on welfare must do. BTW, he found a better job, almost doubled his salary though it required a move and is now doing better financially. All without the support of welfare or credit cards.

The second problem is that they make it EASIER to be on welfare than to work. There needs to be some sort of support for those kids but it shouldn’t be discretionary, meaning they hand it to the parents to do with as they chose. Perhaps financial credits for day care while the parent is out working. Or a small amount of supplemental help in paying their electricity or rent while they are working and a requirement of it is to be gainfully employed. But when welfare pays more than gainful employment why would people work?

I remember when we went through the time when my parents had to use food stamps…stupid us…we used it like it was meant to be used. I clearly remember this lady in front of me in the checkout line one time with an expensive purse, a professional manicure,hands loaded with jewelry, dressed nicely buying cigarettes and using food stamps for her food. As a kid that made a big impression on me because I wondered how they were able to afford all that stuff and still be on food stamps. What I didn’t understand at the time is that we didn’t abuse the system and they almost assuredly did.

I guess I have ‘old fashioned values’ too. What you said makes good sense. I get a little warm under the collar, too, when I hear people moan that they can’t afford health insurance, but somehow they can afford huge flat-screen TV and to replace their cars every other year. Me, I guess I’m dim. I have health insurance, but drive a 14-year-old car and have a 19″ glass tube TV.

Actually, I like both of those things! I don’t watch a lot of TV and my car runs very well and has better mileage than the EPA average for 2009. Too, my car insurance bills are very low.

Would I like better and bigger? Probably, but unless Santa is very good to me this year, I won’t be getting them.

Just in case Santa is checking the blog, though, let me suggest the Maserati Quattroporte Sport GTS S, in Verde Deep Emerald, cuoio interior. Sure, it costs more than many homes, but I’ve been good this year!!

John,
I enjoyed your last comment very much!

So, are you starting to pass the hat?

A red hat, with white furry trim, of course…

Yes, of course! If only I can get a Christmas vacation in Goa in return – what better place to celebrate Christmas than Goa!!

John you’re already getting everybodys “two cents”!

(sorry-couldn’t resist…it’s bad, I know)

Uh oh… now you’re making me second-guess my choice! I absolutely love Goa, even if the sun will give me a 2nd degree burn within 5 minutes of stepping on the beach!

Pretty good, actually! But you know what they say about opinions: “My opinion and $4.00 will get me a coffee at Starbucks.”

I don’t know how you got the idea of a sunburn in Goa. People from all over the world go to Goa to celebrate Christmas and New Year. And that’s the time when weather is absolutley beautiful – sun is never too hot then. And you have your sunscreen lotions etc. to protect yourself. You find so many Western people lying on the beach there to get a suntan at that time of the year – they don’t get a sunburn. The Indians of course are born with a beautiful natural tan, so they don’t care about sunbathing – they wade into the sea with their full clothes on!

It seems you’ll make a good businessman now that you are retired – opinions for coffee and expensive cars and TV and/or a trip to Goa! Not bad at all!

As one of Celtic descent, I have the complexion known as ‘fish-belly white’. Consequently, I burn in the light of a candle!

The beaches in Goa are fabulous, indeed. And I did note how Indians were wading, fully dressed, at the beaches in front of the hotels. I also noticed that the farther you went from the hotel, the less people were wearing, until poof! They weren’t wearing anything at all!

Imagination remains a low cost option in life. While I would appreciate being put to the test of wisely dealing with hundreds of millions of dollars, I’m not counting on it. If you have a few hundred million to spare, you can observe the experiment, though…

Daisy…

I have been to Goa. LOVED it, but didn’t go swimming. Very pretty. I really would like to go to Pondicherry someday too.

John, my car is a ’98, (bought used) which now has 175,000 miles on it. I take really good care of it and I play a game with myself…I am hoping to get 250,000 miles out of it. My parents had one that had more than that on it when the transmission went out and they decided it was time to lay it to rest.LOL!

What with moving to different countries every few years, I’ve had my current car longer than any other. I’m hoping to get more than 100K miles out of it as I do take good care of it and don’t put a lot of miles on it.

INterestingly enough under the Arab News title “Book those responsible for flood misery” you will find anything but that subject! But you will find Pr. Talal’s opinion on the banning of minarets. Does the minaret have any and I mean ANY Religious significance?

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=129702&d=16&m=12&y=2009&pix=kingdom.jpg&category=Kingdom

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=18514

No religious significance…and my cell phone can be programmed to call me to prayer as can other other electrical device. However, I find that they can be lovely piece of architecture so I don’t understand the ban unless people fear the call to prayer will be blasted over loadspeakers which is a significant noise pollution especially when the volume isn’t regulated.

And Pr. Talal thinks its racist he just needs to get over himself. What does race have to do with religion???

Oby,
Of course everyone falls in love with Goa on going there – that place has some kind of enchantment to it.

You must go to Pondicherry and especially see the French side. Unlike Goa, where Indian and Portuguese elements intermingle along the coast and you have to go into the villages deep in the forests to see the indigenous culture, Pondicherry was sharply divided into a French side and an Indian side. I have been there several times and to cross over from the Indian side to the French side, which is along the coast is an ethereal experience – you are suddenly in a completely different world! I of course lived in a French villa on the French side and loved it. Unfortunately there is no beach there, as the French docked up the entire coastal stretch to build a harbour there. But it’s nice to sit on open terrace and have continental cuisine and French wine in the restaurants with sea-waves lapping up the walls of the terrace. The Indian side is of course like any other small town of India. I wasn’t much excited to see it.

Cochin in Kerala is another place you should see – the Portugeuses were in Cochin before they went to Goa and that place is again very cosmoplitan and a mix of two cultures. It also has a fine Synagogue which was patroniased and embellished under the patronage of the local rulers when many Jews migrated to Kerala to avoid persecution in Europe and Persia.

Never been to Goa but have come accross quite a few people from there. They were all proud of its jesuit heritage and the fact that old St. Francis Xavier is buried there. The old generation still speaks Portuguese, even after all these years. Must be nice and interesting.

John,
I am a poor person from the Third World so don’t have much money; you are the one from the rich and powerful America and having earned a lot of money as a Diplomat and so on and so forth. So if you want to invest your earnings in an industry, I can be the Director of your Advisory Board, giving you several million dollar ideas! I am best at advising people with imaginative ideas and you know that such people don’t usually have money.

Since Oby says she has taken good care of her car, perhaps you can sell your car and buy hers for a mutually agreeable price – and both of you can pay me a small fee for giving you this idea – apart from the Christmas vacation in Goa of course.

I’m not sure ‘buried’ is the right word here. His body is on display in a glass case in the Cathedral.

There’s not so much Portuguese these days. Last time I was there, with a Portuguese friend, in 2003, it was hard to find anyone other than tour guides who spoke the language.

It is striking, though, to see the many churches and chapels splashed across the countryside, very different from the look of the myriad temples found in the rest of India.

I haven’t been to Pondicherry since the mid-60s, just a few years after it reverted to Indian control. It was still very, very French at the time.

J. Kactuz,
Yes, Goa is beautiful but now English is spoken more frequently there than Portuguese, which is spoken only by the older generation. And it is the most cosmopolitan place in India. You should see its exquisite churches which are on the UNESCO World Heritage list and rival the churches anywhere in the world. There is one modelled on the St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome.

John,
You are riht about St. Xavier’s casket – it’s displayed to the public every 12 yrs, otherwise the casket is enshrined in the Church of Bom Jesus. Pondicherry is still very French – I mean the French side. The French have retained their villas and they come there for a couple of weeks from France. The Ecole Francaise carries out cultural research on India. The political control is of course, Indian as you say.

Sparky,

This minarets business is a complex issue and goes beyond religion and race. Please see my comment above and see the following links –

http://thegulfblog.com/2009/12/01/musings-on-the-swiss-minaret-ban/

http://sinhale.wordpress.com/2009/12/13/muslims-should-learn-to-build-bridges-before-they-demand-any-more-minarets/#comment-4336

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=129448&d=12&m=12&y=2009

Actually, it’s on public display constantly. It’s in a niche, some 12-15 feet above an altar, in the front right of Bom Jesus.

ChaDaisy:

To me it all about getting Muslims a huffin and puffin in another direction. I wonder how many actually really care. Is one to make one believe that if a minaret is decapitated that somehow someone’s identity or power is decapitated too?

Minerats? People are they attached to let’s say some type of symbol. K if you all want it that way. I guess I have no choice but to agree.

And that’s the REAL MADRID

Peace OuT

Perhaps targeting the minaret as a symbol, aside from emphasizing the otherness of the immigrants this party claims are stealing Swiss jobs in a bad economy, is meant to invoke as well Turkey (the Ottoman style of mosque has the most minarets), and its attempt to join the EU, as well as the main non-European Muslim population in Switzerland,ie the Turks. Discrimination against Turks, specifically difficulty finding and maintaining work, is a major problem, at least according to a colleague in the mental health division at the WHO, where research was focused in part on exactly that dilemma of the difficulty for Turks, particularly in German Cantons.

Integration is a 2-way process: the host community has to be open to acceptance of the guest community, in the sense of allowing full participation and equal opportunities.

That’s the difference, I think, in the experience of the US and Canada on the one hand and France, Germany, Switzerland, and friends on the other. In some countries, assimilation works because it is a two-way street. In others, the host culture seems bound to keep the aliens alienated.

[BTW, not dissing Australia here. Just don't have any facts to support an opinion either way!]

Yes, the casket is publicly displayed constantly in the niche – and people pray to it as if they were praying in front of a Hindu shrine! That’s why I used the word “enshrined.” That’s the composite religiosity of Goa. Once in 12 yrs the body is shown to the public by opening the casket in a pupblic ceremony.

I am with John and Chiara – immigant integration has to be a 2-way process. And that’s one of the reasons behind the uproar – one argument runs the way Chiara says it – host community should be open to accept the guest community’s ways. The Swiss have tended to stress the other side of the coin – the guest community should show a sensitivity towards the host culture and try to accept it as much as their own culture. The orthodox Islamic argument is that this can not be possible in Islam in the context of Europe. The truth is that Muslims outside the Arab world have changed their religion to accommodate it within the local culture where they are living. Somehow Arabs find it difficult to do this and don’t even accept non-Arab Muslims as “Muslims.” For example, Indian Muslims and Indian Hindus are treated with the same kind of hatred in Arab countries – Indian Muslims are not regarded as “Muslims” by them. Never mind that there are more Muslims in India than in the Arab coutries.

So the 2-way process means that both the host and the guest communities should be accepting of each other. If anyone of them shows a disdain for the other, problems are bound to erupt.

And as I said above, you can’t argue that Europe is more “enlightened” than West Asia, therefore the burden is more on Europe to accept the Other. The truth is that West Asia has shown in this case that they understand the norms of democracy and also demand it from others. In that case, it’s high time they begin to follow these norms themselves. It can’t be a one-way process. Because of this I argued that BOTH the Swiss vote and the West Asian undemocratic laws should be denounced, not only one of them, turning a blind eye to the other.

John–agreed, and I share your ignorance of the reality in Australia.

Daisy–The Arab Muslims I know in France, Switzerland, Italy, and Spain have all adapted to European ways–which wasn’t terribly difficult as they were educated in European ways through schooling in their own countries and abroad. Most Arab Muslims know far more about European culture and Christianity than vice versa. I think the problems are more systemic in the host countries, taking the example of France which is what I know best. Deliberately importing (ie going and fetching) massive numbers of male North African immigrants to be labourers during the 50′s and 60′s and into the 70′s, and creating separate housing ie apartment blocks for them, not allowing immigration status, or bring wives and children easily, not allowing citizenship for children born to them in France and who never set foot anywhere else, did little to favour integration, and a lot to favour the need to stick together, and to see their time in France as temporary (which was of course the intention). However, 40 years on (average work life) tant bien que mal France became home, and certainly became home for their children, who spoke little Arabic and certainly not enough to function in an academic or career environment in their “home country”. This system which of course has been revised, laid the foundation for the current turmoil in the Parisian suburbs, and those outside of other major immigrant cities like Lyon, and Marseille.

To give you the flavour, one of the debates during an electoral campaign in the late 70′s was to have the far right promise to force the immigrants to France (still no citizenship remember) to return home, and in the meantime to make sure that their children born in France and therefore entitled to public schooling did not benefit from the summer camps that nearly all French children attend for a month in the summer. Dreadful! The response of Giscard d’Estaing(ie the more centre right)? To say both were dreadful propositions, and to reassure the voting public that while his party wouldn’t engage in massive deportations they would get the (legal) immigrants out as fast as possible, and that of course a certain number of their children should be allowed to go to summer camp. Disgusting!

The only good thing was that after re-election all such campaign promises were allowed to fade into oblivion.

What I can agree with is the two way process. Otherwise uninterested people will all of a suden go on the defensive whereas otherwise they had no real invested interest. All of this because there because some “perceived” threat to their identiy.

Keeping aliens alienated isn’t a good idea John that was revelation!

I hate to rain on this parade, but I don’t see this as a two-way street. As far as I am concerned the burden is not on the host country but the immigrants. Those who argue otherwise would never take this position accept for a Western Country. There are some things that are incompatible and cannot be “worked out” – you know, small things like freedom of speech and religion, democracy, equality and women’s rights.

Even if the Swiss vote is reversed it will make no difference. Things will not change in Muslim societies. Any chance there was for integration and accommodation died with the birth of multiculturalism and political correctness in the 70s. This alienation among immigrants that certainly exists is a secondary issue – the real issue is values. As I have stated before, I do not believe that Islam’s values are those of what is generally known as “Western Civilization.” There is nothing that Europe can do to make Muslims happy except suicide. They are slowly learning this. It is obvious that more and more Europeans are drawing a line in the sand about this issue. I don’t know what will happen, but it will not be pretty.

I don’t think host countries have to go very far out of their ways on this point. You’re right: the one coming to country X to benefit in whatever manner is the one who needs to do the bulk of the adjustment. ‘When in Rome…”

That is to say, though that host countries, as a matter of good policy if not law, should not raise artificial barriers to assimilation. Pushing foreigners into ghettos, keeping them from participating in the political process at all levels, providing a substantially smaller suite of rights, making sure they get the short end of every stick… that’s not good policy, that’s a recipe for trouble.

Immigrants need to understand in their own minds what they’re looking for. If it’s just to earn more money than they could at home, then fine; that’s a clear objective. It does not entail participating in the political process beyond a certain, very low level. Nor does it require much of a change in their socio-religious attitudes. But by making this the objective, they lose the ability to try to shape the outer environment to any significant degree. They’re only short-timers, with little to no investment in the country as a whole. At the end of the term of the visa, they should also be shown the door.

If they are immigrating to enjoy the political and social liberties of another country, then much more is needed in the form of adaptation and change. It’s sort of stupid, actually, to insist on recreating the dysfunctional country and culture they were fleeing, isn’t it? This doesn’t mean that one must now spit on the former culture. It can be appreciated, enjoyed, even revered to an extent. But it cannot be made the touchstone of defining a good culture. Were it perfect, there’d have been no need to emigrate, right?

Host cultures will change as the result of immigration, in ways big and small. The change has to be organic, however, not imposed by politics or courts. Thanks to the Irish immigrants, for example, Americans say, ‘He went to the hospital’ not the Britishism, ‘He went to hospital.’ They also brought, indirectly, Irish Coffee. They have their Hibernian organizations, step dancing clubs, and let’s not forget St. Patrick’s Day! Less salubrious, perhaps, they also brought a certain attitude toward policing.

Thanks to the Italians, pizza is a national dish in the US, along with spaghetti and meatballs. The Sons of Italy played an important role in helping Italian immigrants adjust to the realities of the New World. And then there’s Columbus Day.

I think it’s perfectly fine for the US to acknowledge the Eids, to host Iftars. It should not (and is not) offering to permit Shariah law to substitute for constitutionally derived law, though some accommodations in family ‘courts’ are extended, the same as they are for other religious groups. Cultures can adapt to newcomers and their values, but the bulk of the changing has to be on the part of the newcomer.

With the talk of Turkey it has brought to mind the glorious terrains of fluttering butterflies alongside the aromas of barbecued shik kabobs in what Muslims did to churches, decapitating statues, erasing faces and many other things. I understand your sentiment J. Kactuz

However Sun Tzu said, “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.”

People are generally won over by acceptance…

I can give a simple example. The US embassy tried to hassle me about covering my hair. They wanted to show my ears and hair. I felt that was a form of humiliation and they were generally non-accepting of my beliefs. I made a stink of it and said, “I want to appear the way I appear when I travel and I don’t want to show my hair.” BLAH BLAH I made a stink over it including calling Washington D.C. (some office) to report a crime.

Actually Muslims in other countries weren’t harassed that way from my research. My husband said, “You are a maniac. This is a country and it has rules.” I am a maniac hah I am dancing with my leg warmers on. I said, “Watch and see. They will accept my picture. I know my country and it is a democracy and they respect all people. Watch.” To make a long story short they accepted the picture and apologized.

After that, I felt more love for my country and I thought I don’t even want to cover my hair. Seriously!

So Saudi wants to redirect this movie AYE?

I agree with Chiara and John again that the immigrants should not be treated as non-entities as Chiara has described in the case of France and that they should be given their share in the democratic political process.

But here comes the problem – when you are giving the immigrants a share in your democratic political process, what kind of political norms are you giving a share in the political process of your country – a set of norms based on social equality, human rights, equal opportunity to all, no distinction based on gender, right to make decisions about one’s life, or on the other hand, values that are associated with an alien religion – a religion that explicitly makes an unequal distinction between men and women, their voices, their decision-making capacities as free and intelligent individuals, the treatment of women and offsprings as property, polygamy, an attitute that explicitly proclaims that theirs is the only true religion and all other religions are false and there is no space for an alternative religious or non-religious thought in this religion?

Are you seriously willing to accommodate all these norms into your constitution? To what extent are you willing to accommodate them in your political process and on what terms? I think it should be made absolutely clear in all countries that invite immigrants that the basic democratic norms of these countries will not be tampered with because of the immigrants’ different cultural patterns, which must be respected on a personal level by the host population.

And when I say this, please note that my country sends amongst the maximum number of emigrants abroad each year.

You have to understand that many traditional societies follow a set of norms that are not compatible with the norms of democracy. And if these people immigrate to a democracy for whatever reasons, they must respect the democratic values of their host countries. And their parent countries should not show the hypocrisy of decrying any undemocratic step in a Western country while flaunting all the norms of democracy in their own lands.

Chiara’s example of France is very convincing. But the Islamic countries regularly employ people from South and South-East Asia on wages much lower than promised, they give them jobs other than they promised in the beginning, confiscate their passports illegally, don’t give them leave to go back home, treat them as dirt, behave in an atrocious manner with them, in case of low-class jobs, rape, exploitation, coerced treatment is rampant. To add to these, Muslims from these countries are not treated as fellow Muslims by the Arabs, who think of themselves as superior to everyone else.

I am opposed to the Swiss ban and to the mistreatment of immigrants in France as Chiara described. My question is only this – why isn’t the democratic world opposing this inhuman treatment of South Asians and South-East Asian workers in West Asia? Is it because West Asia matters more and the South and South-East Asian countries don’t matter that much for the West? What legitimate right do the Islamic countries have of decrying the undemocratic step of Switzerland? Why is no one questioning this and why are such people being supported in the name of democracy?

Do we need their oil so much? Is it then not a question of democracy vs non-democratic systems but the self-interests guided by economy?

It seems that a democratic vote voted out minarets by 57%?

Right or wrong and the consequences I don’t know. To me it is just extra cement and bricks.

There seem to be so many other things worth fighting for.

I think in essence Daisy is right. Yes, the West is democratic and has equal freedoms…and that is a blessing as well as a curse of sorts… When people come from countries that have such incompatible values vs the West, they then have a right(if they are fully integrated) to demand their share of rights. Often, however, what they want and what the West wants are conflicting and this causes a lot of friction. You can’t go through the values of the host country line by line and make it work for everyone…it is not possible nor should it be. YOU are going to their country. There are too many competing wants and desires and ideas about how things should be done. If these things are not gelled properly you have a hodge podge mess where no one talks to anyone or trusts anyone because they are too different. The country will lose it cohesion.

I think the host country needs to be accepting to a degree of the immigrants rights but it can only be accepting to the point that it doesn’t dilute itself in so much political correctness that it is no longer recognizable as itself. That, in my opinion, is where immigrants have to sort of suck it up and realize they cannot transplant their country to the new one and everything will be fine. As John said they can retain some of their cherished traditions but they have to now think of themselves as “American, French, German,Swiss etc.” and forget about some of the things that they want to see in their new home country. If those things are so very important then they should stay where they came from…don’t try to import them to the host country. I don’t think that is xenophobic, I think it is fair. As I said in an earlier post, so many immigrants came to America and brought some of their traditions with them and yet they EMBRACED their new country and thought of themselves as Americans and bent over backward to fit in as best they could. They fit to the country NOT the other way around. I think to a huge degree that is what made their immigration successful. They didn’t try to turn America into another Italy or Germany or Ireland. They blended instead.

About the minarets…I have the same feeling about both viewpoints…”What? Get over it!” By that I mean it was two minarets for heaven’s sake. Not a whole fleet of them. But to the Muslims I also feel like saying the same thing. HOW important is this really? Again, it is two minarets…they didn’t outlaw Islam or the practice of it in any way. So they don’t want minarets? Big deal. 99% of the mosques there don’t have them. Why make such a stink over this? Perhaps some things should be just accepted as “that’s life”.

I look at it like this…if I were to go to a Middle Eastern country would I be allowed to walk around without covering? Could I put up a nativity scene in front of my house at Christmas? Would I be able to worship freely in a well kept church that has been repaired and maintained (or would it be crumbling in disarray IF I could find one at all),could I find any hint of any of my religious or American holidays? No, I almost assuredly could not. But if I choose to live in that country I know that and it might be something that I have to accept. Do I have any rights? NO! People who come to the West do so for a reason and they need to accept life is not going to be like it was at home and you can’t muscle your “rights” through without ruffling a few feathers. You can’t have everything you want. Even as an American I don’t have everything I want in my own country.

Finally, on a simplistic level it feels very much to me like being on a playground and the one kid(the Middle East) says to the other(the West) “you have NO RIGHT to play in my sandbox, but I DEMAND to play in yours.”

And I think a fair question to ask in regard to the Middle Eastern countries when it comes to rights is, how much tolerance should be afforded to INTOLERANCE? When can people say, “enough is enough”. Maybe that is what the Swiss were actually saying.

Since we are talking integration (or the lack thereof) and somebody has mentioned France, may I quote from a recent le Figero article:

If you cant read French, I will translate this in 12 words: Muslims demand special rights and accommodations at work, in hospitals and schools.

What these people are saying is “we don’t like you, we don’t like your ways.” This attitude is widespread and growing as radical Islam spreads among Muslim minorities in the West. The so-called moderates cannot stop it, they can’t even argue convincingly against it.

De nouvelles exigences religieuses en entreprise et dans les hôpitaux irritent ou inquiètent.

Au gré des auditions, les députés ont découvert de nouvelles exigences religieuses ou communautaristes. Consultant en ressources humaines, notamment pour des sociétés du CAC 40, Carl Pincemin a raconté comment des salariés ayant obtenu des menus confessionnels, refusent désormais que «la viande halal soit proposée à côté de plats contenant de la viande “normale” jugée impure». En clair, ils désirent des cantines séparées et ne veulent plus «s’asseoir à côté de personnes qui mangent du porc !», tempête Jacques Myard, député UMP de la mission. D’autres ont constitué l’équivalent d’un «syndicat confessionnel». Ils réclament la reconnaissance de jours fériés musulmans, demandent des lieux de culte dans l’entreprise et prétendent que les femmes de service chargées de servir les plats à la cantine doivent se présenter «les bras couverts».

«Des pratiques intolérables»

Ces revendications, de la plus simple aux plus extravagantes posées au nom de l’islam, embarrassent les responsables des entreprises. «Ils perdent leur bon sens», estime l’anthropologue Dounia Bouzar, auteur d’un livre intitulé Allah a-t-il sa place dans l’entreprise ? (Albin Michel, 2009). «Certains craignent d’être traités d’islamophobes s’ils refusent. Et cèdent à des pratiques intolérables.» Jusqu’à accepter que des salariés ne passent plus l’entretien d’évaluation avec leur chef de service si c’est une femme. Tandis que d’autres, à l’inverse, «répriment toute manifestation de foi, même si elle ne perturbe pas le bon fonctionnement du service». Pour Cathy Kopp, l’ex-DRH d’Accor chargée de mission au Medef, «l’entreprise est demandeuse de règles plus claires en matière de revendications religieuses».

L’hôpital aussi, si l’on en croit André Gerin (PCF), le président de la mission parlementaire sur le voile intégral. Les députés ont visité à Lyon la maternité Mère-Enfant. «Le personnel se sent abandonné.» On compte «quatre à cinq incidents par semaine» dans les services d’obstétrique, affirme André Gerin. «Un homme sage-femme appelé à la rescousse lors d’un accouchement difficile s’est fait casser la gueule en octobre par un mari», a raconté le responsable hospitalier. Les pompiers ont dû le réanimer pour qu’il achève l’accouchement. Un traumatisme pour tout le service, qui «n’en peut plus» de devoir slalomer entre les exigences religieuses et déminer l’agressivité de certains. «Les maris insistent pour que leurs femmes soient vues par des médecins femmes. Beaucoup refusent une anesthésie par crainte qu’un homme apparaisse», a relaté le personnel. Comme en 2004, lorsque pour la première fois, plusieurs chefs de service d’obstétrique avaient dénoncé ces pressions devant la commission Stasi. Depuis, une charte rappelle qu’on ne peut choisir son médecin dans le service public. «Mais les personnels restent seuls à gérer les conflits», regrette André Gérin.

Sur le terrain, les maires de banlieue réunis dans l’association Ville et Banlieue s’inquiètent d’une montée en puissance des exigences religieuses. Après les repas sans porc à l’école, les requêtes portent sur des menus sans viande ou halal. Tandis que la demande pour des créneaux horaires réservés aux femmes s’accroît dans les piscines et les gymnases.

and so on….

Not only that Oby, can a Hindu man pray to a Hindu deity in a Hindu temple in any Islamic country? Forget that he is not from The People of The Book, If he was a Muslim, could he have dined with an Arab Muslim on the same table with dignity? If he wanted to leave Islam, could he have survived under the Shariah rule? Can you go out in the streets of Saudi Arabia without wearing the veil and escape getting whipped to about 50 lashes, perhaps in public? Can you visit the holy cities of Makka and Medina unless you convert to Islam, no matter how much respect for Islam you have in your heart? Never mind that Kaba was originally a pre-islamic shrine, violently captured by the early Muslims and its pre-Islamic features destroyed to the last degree, its worshippers forced to submit to Islam. Is it very democratic to not allow non-Muslims there? Forget the other religions, is it very democratic to treat their fellow-Muslims like dirt because they are not Arabs?

There is really no end to this list, but what I am amazed at is that they are getting away with all this and even get supported!

Why is the democratic world not equally vocal in opposing all this? Why shouldn’t the ways of the Islamic countries be opposed?

J. Kactuz…

This is outrageous…to accommodate these things is to disrupt the entire order of society. That is what I mean that they either have to adapt or they should stay in their home countries. Sometimes I think some things are just too incompatible to coexist.

@Daisy…

Yes you are right. For myself as a Non Muslim I would perhaps expected to be regarded as a kafir, but it is simply outrageous that a fellow Muslim though he isn’t Arab be treated or thought of as not Muslim. The irony is that I am pretty sure that the Qur’an has said very clearly that that is not OK. So perhaps the Arabs are not caught up in being better Muslims but they think that because they are Arab they are the superior race. I wonder if a non Muslim Arab would view an Indian Muslim as less Muslim?

@Daisy…

I forgot to say you might very well be right…perhaps the quiet acceptance of this is due to oil…yet another reason to seek alternative energy sources.

Thanks Oby. Non-Muslim Arabs don’t have any issue with Indian Muslims. It’s only the Muslim Arabs who think no end of themselves. They forget that India has contributed more to Islamic studies than the Arab world has done in the past. The Indian Muslims are really incensed at their behaviour.

That French text in translation appears awful in its ideas. It appears as if these immigrants are doing a big favour to the companies where they are working and I don’t see why the companies have to bend backwards to accommodate them to this extent.

But again, perhaps economy is involved here too – often immigrant populations work for less wages in private companies than what a native citizen will have to be paid. So perhaps these companies don’t want to lose their profit. Otherwise I don’t understand why the people’s illegitimate demands such as these should be met with consideration, just in the name of being sensitive to the Other groups.

I would not accommodate these things even at the risk of being called islamophobic. There is a difference between being truly Islamophobic and just plain realistic. I am not saying that wanting these things is wrong…if Muslims want them and to live like that, that is their choice and right BUT they must live in societies where these things are normal. To force these issues in a country where it is not normal not only makes the population angry and resentful that one group of society is being singled out for special preference, it is simply not reasonable. Should French society change the way it does things to accommodate these minorities on such a huge scale? If that translation was accurate and I think it was a bit off but the fireman who was beat up by the husband because he had to see the man’s wife in childbirth to revive the baby??? So the father would rather the baby be dead or the mother dead? Would the father then have the right to sue if no one was able to help her due to their self imposed restrictions? This is not reasonable and the society can’t reorder itself to accommodate these sort of demands…it just can’t. The immigrants have to adapt. Someone, somewhere along the line has to say, enough is enough…we can go only so far and then that is it. If the line isn’t drawn somewhere the demands never end. If you cannot abide by the rules/customs of the country then I say you shouldn’t try to live there. What’s next? Outlawing Christmas and churches because it “offends” some people? And lest Muslims think I am singling them out I think it cuts both ways…though I think the Middle East has a long way to go in human rights they can’t reorder their entire society to accommodate the minority. It isn’t feasible.

Imagine me going to a Middle Eastern country and demanding that I be allowed to eat pork at work and if others are offended they should build me a new cafeteria. When I go to the beach I am going to wear my prettiest bikini. Oh and if that offends they should clear the beach during certain hours and days for me and others like me. And of course, when it is hot in summer I will wear my shorts and t shirt. I don’t like the fact that I can’t drive…after all, I am used to it so I think I will just ignore that rule (for KSA),on and on and on. First, if I am not arrested and thrown in jail or worse,they will laugh me out of the country. Do my demands seem reasonable? i don’t think so. The point is if you move to a country and things are not as they were at home…deal with it. If it is against your religion or you can’t manage then I guess it is a country you can’t live in. Being tolerant of others does not mean that you have to meet every desire of the immigrant. You give as much as possible and give them rights to participate fully in the society AS IT IS…it doesn’t mean that you recreate the conditions from the home country in the host country.

I am sure KSA is a lovely country in many ways. I am sure the people are hospitable…but I don’t think I could ever live there because I could not tolerate the restrictiveness. The “compounds” that expats live in are not KSA. Sure, they can live “like home” but it is a fantasy world. They could NOT do any of that in the real outside KSA world.They can live for months and years and never get to know the people. How is that any different than being in a “ghetto” in any other country? When I say ghetto I don’t mean it in the poor sense but in the sense of a homogeneous group of people living together isolated in a country.

Regarding the discussion of French Muslims’ demands in the workplace, I read the Figaro article in the original and found it a little alarmist, and collecting incidences without documenting context or statistics, eg. a Muslim man punched a male midwife for trying to deliver his baby, the emergency services (they say firemen) had to resuscitate the male mid-wife before he could proceed to do the delivery. How often does this happen? How many male midwives can there be in France? How many times does such a ridiculousness (sending a male midwife to deliver a Muslim woman without her consent) happen? Where are all the female midwives, obstetrics nurses, obgyns? Finding a female dr in a non-emergency situation isn’t that difficult these days.

The link to the original Figaro article:
http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2009/12/16/01016-20091216ARTFIG00067-islam-de-nouvelles-revendications-en-entreprise-.php

A link to another Figaro article detailing how a right wing party (but not extreme right) wants the burka to be banned not only in government settings as Sarkozy proposed but everywhere:
http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2009/12/16/01016-20091216ARTFIG00064-les-deputes-ump-veulent-interdire-totalement-la-burqa-.php

Another article summarizing the work of Anthropologist Dounia Bouzar, who is specialized in work relations of Muslims.
http://eco.rue89.com/2009/12/03/de-la-cantine-au-foulard-cinq-casse-tete-pour-lislam-en-entreprise-128473

She identifies 5 workplace challenges in her published report on a study she conducted in France:

Allah a-t-il sa place dans l’entreprise ? de Dounia et Lylia Bouzar – éd. Albin Michel – 216 p. – 15€.

[Does Allah have a place in the business world]

1. The Cafeteria–officially everyone is happy, but one group must eat sandwiches or reheat food while the rest go to the cafeteria (freshly prepared hot food at midday is a French norm)

2. Holidays–no one questions that the official holidays follow the Catholic tradition, but Muslims most take time off paid or unpaid to celebrate Muslim holidays like the 2 Eids.

3. Fasting for Ramadan–Some see flexible work hours for Ramadan as a manipulation on the part of Muslims, to get more advantages than their non-Muslim colleagues. Bosses may wonder if their employees who are fasting are fully competent at their work during that time. However this is generally an accepted norm now.

4. Prayer times and space–this is seen by co-workers as an attempt to proselytize, and a failure of respect for non-Muslims. In order to be able to pray in peace, an employee is often encouraged to do so without formalizing the process, eg just slip a way and find an empty space, like someone making a personal phone call would

5. The headscarf–this is also seen as an affront to non-Muslims. Women who wear the headscarf are perceived as a homogenous group, and Other, to the point where often all communication among colleagues excludes them.

Dounia Boujar emphasizes 2 main points in dealing with these challenges:

1. Do not accept just anything and everything in the name of Islam, for fear of being called a racist.
2. Do not ask for or accept the employees interpretation of Islam.

ie don’t tolerate dysfunctionality, eg a man harassing a woman colleague about the length of her skirt, disguised as Islam.

Boujar seems to advocate establishing norms of religious accomodation in the company’s HR policy and then have all employees adhere to that; yet religion is not to run the workplace.

This is what happens in Canada, in regard to all religious practices, as defended by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (our Bill of Rights). eg. You don’t have to celebrate Canada Day if you are a Jehovah’s Witness, but you can’t stop the secretary from putting a flag on her desk (happened at work)

“one group must eat sandwiches or reheat food while the rest go to the cafeteria (freshly prepared hot food at midday is a French norm)”

Muslims could try doing what the Chinese do: Motor Trend had an article a few years back about workers in a Chinese toy car factory. If the quality of the factory kitchen slipped the workers would quit en masse and switch to the factory across the street.

The phrase here is ‘reasonable accommodation’. That means making changes that don’t interrupt work excessively, don’t call for major financial charges to the employer, don’t excessively inconvenience other employees, and are done in good faith and across the board, i.e., no favoritism.

It’s not the norm in the US to have policemen wearing turbans, but somehow various jurisdictions found that allowing their Sikh employees to do just that was not as disruptive as they’d first imagined. Wearing a kirpan, however, presents other issues–like public safety and confidence–that usually lead to other results, though not always. There’s currently a case in federal courts over whether a kirpan can be worn in federal offices. But wearing a knife while driving a school bus? That’s going to raise problems for many non-Sikhs.

If a restriction is truly job-related, then it need not be changed to accommodate a member of a religion who is inconvenienced. Most restrictions, though, aren’t actually job-related, but instead reflections of cultural preferences. In many, the preferences should take second place to religious sensibilities; in some, they should not. Again, as others have noted, when you come to a country, you’ve some aspect of the guest about you. Guests do not tell hosts how to cook dinner or clean the house.

The phrase here is ‘reasonable accommodation’.

Yes, I agree. Everyone is entitled to that.

For example in Chiara’s example above about people having to take unpaid time to celebrate Eid. i think a person celebrating Eid should be able to take off time and not be penalized for it. I can’t imagine people(non muslims) would balk at making it official and they too have the day off as Muslims probably do for Christmas. I don’t understand her #3 above so I can’t comment.I think #4 slipping away quietly seems to be a reasonable solution. The non Muslims are not offended and the Muslims are not denied their prayer time. Am I missing something in that one? #5 I have a problem with that one…but not with the Muslims…with the non Muslims. I think it is wrong to disinclude someone because they wear a headscarf. If they are wanting to engage with their co workers and the non Muslims won’t talk to them due to that, that is simply wrong in my opinion. The things mentioned are all quite reasonable and seem on the face of it, fairly easy to implement. In a non emergency situation it should not be difficult to find a female to help with delivery…perhaps the translation left a lot to be desired…it was much more intense.

I still think however, no matter how hard one tries to accommodate others there will always be someone who is not satisfied. It is impossible to please everyone equally. In that case, I think the default should fall to the host country and their traditions. The immigrant (be it someone coming here or someone going there-say KSA for example) is coming to the host country and that countries citizens should not be put in upheaval for the immigrants. As John said they are going to someone else’s “house” and should blend in as much as they can which I think is part of being a good guest or citizen.

John–Yes, reasonable accomodation is just that. For example, most university campuses in Canada provide a prayer space for Muslims, but they don’t build a mosque on campus. Halal choices are provided in cafeterias, and they are kept separate with separate utensils from the non-halal ones, some cafeterias (where there is a high enough Muslim student population) are halal only (everyone may eat there).

Oby–Regarding #3, in Muslim countries work hours during Ramadan may be shortened or started earlier and the normal breaks skipped to leave earlier, eg. normal hours in Morocco were 8-12, then 2-6. Ramadan hours were sometimes 8-2. In Western countries one could adjust hours on “flex time” which is often offered for other employees, eg one secretary I know works 7-3 instead of the usual 9-5; a friend whose wife was hospitalized started work in a pharmacy an hour earlier than usual, and skipped all his breaks to leave 2 hours ahead of normal. One could allow Muslims to alter there hours, or take lieu time, or work extra hours before or after Ramadan to make it easier for them to perform well at work while maintaining their fast. Elementary schools here provide and alternate room for Muslim students during the lunch period during Ramadan where children go and members of the community lead prayers, and give religious instruction, or organize activities. According to this report, in France while people are not happy about such accomodations, they are accepted.

#4–slipping away quietly is a good solution if there is a place that is guaranteed to be and remain free for the time of prayers, and is suitable for praying, ie not the hallway, not the dirty landing on the staircase, not within earshot of others if there is a group praying simultaneously (all of which were tried and failed at one university library. My experience with Muslim friends is that they just tell me or signal they are going to pray, go off and are back in a few minutes. It doesn’t seem that hard to make accomodation for this, that wouldn’t leave anyone feeling that there were any attempts at conversion going on.

#5 I agree that a headscarf should not impede normal communications no matter what it symbolizes, but a huge issue of it has been made in France.

My Google Translate won’t let me look at what it does with the Figaro article, but the language in the article is somewhat inflammatory, complaining of a number of incidences per week of Muslims refusing to have obstetric attention from men. It describes one incident with a male mid-wife who was called urgently, and was punched in the face by the husband. Having worked obstetrics, and worked in France, including visiting maternity clinics, I just find it hard to imagine that this is a major issue. The slippery slope of first you provide a halal meal choice and next you are building a whole separate company cafeteria I find similarly exaggerated. The UMP party mentioned is the centre-right party of Chirac and now Sarkozy, the latter of whom as Minister of the Interior called the rioting French youth of Arab origin in their suburban ghettos “la racaille” (trash) and refused to take appropriate measures to calm the situation. As a re-election ploy (both the R and L French newspapers say so) he proposed the ban on the burka (ie the face veil and full cover).

If one is a tourist or a guest worker, one is under more obligation to blend in; if one is a full immigrant, or the child of immigrants in a country that claims Liberty, Fraternity, and Equality for all, one should have a little more say.

In some sorts of jobs, shifting hours for Ramadan observers can be done without too much fuss. It doesn’t work on production lines, though. When you’re in a plant that runs around the clock, it is not reasonable to let someone leave a shift early or arrive late, without discommoding every other worker. Sometimes, as in metal smelting, you simply cannot shut down the plant without huge expense and possible damage to the equipment.

A bus driver who has to take a short day for religious purposes isn’t terribly useful. Sure, sometimes a substitute can be found for a day or two, but for a month?

Note that places that provide halal meals also tend to provide Kosher meals. They’ll also make accommodations for vegetarians, not not always vegans. But some workplaces simply cannot reasonably accommodate all religious needs of the workforce, particularly if they’re small companies. They don’t need to be offensive about it, but sometimes desires can’t be met. There, the employee has to do the accommodating, by bringing his/her own meal.

People have so many dietary restrictions–gluten-free, lactose-free, lacto-ovo vegetarian, etc.–that you have to be a pretty huge organization to afford to meet everyone’s ‘needs’.

Thanks Chiara and John…good explanations and ideas.

Oby,
In the case of minorities in the Islamic countries – blending in is one thing, being coerced into following their laws is another. For example, you can wear clothes that cover most of your body, why do you have to wear a veil as a foreigner or get whipped for it in Saudi Arabia? Why can’t you talk to men in streets as a foreigner? OK pork can’t be sold there and you should be content with other kind of meat. Perhaps you shouldn’t insist on wearing bikinis on the beach, but what’s wrong in eating during fast time if you are not a Muslim? Why must you be whipped and jailed for all these “crimes” in Saudi Arabia? And then, why should you accommodate them in your country by bending backwards?

John,
Yes, work times can be changed durng Ramzan, but they SHOULD NOT be changed even if it appears insensitive. They have gone there to work and live, they know fully well the timings for work and they better work during normal time. Yes, Eid should be a holiday just as Christmas.

Whether it is work related or culture related, no community should be given extra pampering in an egalitarian democracy and no community should demand this kind of pampering from the State.

Perhaps you’ll like to know India has a democratic constitution but these kind of concessions are NOT made in India. Yes, festivals of all religions are granted as official holidays, thus making India perhaps the country with maximum number of holidays in the world, considering its numerous religions. But work times are not changed during Ramzan. Non-Muslims are not expected to refrain from eating in public during fast time – and they do keep on eating during fast time even in company of Muslims. Important things such as exams, official meetings, interviews, class lectures etc. are not rescheduled because of fast hours. Women wear whatever clothes they feel comfortable wearing and no one will listen to the Muslims’ demand of women covering their arms and head. Muslims don’t make such unacceptable demands here.

And Indian Muslims take great pride in the fact that they can carry on with their normal work activities despite being on fast and can refrain from having a desire to eat even if they see their non-Muslim friends eating. They don’t demand that the non-Muslim population should pamper them by doing everything their way – and they shouldn’t demand this either. This is unreasonable and they know it well.

In fact the more I read about the unreasonable attitudes of Arab Muslims in the West, the more I value the reasonable and understanding behaviour of Indian Muslims towards the non-Indian population. I must admit that all my life I had taken all this from Indian Muslims as normal, only now I have begum to really appreciate it in them, when I read about the absolutely unacceptable behaviour of Muslims elsewhere.

I do feel it’s time the democratic countries insert a clause in their constitution that the constition can be ammended only to such an extent so that it doesn’t change the nature of the basic democratic spirit of the constitution.

John– of course any accommodation would have to be reasonable and safe in the given workplace conditions. Regarding Ramadan it happens in a predictable fashion and so provision could be made, eg. in a factory setting working straight “days” ie 7-3 shifts or 8-4 shifts in a trade off with another worker willing to work straight afternoons (3-11; 4-12) or straight nights (11-7; 12-8), as some people do prefer a specific shift and it is the change around from one week to the next which gives shift workers a statistically significant shorter life span.

Most plants that I am aware of cannot be shut down whether because of the collapse of equipment from cooling (eg a coke oven) or just economic hardship, but that is not being suggested.
Another alternative would be to put the person on light duties, rather than have them light-headed while stranding, or guide setting, and falling onto a bar of molten steel. Perhaps it wouldn’t be necessary but it might be an option, even for part of a shift. Most young shift workers in a unionized plant that I know of would be happy to do a little overtime and cover a couple of hours of someone else’s shift, however depending on the contract that might result in extra cost to the plant, but not always (eg double time, or time and a half doesn’t always kick in unless you are above a certain number of overtime hours).

Bus drivers could make similar type accomodations potentially, especially since again Ramadan is a predictable occurrence, no need to be scrambling to cover shifts at the last minute.

I agree that accommodation is harder in smaller places, or where there is a very small minority of persons with whatever preferences, but most Muslims I know, like most Jews I know are very good at picking out the vegetarian dishes or bringing what they need (unleavened bread, for example), or want with them. The Figaro article addresses major institutions.

Most of the time, accommodations are made fairly easily locally, but it is difficult when there is no policy backing it up so that if there is an unaccommodating boss or staff the person is still within their right.

I do think it is important to read these articles in their national political context: ie the platform of the right, with upcoming elections, and a leader, Sarkozy, who has already made a point of focusing on such Muslim concerns as a political strategy–and again it was le Figaro, among other papers that said so last June when he first launched his burka ban.

Oby–you are welcome.

Daisy..

After knowing my husband I am convinced that India is a very different country than many of the other countries in the world. It might have to do with the religion of Hinduism…accepting fate etc. or what i think is more likely when you have a billion plus people jammed into a country the size of Texas you MUST get along with your neighbor because you are living in such close proximity. Also I think in many ways the nature of Indians is to be “workable” as in “everything is workable”. I must have heard this a million times from my husband before we got married. He told me Indians are not a heavily dogmatic people and really value the ability to “go with the flow” in many ways. He said “look at Hinduism…except for people who emmigrated and took it with them it exists no where else in the world like here. That is because Indians are not dogmatic and have no interest in converting anyone to their religion. If they want to join us great…if not that is fine too.” He also talks about how Muslim and non Muslim Indians get along daily. I think it is the innate nature of the people and their willingness to accept the “otherness” of people that allows them to get along, Muslim and non Muslim alike.

Oby,
Thanks, I take it as a compliment. If only other countries could take a leaf from India, they wouldn’t have so many problems. I am not saying India doesn’t have problems, but we seem to have much less inter-religious problems than many other countries. Despite having so many religions here, we seem to be doing quite alright. Of course, sometimes we go off the track in a quite unpleasant way, but we can get back to the track fairly quickly.

The people who argue that accommodations should be made for Muslims or any other groups in the Western workplace don’t know what kind of problems they are getting their country into. There is really no end to these things and then why only for Muslims? Why not for other communities? Do you know how many holidays there are in a Hindu calendar? Almost half of the year is full of festivals. And you also have Jains and Sikhs and Buddhists with their own religious rules and regulations. You are not doing a service to your country by making such allowances.

You should thank the Hindu and other non-Muslim immigrants that they are not making such unreasonable demands. And it is better not to give them ideas by pampering the Arab Muslims. After all these other immigrants too are humans and their understanding attitudes can be tested only to a point.

Daisy…

I agree with you and have very conflicted feelings about it. On the one hand America thinks of itself as a multicultural society whose identity was formed by many immigrants. We ARE a nation where almost everyone here is from somewhere else originally and I am not talking that far back…200 years or so. So in order to form as a nation we have had to in some ways adapt to many of the differences people bring with them. And I do think people who come to any country, not just America, should have equal rights…something that is sorely lacking in the Middle East and frankly it bugs me that people who will not grant others the most minor of civil rights are so outspoken when they even perceive that the smallest of their rights are not met. It seems very much like the pot calling the kettle black to me.

On the other hand, BECAUSE we have so many different nationalities that make up the USA it would not be possible to tailor the society to everyone and nor do I think we should. This is America. If a person wants to live here then they should accept/respect the way of life or at the very least do your best to adapt. No one says you can’t eat your foods at home or even in the restaurants outside, or celebrate your holidays, or speak your native language at home etc. I am sure I would if I moved elsewhere. But I have no right to go to a foreign country and demand “my rights” when it is so diametrically opposed to the way the society functions. I was being over the top silly in my example above about bikini wearing but I was trying to prove a point. There are some rights that are just not feasible when you are living in a country that has such different cultural norms than your own. I would NEVER even think about demanding the rights I mentioned above. I said them precisely because they are so incompatible with Saudi society.

I do think people should have the right to worship, and the right to work etc. and if you are a citizen the same rights as Americans or French such as voting. But I don’t think having rights extends to changing the culture to fit your desires. I have no problems with small adaptations…but the le Figaro article said that(and again I think the translation was off because Chiara gave a different view)the Muslims in France are demanding that swimming pools close at certain times to all others except Muslim women who want to swim alone…(hence my bikini, close the beaches example). That to me is not OK. That is adapting too much. If you can’t swim with men or non Muslims then don’t swim. I couldn’t go swimming in anything other than an abaya in KSA and I wouldn’t do that so the end result is I wouldn’t swim…period. That is disruption of the society. If they are unable to manage these things then I don’t think that they should live in a different country. They need to live where it is normal to segregate…And I don’t mean this only for Muslims…it just so happens we were talking about them. It goes for anyone else. There are far too many people to accommodate for the society to do it without becoming a mess. And as wrong as it might sound I don’t think there is anything wrong with any country saying that this is our country…this is our culture and our society and you have to adapt to us not the other way around.

I’d like you to read this article Daisy…I think it summarizes very nicely what I am trying to say. It is called “The key to rubbing along in perfect harmony” and talks about knowing how to adapt when you are the minority…any minority. I thought it was very well written and sums it up nicely. If you have trouble getting to it let me know.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/libby_purves/article6908785.ece

Chiara, you miss the point – these disputes are not about accommodation, much to the contrary. They are about intimidation and politics. They are less about “off time” and food then about “we are here” and “in your face.” They are a message to non-Muslims that “we are different” and “you must be nice to us or else.” These disputes are a message to non-muslims.

Yes, the Figaro examples may be extreme but these things happen daily, hundreds of times, all over the Western world as Muslims demand special rights. It is foot washes, prayer rooms, special food, no food, dress codes, vocabulary, dogs, pictrures, and I could go on page after page. Until about 20-30 years ago, even when Muslims were already in the West, these demands were unheard of. Now it is different. Radical Islam is on the move and all MUslims are a part of it, like they it or not.

This is the true meaning of the minarets. As far as I am converned there is no “reasonable” accomodation because any change made will soon be followed by more demands. The vote was a message to Muslims.

Besides, this whole time-off for Ramadan thing is silly. Do you think that Muslims don’t fudge the times for fasting? In case you don’t know, Muslims in very high latitudes (north and South) dont follow the quranic injunction. It seems that Mohammud was unaware of the axial precession and inclination of the earth in its rotation. Add to this the regression of the primeval lunar Islamic calendar in relation to the solar calendar we use and the result will be, in a few years, 22 hours of Ramadan fasting. Or worse, above the Artic Circle, Muslims will have to fast several months. So what do they do? Out goes the Quran and in comes universal Mecca time. What I am saying is that Muslims have no problem bending rules when they want to.

Note also that the so-called moderate Muslims usually go along with these demands, adding to the negative impression of Muslims as a group. One thing I have noticed over the years is that a single Muslim, by himself/herself, is much more reasonable than in a group. In a one-to-one conversation, a Muslim will say things he/she will never say in a group. It seems that there is a strong self-policing element (fear?) in Islam. That is just an observation. It would make an interesting clinical study.

Daisy–other non-Muslim groups do ask for and receive accommodation. In Canada the only official accepted change to the Mountie uniform (our iconic RCMP Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who serve both as a federal, and in some provinces as the provincial police, AKA state trooper, and our FBI) is a Sikh turban in the same colour as the beige Mountie hat. The same for municipal police forces, and the armed services. After a landmark case, Sikh children have the right to wear a kirpan to school. Adult men also wear their kirpan, some more discreetly than others; the one who spends a lot of time in the library and is well-known for his all white traditional dress, had an 8 inch kirpan clearly visible. Rather remarkable given that Sikh Canadians are also (in)famous for the Air India disaster. My sister teaches elementary school, and has accommodated many South Asian religions and cultures for their various holidays, and the penchant to take their children out of school for a month for a “visit back home”. Recently, enough children were excused from class to demonstrate in defense of the Tamil Tigers that new lessons were delayed. Again interesting, in that Canada is one of the few countries to list them officially as a terrorist group. My mother respected that her Jehovah’s Witness high school student was not allowed by his religion to stand for the daily national anthem over the school PA, but she couldn’t tolerate him sitting through it which was for her a sign of disrespect, so they agreed he would walk out of the class as soon as it was time for the anthem, wait in the hall, and return as soon as the anthem was over–an easy accommodation between 2 people which didn’t alter the functioning of the school or the class.

Oby–women’s only swims already exist, and are relatively easily accommodated, in Canada for one. They exist in places that already had them for ladies who don’t want to be swimming with men, because of body image issues, or preference; and have been accommodated specifically by certain YWCA’s where there is a high Muslim population (eg in Montreal) or at universities (eg Ryerson University in Toronto). Saudi accommodates Western swimming attire on private beaches, in compound pools, etc. Given that most Western expats are on a generous contract, and are aware, this would seem to me to be sufficient. Also most are on short term contracts, or are long term guest workers, so there is no illusion of immigration, and it is an absolute monarchy so no illusion of joining “the will of the people”. In other words, both places accommodate within the confines of their own ethos.

John–I think this discussion of multiculturalism is marked by the participants’ adherence to the Canadian mosaic model (more a patch-worked cohesion with higher tolerance of retaining features of the culture of origin) or the American melting pot model (a more homogeneous weave of cultures). What say you? And how many mixed metaphors are in that sentence even after I took one out! LOL

Jay–we are so simpatico our comments even posted at the same time. Hmmm well, not exactly like-minded though. The articles cited do address accomodation more than organized demands by the French Muslim Congress, the Mufti of Paris or any other institutionalized Islamic group. The politics of it have far more to do with the UMP and Sarkozy trying to get the far right and the centre left onside than anything more Eurabic.

30 years ago the Muslim population of France was comprised of “travailleurs immigrés” uneducated, often illiterate in any language, peasants (in the best sense of the term) and workers from North Africa looking to make enough money to survive and support a family (eg Rachida Dati’s parents). Now it is comprised of their children, who, like Rachida Dati herself, are educated and comfortable in French society. They are skilled workers, professionals, and politicians, like Dati. They did then, and do now, acculturate, for fear of reprisal, or because they are already Gallicized.

I do know about fast fudging both for geographical location (which has been officially resolved for those who care to do a fast), and individual preference, eg. friends, relatives, the guys at the Middle Eastern take out, and the hub, of course. Some of these are highly observant, and all know how to fudge with the best of them should they so choose.

I personally favor the ‘melting pot’ model, but that’s not what’s current in the US these days… ‘too dismissive’ of other cultures.

Rather, ‘stew pot’ (big chunks, each with its separate identity, floating around in the prevailing culture) or ‘salad bowl’ (discrete elements sort of sitting next to each other) are the popularly prevailing models. That, at least, is what our educators and politically sensitive folks prefer…

Chiara,
That’s the point I’m making. If you begin granting these kinds of concessions, there is no end to them. They will simply trample over you if you bend too much backwards. So far you’ve counted Sikhs, Muslims and Tamil Srilankans. There are so many more groups there. How far can you take it?

There also conflicting ideologies amongst themselves. If you try to appease one, you may in fact be hurting the sentiments of another. That would be another complicated problem.

The truth is, when they applied for immigration, they knew very well that this host country is different from their own culture, but they still wanted to go. In that case they should better adapt to the host environment.

I think they also see these host countries as a “soft” target, whom they can bully into bending backwards. Your countries need to be strict in these matters. Otherwise you people are in for big time trouble in future.

Oby,
Thanks for the link. I’ll go through it. I of course agree with you.

John,
How about the bricks-and-plaster-model?

Daisy…

‘I think they also see these host countries as a “soft” target, whom they can bully into bending backwards. Your countries need to be strict in these matters. Otherwise you people are in for big time trouble in future.’

Exactly! All anyone needs to do is scream “racism” and everyone goes running and scrambling so they aren’t thought of as racist and bending over backwards to prove it…well to me that is just completely nuts! We in this world MUST recognize that there are many different and often conflicting societal norms in this world. That doesn’t mean that “ours” is better than “theirs”. I think if it works for the people they are equally valid…but to think that you can combine them and make everyone happy and nice is fooling yourself and complete PC propaganda. The reason is that someone will invariably be left feeling cheated no matter what you do.And that does not only apply to the USA or the West. It applies equally to the Middle East. Do you really think that people in those countries are going to be happy and warmly embracing of the rights of Westerners or do you think it more likely that they will view them with resentment and suspicion? I think there is absolutely nothing wrong in protecting or keeping your society the way you want it. (and I DON”T mean no foreigners or racially pure) Let’s face it…KSA is the absolute master at this and in my opinion have gone waaay too far in the opposite direction to maintain purity to the exclusion of all others. No other religion except Islam as a law? PLEASE! and I wonder if you took a poll and asked the people if they would want that law overturned if they would say yes…I kinda doubt it. Yet they scream and yell when they don’t get some right in the West. That to me is THE definition of racist. Yes, KSA lets expats in and yes they let in immigrant workers but are they REALLY part of society? Are they allowed citizenship? Can they vote? Can they worship freely in the general society (not in secret or behind closed doors), can they wear the clothes they like? Are they integrated in any way as they are allowed to be in the West? No, not possible. Here, we try to make allowances for people because we consider ourselves democratic and open minded. But there has to be limits to the allowances. You have to draw the line somewhere and say this is who we are…this is what we believe and this is how our culture functions. These are our parameters and if you can live with that then come on down! You are welcome to participate in our society and we will welcome you to contribute to our societies and be a part of our societies as a full fledged member. BUT that doesn’t mean you get to transplant your culture here and make our society like yours. As unPC as it is that is how I feel. Yes we are tolerant. But being tolerant does NOT mean we should be accepting of intolerance from the very people that demand our tolerance toward them. Tolerance should not be synonymous with doormat.

Finally, if the people who live here and aspire to come here do not have the desire to become part of the country and embrace it rather than rape and abuse it’s resources while maintaining their own cultural identity in it’s entirety without seeing themselves as American then they are not invested in the country. It looses it’s cohesion and strength and identity. I think in some ways KSA understands that and might be why they keep some people(expats/immigrant workers) at arms length …yes you might be Italian or Mexican or Arab or Swedish or what have you but if you don’t think of yourself as an American then in fact you are not really part of the country and only another foreigner mentally, living physically in the USA. And IMO due to too much political correctness that is the situation that we have in America today. Too many foreigners don’t think of themselves as Americans and are not invested in the culture and country. Why try? They don’t have to. Everyone is bending over backward to accommodate them and meet them at their level. Not require them to become fully integrated in the country. And that to me is the beginning of the end of a country.

I’m not familiar with that ‘bricks-and-plaster’. Could you expand?

You know, I’m not ready to accept that one culture may not be better than another…

Of course, one has to describe the dimension being compared, but I’ll be happy to state that, in the dimension of human rights and liberties, the West is far, far better than Middle Eastern culture. On a different dimension, one might come to other conclusions, such as, well, I don’t know what, actually!

John…

In terms of human rights I agree. What I am saying is that if aspects of a culture work for the people in that culture and they like it despite it’s being “wrong” for us then it is valid for them in the context of that culture.

I’ll provisionally agree. But what if, just to pull an example out of the air, you have a culture that ‘worked’ for, say, 1,400 years? And that culture is now starting to fray at the edges, lead to results that are not favorable to the citizens. Is it still a ‘valid’ culture? Does everyone else have to stand aside and watch the wheels come off? Or can outsiders legitimately say, “Hey, look out! You’re heading toward the edge of a cliff!”?

I completely agree. I think it would be wrong not to tell them that things are “not working”. Sometimes you are to close to the forst to see the trees. The trick is if the people like that aspect of the culture and they identify with it you can stand there with the world’s largest mirror it might not change anything. And unless the wheels coming off harms us in some way I am not sure we have a right to force a change on someone.

And I will provisionally agree that not every aspect of every culture would be valid. I am thinking for example, women who want to cover completely due to religious beliefs and be segregated. That might be valid in their culture and world. It might make them happy and feel respected. Who am I to tell them that I think they should change because I see it as a repressive practice?

John and Oby,
That’s what I am trying to argue – the kind of laws KSA has were valid for pre-modern times, they are no longer valid in today’s context and certainly they can’t impose these laws in their country, on their citizens as well as on foreigners and expect to be treated with respect in the West. It’s high time the world tells them the wheels of KSA are coming apart and no point in thinking everything they do is right and superior to everything everyone else is doing.

It is also interesting to note that we don’t look at the West with the same kind of sensitivity – the world isn’t saying majority of the Swiss don’t want the minarets so let’s accept this fact, but somehow it’s expected of the democratic world to argue that majority of Saudis want the relligious police so let’s accept this fact. Theirs is a different culture and they have a claim to it, but the Swiss aren’t supposed to have a different culture vis-a-vis the Arabs.

Oby, as I said earlier, in India many women wear the veil even if there is no law about it and no one thinks it’s strange and no one tries to tell them to change their dress code. The point is it’s not imposed on them from the State – they think it’s right for them, so they wear it. And there is nothing wrong in that. This practice becomes wrong when it is imposed by an oppressive regime with consequences of inhuman punishments if they don’t comply. And it becomes even more wrong if this oppressive regime imposes it even on its non-Muslim foreign women visitors, with the same consequences of inhuman punishments. I am not against either the bikini or the veil – I feel comfortable around women who wear either of these or any other dress, what I am opposing is the repressive imposition of a lifestyle by the State on its people.

John, the popular consent for this kind of State oppression is also subtly built by the State through school textbooks, which tell the children why these laws are valid and relate them to their supposed cultural or religious superiority.

I was quite shocked that Saudi religious scholars were amongst the people who opposed the Swiss ban! There is a limit to even hypocrisy and it shows how much like a doormat they see the West. Personally, I am opposed to the ban because from an Indian perspective it appears strange – I don’t think India will ever have this debate about whether we should have the minarets or whether the Muslim women should refrain from wearing the Burqa. But Saudi scholars opposing the ban is too much for me to digest. I think it’s an insult to the democratic world and ideally, KSA should apologise to the world for this. But no one has the courage to demand this apology from the KSA.

And because I can’t accept this Saudi hypocrisy, I feel that any opposiion to the Swiss vote must coincide with a simultaneous critique of the policies of the Shariah-ruled countries, so that people can see things in perspective, and not simply think that it’s only the European countires that are close-minded. Ther is a reason why this anxiety has emerged in the West.

John–thanks for wading in to the melting pot. I have not been aware of a stewpot or salad bowl conflicting model in the US. Could you give me an example. All I can think of is the movement to make some states or even the country officially bilingual English-Spanish, or Obama celebrating various holidays or wishing people a Happy Diwali. Since Canada has had 2 official languages since its inception, and we routinely celebrate anyone’s holidays these seem benign to me.

Daisy–I gave those examples because you were addressing South Asian culture, but in fact the point is that we are accepting of all. Long before we had significant South Asian populations we have been accepting and allowing and accommodating. Multi-culturalism was made an official federal government policy established in the 70′s by Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and has never changed. Again under Trudeau it was made part of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the early 80′s. We draw the line at Sharia Family Law–famously almost occurred in Ontario, until Muslim and particularly Iranian women immigrants destroyed the proposal– and female genital excision, which became an issue in the medical community with the influx of Somali refugees/immigrants. Those are the 2 most concrete lines I can think of. Anything else that is against normal zoning laws would apply to all, eg. where to raise animals, cook outdoors, discharge firearms, domestic violence (honor killings are investigated and then charged as either 1st or 2nd degree murder depending on proof of intent and planning), etc.

It really isn’t all that difficult. All major government materials or public health materials are issued in English, French and relevent other languages. eg. the clinic where I received my H1N1 shot had signs in English, French, Spanish, Italian, Arabic, Chinese, and Sinhalese. All the security guards were South Asian (some with and some without turban). The nurse who injected me was Ethiopian (and knew my Etbiopian physician friend), and the coordinators were all WASPs (or could pass). There are more homogenous areas of Canada, of course, but this is rather typical for a city.

The only differences in the models are the degrees of homogenization. Large, discrete pieces of a culture–large enough to start demanding unreasonable accommodation. Imagine a Cobb Salad. Or smaller pieces, like a stew, where you recognize the different elements, but they get along pretty well together. Or, for the mixing pot, all sort of blended together, with different elements adding to the whole while not really maintaining a clear identity. Imagine a cheese fondue, if you will, in which you can’t find anything visually reminiscent of the ingredients other than the underlying cheese.

John,
Brick-and-plaster model is roughly what India is doing in context to its many religions and culture that have to be accommodated in its secular democratic structure. The State doesn’t interfere in the practices of any group and people are free to practice their cultural or religious norms. This keeps the bricks in their shape. But at the same time, these bricks are not supposed to make indents into the democratic structure of the State. So festivals from all religions are official holidays, Sikhs can wear their turbans to work. Women can roam in the streets in Burqa or in any other Western or Indian dress they like. State doesn’t interfere with all this. But, their religious practices are not supposed to interfere with the functioning of the State structure – they can’t demand rescheduling of work hours during Ramzan, or that women waiters in food joints should cover their arms and hair or that a swimming pool should be cleared out because some women want to swim there. There is a clear understanding that a line is drawn at a point and different groups aren’t supposed to overstep that line.

The plaster part comes in the form of the cementing process done by the State in the form of building an understanding of each other’s traditions. It is strongly inculcated in school education that all religons are equal and we must repect all religions. At the same time primary school text books present to the children different religious personalities – eg, some Hindu saints, Prophet Muhammad, Jesus Christ, Guru Nanak, Mahavir, Buddha etc. as “our great leaders.” Please note the stress on “our” – this conveys the message to the children that all these traditions are our common heritage and not belonging to one or the other group. There may be another presentation of festivals from different religions as “our festivals” or historical monuments from different religions as “our great monuments.” The way these are presented is aimed at building a feeling that all these traditions are common traditions for every Indian. Similarly, biographies of social and political thinkers are also presented together as part of a common tradition of India that has led to the making of the modern Indian nation as a democratic country. In the context of the Western countries, such presentations can be combined with the major Western thinkers of democracy, social justice and equality to show how these countries have achieved their democratic structure and how important it is to maintain it.

This kind of teaching at primary school level goes a long way in building a culture of mutual understanding. Indian State has made very conscious efforts to carry out this cementing process and I feel this brick-and-plaster model is a good choice for multicultural democracies.

Chiara, you are probably right about us not thinking alike, even if thinking is not my forte, as you know.

I wonder about France – even after all these years I not sure I understand the gallic mind. I have had quite a bit of contact with France, with a kid living there for a while and a daughter in Geneva for many years. One of my sons was often mistaken for an Arab there because of his complexion (he has his mother’s color), and he has some strange stories. Another was mistaken for “one of the poor immigrant street children of Paris” by a stupid American tourist (who had no idea that he spoke English) because he was with sleeping on a sidewalk in that city. It was during the 1988 World Cup in the streets of Paris and he was with Brazilian friends, camping out. You known how Brazilians are about football (well, maybe not like Algeria and Egypt). I guess I am stuck on France because tonight is France night here at the house – we are even watching Indochine with Catherine Denevue. One thing is certain, France has changed – even their attitudes. My French friends (expatriates) just shake their head when we talk about France. I was also a great fan of De Gaulle. Like him or not you knew where he stood. He must be turning over in his grave. Did you know he had a daughter with Down’s syndrome? It is a sad, touching story. When she died, he said “Maintenant, elle est comme les autres.”

Anyway, in honor of France, I give you a scene from Casablanca, one of the best in movie history.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KL76edqCKc

I also wonder when John sleeps since he posts every 4 hours of so. Anyway, let me say that French food is not all that great. Give me comida italiana any day over snails.

Thanks for spelling it out. If it works, then it seems fine.

I question, though, whether it really is working. The Hindutva movement doesn’t seem to want to play by the same rules, for example, and while they’re no longer running the national government, they hold powerful sway in some areas, like Mubai. Given that Mumbai has a population nearly equal to the number of all Saudis, that’s not an insignificant number.

John–who has both soppressata and escargot in his cupboard, right next to the Thai basil in oil, the nopalitas, and the smoked herring–splits his day as the mood takes him!

Yes, it’s true the Hindutva forces have been rising and there is also a strong counter movement to contain them. In fact when they were in power they tried to change the text books – they understood the value of this primary level teaching. But there were wide oppositions to this. And when they went out of power, the older text book models were brought back in place. This shows how important the State sees this school level moulding of minds.

And the reason why they went out of power is that people realised they didn’t want their kind of ideology so they were voted out. I am not saying they are completely down and out, but their influence is certainly waning now – at least for ten years they are not coming back to power and 10 yrs mean a lot in democratic politics. If you look at the popular level, they don’t have as much support now as they did for some time.

When I was in India, the BJP and Vajpay were in power. It wasn’t all that long after the disaster at the Babri Mosque. That sort of jaded my opinion of how smoothly Indian democracy works, I’m afraid. Too many dealing with Bal Thackery, too, I guess…

The attempt to re-write Indian history for the text books was in full cry, as you noted.

But the BJP is out; Congress is in.

Yes and the inter-faith crimes they committed led to their downfall. Otherwise their economic policies weren’t all that bad. But people realised they couldn’t have these people in power. It’s really sad we can’t have the Babri Mosque back. if only they hadn’t mixed religion with politics, they might have challenged the Congress for a long time but they didn’t understand that this was not the way to govern a multi-cultural society.

It’s not as if people are enamoured by the Congress, but basically they want to keep the BJP out of power, so they’ve voted for Congress and will again vote for it in the next elections. It’s basically a vote for the lesser evil.

BJP managed to play on the insecurities of the majority community in India, the kind we are discussing here in context of the West. But that didn’t work for long.

Since we have had this experience I am arguing that there needs to be a cementing process carried out by the State in the multicultural countries in the West. If you keep on giving undue concessions to immigrants, the insecurities in the native population will grow and that can take very harmful turns in future. These concessions can certainly be made, but it’s not very wise to do this in the long run.

John–thanks for the explanation. I prefer something lumpier than fondue, in this instance.

Jay–thank you for the story about DeGaulle. Did you also know he used the formal “vous” with his children and wife? It was customary at that time in that social circle. Ah, Casablanca, one of the best films of all time!

Daisy–I do think that in your love for your country and culture, you sometimes minimize the ethnic and religious difficulties within India. Also multiculturalism can function better than bricks and mortar, by conceptualizing “us” rather than ceding concessions to an insatiable “them”.

Chiara,
I am aware that there are problems in India and am very critical of the people who are creating these problems – regardless of the community they come from, even if my own. But the Indian society has been also trying to correct these problems especially since we had the Hindutva uprising. Now it seems the country is getting back on track again. I of course don’t say that some problem won’t arise in future.

I feel it’s important to see why certain groups are able to capitalise on the insecurities in the society and what caused the insecurity in the first place.

An event such as the Swiss Vote is not the rightist uprising as has been argued, but it shows that there are insecurities running deep in the Swiss society and it’s important to understand what is causing this insecurity, rather than just condemning them as undemocratic.

I too have argued for the conceptualisation of “us” – that’s what the cementing process is all about. This feeling has to be inculcated in the society that everyone is part of a shared nation and the State has to play its role in this. Otherwise the native population isn’t going to automatically see the immigrants as “us” and if the State tries to meet every unreasonable demand of the immigrants in the name of democracy, the native population is going to feel insecure after a point.

And if everyone is sharing in this nation, then some groups can’t be appeased by asking the others to bend backwards – it’s a violation of their rights. I am all for an equal share in the opportunities by different groups, but I also feel it’s important to see whether a demand is legitimate. If they emigrated in the first place on the basis of employment or professional skilled ability to the host country, I don’t see why they should argue that they are going to work only on their terms and why the host country should concede their demands.

John,
The contents of your cupboard show you are truly multi-cultural and a connoisseur of food!

Indeed! And I speak ‘menu’ in at least 20 languages.

I didn’t mention that I just got a resupply of kala jeera and hing.

There’s a contemporary joke about DeGaulle’s wife suddenly exclaiming, “Mon Dieu!” and he replying, “Oui, Madame?”

Wow, I am impressed! Perhaps you should become the official food taster of luxury hotels!

Anyone who gets a supply of kala jeera and hing knows Indian food well! Don’t tell me now that you can cook as well.

I love cooking! Sadly, my waistline provides proof…

About the only cuisines that don’t appeal to me are West African and Caribbean–pretty much the same thing. I’ve never had Native Australian food, so I don’t know about that.

You leave me speechless! Well, everyone has to dislike some food, so you can get a concession on that
I think some day I have to pass by your house “just by accident” during lunch time! I love good food but I eat less so that I don’t gain weight!
I

Daisy

You actually said it better than I. In a country like Switzerland that is known for their neutrality, I think at the very least it is important to sit back and think “why did the population vote the way they did?” Was it the right wing forces putting pressure on their insecurities? Perhaps. But if a country has a citizenry that has a history of and generally identifies themselves as neutral/democratic I don’t think it would be so easy to sway people with a campaign alone. I, too, believe that while the campaign may have played on their fears and insecurities there is more to it than meets the eye. And if you examine it on a deeper level, you might find an interesting answer.

Thanks, Oby.

That’s what I should be doing, but…

Happy accidents are always welcome!

Daisy and Oby–it seems I didn’t explain sufficiently that Switzerland, while democratic and internationally neutral, is not open to foreigners. It is a police state, that has all foreigners, whether tourists or long stayers register with the local police. Guest workers are preferred to immigrants, and the road to citizenship is long even for the spouse of a Swiss national. The efforts made for language and cultural learning are for national cohesion only. The different regions share the beautiful alpine scenery, but are culturally distinct. Because of geography it is more difficult to get around within Switzerland than one would expect for the size of the country, and there is a high degree of internal cohesion within the linguistic regions. Their democracy emphasizes referenda so that the people have a direct vote on a number of issues, from the municipal, to the cantonal, to the federal level. The Swiss French, the Swiss German, and the Swiss Italians see themselves as distinct from each other, and from their respective same language bordering cultures and countries; and, they are seen that way by outsiders. Their languages are distinctive, eg Swiss French is identifiable by accent, vocabulary, and sentence structure from French in France, and you really don’t want to get into a Swiss German Hauf Deutsch debate. It is a relatively conservative country as a whole, and women got the vote there very late compared to other European nations. Lest we forget, the wealthy Jews hid their money there in WWII, but so did the Nazis.

So yes, the far right is tapping into beliefs, fears, and longlasting structures regarding outsiders. That is what political parties that want to get elected do. I still find it alarming that they have moved from the typical “the immigrants are taking our jobs” strategy which had been working well for them, to “there are Muslim terrorists with missiles in our midst”, and that it is working. They now have federally 20% of the Swiss vote, which means they are likely to be able to elect someone to the European Parliament, much as the French Front National did. The problem I have is not with a right wing party or vote so much as an extreme right party one. Both of these parties, French and Swiss have been described as fascist, and neither denies it. Banning minarets is the tip of the mosque so to speak, or the potential start of something far nastier.

Daisy–I am glad to see you confirm your insight into the struggles within India, although I believe the historical roots are deeper. Still one must work towards a better harmony amongst those present. Since in Canada we have a number of people fighting for their homeland or a homeland, including Sikhs and Tamils, these struggles are perhaps more in the forefront of our consciousness about India. Also the North/ South biases/divide are so pronounced that it comes up routinely in therapy with Indian students who are often in therapy because they are dating/in love across that divide.

John–no peanut butter stew for you? LOL

Chiara…

“there are Muslim terrorists with missiles in our midst” You obviously read something that I didn’t. Are you saying this figuratively or are the people actually believing something along these lines? Not actual missiles but this sense of imminent danger?

My understanding is that Muslims are about 5% of the population in Switzerland how do they have 20% of the vote?

Chiara,
Please let’s not get into the historical roots of communalism in India – they are not as deep as you think and I don’t want to get into a conflict about this, because I don’t want to say unpleasant things here. It’s bad enough that India has been dragged into this trap and made to bleed and suffer, to argue that it’s all India’s fault is being highly insensitive and ignorant of Indian history. So let’s not discuss this issue.

Please don’t confuse Indian Tamils with Srilankan Tamils – Indian Tamils aren’t fightning for homeland and at least in India the Sikhs are no longer fighting for it. The reason why immigrant Sikhs have this idea in fact goes beyond the ambit of religion. The reason for the Khalistan movement were also more complex political than religious.

As for the Indian men’s idea about love, the less said the better – with apologies to Oby – there are always exceptions to a rule. And no, it’s not only related to regional differences, although that’s how they may like to portray it. It’s a much more complex issue than that.

While I have acknowledged that like any country in the world, India too has its flaws and I most readily criticise them, I think we should not point fingers at each other’s countries – I can also say many things against Canada’s claim to social justice, but would rather not indulge in this kind of meaningless argument.

Your account of Swiss society is indeed impressive. Yes, Swiss have many kinds of different identities as you said and a divided society lends itself well to insecurities. Your account in fact indirectly goes along with what I have been arguing that a society with multiple identities would naturally have cracks within which lend the society to insecurities and the State should play a role in filling up the cracks. Giving more weightage to some identities than to others would only deepen the cracks further and can create more problems in future. It’s for each country to negotiate how to fill up these cracks as every country’s form is different. I agree with you that conceding to every religious demand of the immigrant community appears very democratic. However, things may not always be as simple as this, since every group has very different kind of complexities which may not be compatible with democratic norms in the long run.

John,
Thanks for allowing me to impose myself on your fabled cooking! Please let me know for which country I should get the airtickets – I’ll fly to any country to taste good food except to Saudi Arabia.

I hope you are not living in Saudi Arabia!

No, I’m living in The Sunshine State, Florida, on the Gulf Coast. Sort of a hyper-Jeddah, perhaps?

This part of Florida has a lot of Greek, Central American, and for some strange reason, Peruvian restaurants, in addition to the usual Italian, demi-French, Mexican, etc. There are some exceptionally good seafood restaurants, needless to say.

Chiara,
Gen. MacArthur always referred to himself in the third person. I miss some of the old formalities in speech. As a child we would always address older people in the formal form by title. We would never think of using the familiar form (voce/you) for an older person, and strangely, neither would we use the formal form (tu) but instead use the title form (o senhor, a senhora) to refer to any adult (a senhora sua mae / the lady your mother). Of course Portuguese and Spanish are basically backwards on this (tu=usted, voce = tu). Spanish and Italian have similar usage but it probably wasnt/isnt as prevalent as it was/is in Portuguese. Only the gauchos still use the formal pronouns (tu/vos), kindof. Of course, most kids today use the informal ‘voce’ when talking to older folks. I digress.

I, for one, consider the decay of language to be symptomatic of a much larger issue. There used to be clear barriers as to what was acceptable and what wasn’t, even in language. The common use of slang and obscenities, even by children, and the constant exposure to sexual themes sends a message that everything is permitted, nothing is forbidden, erasing the barriers between childhood and adults. It was any easy way to teach rules and respect, but that was then. In simple terms, we live in a course society. I will stop here before somebody brings out a pulpit for me to stand behind.

To the rest of you. Don’t blame the Swiss or French or Germans. They are doing what most normal people would do in their situation. What you despairingly refer to as “beliefs and fears” are nothing but legitimate concerns regarding the basic principles of Western Civilization and their own future. I said “principles” not “insecurities”. To dismiss the people that voted for the ban as bigots is saying that their lives and values are all wrong. It is a statement that you believe that freedom of speech, religion democracy and equality are stupid ideas that have added nothing to our lives. I think that there is ample evidence that many immigrants reject all these, as well as any coexistence with the people of the host country.

Why should people not be concerned about the effects of immigration and the retrograde values and unwanted consequences that many immigrants bring? Tell me, do you people think Brigitte Bardot deserved to be prosecuted for her opinion? Did Oriana Fallaci deserve to be vilified and prosecuted for her writings? In both cases the elites joined hands with immigrants and activists to prosecute these women. They sacrificed freedom of speech on the altar of multiculturalism, and they did this to the cheers of the immigrant community. I can assure you that there is a growing feeling that Europe’s leaders care little for the European people or even for basic fairness and decency. The common people will vote more and more for parties that share their concerns and principles. I blame the immigrants and leaders.

It is the Roman Empire all over again, as in the 4th and 5th century. The only issue is if this situation now, like that then, is cause or effect? History repeats itself, differently, in fast motion.

Jay-nice digressions. To keep the answer simple re: Brigitte and Oriana, oui et oui. Brigitte has an inflated sense of self and a total misunderstanding of the Canadian seal hunt and so much more; Oriana Fallaci whom I consider a brilliant journalist and writer lost the plot at the end, contradicting her own politics and ethos, and breaking her writers block with an eloquent rant, but a rant nonetheless, and an incredibly racist one. She was so far off her own norm that I have to wonder if her lung cancer hadn’t metastasized to the brain. Fortunately she was never forced to appear in court in Italy, but she did deserve to be charged with propagating hate speech.

That’s where we end up in different places. In my book, ‘hate speech’ that is prosecutable is that which calls for immediate violence toward specified individuals or at least those in the immediate area. ‘Immediacy’ is the principal component here.

Slagging off a group? That’s just life.

Oby–sorry I must have been unclear. The political party that is against immigrants and minarets has 20% of the vote. You are right that the Muslims represent only 5% of the population. That same political party has gained prominence by campaigning on 2 ideas: 1) immigrants are stealing Swiss jobs; 2) minarets are an Islamic threat–in the campaign for this one they used pictures of the Swiss flag dotted with minarets in the form of missiles, and a woman with full cover:
http://www.lefigaro.fr/medias/2009/11/24/ff548370-d85e-11de-b298-73a087e740ff.jpg

http://photo.lejdd.fr/media/files/international/europe/minaret-suisse-mosquee-islam/943855-1-fre-FR/minaret-suisse-mosquee-islam_pics_809.jpg

Daisy–Again, it seems I was not clear. I was in no way blaming India for anything, or holding up Canada as a paragon of social justice virtue. I can cite examples past and present, and so can Amnesty International, of social injustices, and towards many ethnic/religious groups, since that is the current topic. I do know an Indian Tamil from a Sri Lankan one, and appreciate the timing of the Sikh demands. Unfortunately for all concerned the Air India crash was again the subject of a recent Royal Commission to establish culpability of some British Columbia based Sikhs, and to elucidate the failings of the Canadian Government and the RCMP in preventing it. I have seen many an Indian woman student in distress, because she and her boyfriend are in love and want to marry, but the relationship is a secret, and both parents “would kill us” (metaphorically) because one of them is from the South and the other from the North. Indian friends also speak of regionalisms, and looking at medical stats the regional differences are evident. None of this is to blame India in any way, just to say that it is highly diverse and while most get along there are tensions.

What I was describing about Switzerland is not a problem with internal cohesion, but rather a maintenance of internal cohesion by excluding outsiders, ie those outside the national borders, outside the canton, and certainly the “guest workers” (ie not invited to immigrate). This is what the right is tapping in to, by creating false fears of Islam being more dominant internally than it is (therefore no more minarets) and being an existential threat therefore the missiles).

John–oh to be in Florida now that it is -10C here. LOL

‘I have seen many an Indian woman student in distress, because she and her boyfriend are in love and want to marry, but the relationship is a secret, and both parents “would kill us” (metaphorically) because one of them is from the South and the other from the North.’

Being married to an Indian I am quite sure my husband’s parents would have preferred that he married a southerner rather than an American. I will say that I love them like my own parents and I think that they feel the same way about me…now. It took an amazing amount of acceptance and courage on all sides to make it work. But before marriage my husband kept telling me it wasn’t anything personal about me that they didn’t like…it was that I didn’t come from the same group as him. He said they would have had problems with someone from the South. (India) However, to their credit, They threw a HUGE Indian wedding in Delhi. They didn’t try to hide me…they sucked it up and acted as proud as punch. I think that was commendable because, although my father in law is retired now at the time he was quite visible within the Indian government and there were many eyes on him AND me(which I can assure you made for a very stressful wedding for me…but that is another story). The tension for boyfriend/girlfriend can be enormous. It was for me and I had a bit of an “ignorance is bliss” thing going on not being that familiar with Indian culture so I am sure at the time the major understanding of the seriousness of it bypassed me completely.

Gotta say…as far as Oriana and Brigitte go…gotta agree with John on this one. While it might not be very nice to say, to prosecute it, fiddles with freedom of speech and that is a no no. Unless they were inciting violence against Muslims they are free to say it. We touched upon this in one of John’s other posts. To me that is the scary thing about the law coming from the UN about “hate speech against religion” It potentially puts a strangle hold on ANY criticism of Islam and other religions I suppose. When one cannot even say something unpalatable that is dangerous and potentially unconstitutional. However, were it to take place I would certainly demand that Islam follow the same rules about other religions and take the hate out of their books about other religions. And of course that would be impossible to enforce soooo…unless it is inciting immediate harm against another group I don’t think it is prosecutable…

Just before I left India in Oct. 2001, all the newspaper were front-paging a story of two Indian lovers–same caste–who married without parental approval or permission. Both sets of parents thought they would solve the ‘problem’ by hanging the bride and groom. And that’s just what they did.

It’s not just criticism of ‘Islam’, it’s criticism of whatever anyone wants to call “Islam” that becomes a crime under these UN statutes. There are practices seen as perfectly normal by a majority of the world’s Muslims, but if another Muslim disagrees, he can claim a crime has been committed. It’s just a civil form of takfir that becomes international law. No thanks!

You know John, even though I am very well traveled to many places around the world I realize I probably don’t have the level of political sophistication that a lot of people who blog here do, but I didn’t realize I had understood the potential UN rule that poorly. Am I to understand you to mean for example, if a woman wears a full covering and a moderate Muslim disagrees he can legally make a stink? Or if the more moderates don’t follow something that the orthodox ones deem Islamic they can bring a charge? Holy smokes! If I am to understand that to be the case that is even worse than I thought it was. Muslims could potentially use the law to bludgeon each other legally about Islam??? I was seeing it only as being applied to non Muslims(after all what Muslim would criticize Islam? They certainly don’t speak out en masse about human rights violations or other bugaboos now very much…why when there is a law in place)…Whoa…that’s scary. Could a journalist that might have some criticism or write an article about something needing to change in Islam be charged? I am having a really hard time wrapping my brain around that. Perhaps I am stunningly naive.

Chiara,
Thanks for explaining. But the question remains, as Oby says, why only against Muslims? What is it that makes them apprehensive against Muslims?

You are very right, there are parents in India who don’t want their sons and daughters to marry anyone outside the social group they belong to – it’s not just a regional divide; they just don’t want a match outside their social group – even different religious communitites in India have thousands of social groups. And they don’t like to cross the boundaries of these social group even within their religion or even region or caste – yes, caste exists in India in ALL religions including the three Abrahamic religions, not only in Hinduism. So even if two people belong to the same city, religion and caste their parents may have objections to their marriage.

But again, this is a generalisation. You will also meet many couples nowadays who have married across caste, region and religious boundaries – sometimes with parental approval, sometimes against them. My own near and extended family is full of people who married from east, west, north, south, in different castes, religions, with native citizens of countries such as Singapore, Japan, US, England, Lebanon, Canada. Of course I happen to come from a very cosmopolitan and liberal family. I do admit that everyone in India is not like us.

One very strong reason behind this conflict is the arranged marriage system, which binds people within a social group. I honestly feel arranged marriage system should be abolished as a system of human rights violation.

One major problem I have seen is that couples whose parents don’t approve don’t have the courage to stand upto their parents and tell them that it’s their choice and parents shouldn’t interfere. And in many cases it’s the men who don’t have this courage. For them their mother comes before the woman they have chosen for themselves. And I think that’s the height of cowardliness and lowly behaviour. If they don’t have the courage to stand up for themselves, they shouldn’t try to find a match for themselves.

In many cases, these people also come from rich families and they don’t want to let go of their wealth for love – if they walk out of their family, they’ll have to sacrifice their money and they just can’t leave that temptation and blame their families instead. I’m not saying parents are right in opposing, but one should have the honesty and courage to stand up for one’s decision and not try to hide one’s cowardliness and greed under the cover of parental disapproval.

J Kactuz,
I think there is a misunderstanding somehwere – when I talked about insecurities I wasn’t exactly criticisn the Swiss, rather was making a case for the people to look at their vote in an understaning manner, rather than just call it undemocratic.

John,
Please give translation of your Arabic words in bracket, for illiterate people like me to understand!

Sadly, the sense of being offended appears to work like a ratchet, in one direction only. That direction is toward the most conservative end. Moderates, almost by definition, don’t make stinks about things that bother them. It’s only those who are deeply offended who resort to violence.

Journalists, and others, certainly are prosecuted and threatened with death for writing anything critical of Islam. It happens in Pakistan, it happens in Saudi Arabia, it happens in Egypt. In the US, there’s no political prosecution, but there are social pressures from some quarters to declare those journalists non-Muslim and to make threats against them. Academics in Egypt have been forceably divorced by Shariah courts because they tried to do critical analysis of Islam. Western academics are somewhat luckier, if only because they’re farther away from the crazies and don’t have to worry about the state coming after them. That is, until asinine rules like the UN’s take force of law.

Daisy, sorry…

Takfir is declaring someone a kufar, a pagan, a non-Muslim, an apostate. That’s about as low a blow as one can render against a Muslim. For the extremists, it’s also a license to kill the person who is now a non-Muslim.

Saudi religious authorities–among many other Muslim authorities–have said that this is a grave sin, to call someone else a non-Muslim. But for some, it serves a useful political and/or terroristic purpose, so the practice continues.

John,
Wow – It’s not hyper Jeddah, it’s a refined version of Goa. All that mention of food is making my mouth water and I love the sea. I must say you are leading me into temptation now!

John…

Has the law gone into effect and if not do you think it will?

I cannot imagine the consequences of that other than to shut down all Islamic moderates or hope of anything that even approaches moderation and leaves the orthodox ones in place which of course will only lead to further problems and conflicts with the rest of the world.

In effect they can “write their own ticket”. That being the case then I think it even more important that we guard our freedoms and write them in stone.

Thanks John for explaining. I only hope this prosecution business doesn’t extend to blog or Internet-writings.

And what about freedom of expression? There is a difference between “hateful speech” and a genuine criticism based on well-supported arguments. The UN can’t take away the right of freedom of expression. Moreover, if Islam takes this view then all religions will follow course and this will only increase animosity betwen religions.

And what baout the atheists’ right to be non-religious? And what about the “pagans” right to be against monotheism?

And what about Islam’s position that theirs is the only “true” religion, all other religions are false?

And what about all those hateful verses that exist in Quran against those who don’t accept Islam – including Christians and Jews?

What about Islam’s position that Indian religions are myths?

Will the UN prosecute Islam first of all then as a hateful religion?

I do feel those who have proposed this law don’t have any understanding of the inter-faith religiosities and non-religiosities of the world.

Daisy…

From where I am standing that is a very good list of questions and all ones I have asked myself. I would assume that the law will cut in all directions in terms of hate speech…in other words ALL religions should be free from hate speech as per this law. (which is stupid in my opinion).The only problem is that as I understand it in the proposal the only religion mentioned by name was Islam. A possible loophole?

The problem is that as John pointed out above, it is the moderates that will let things roll off their backs and the orthodox that will be the ones to use it as a hammer.(my words, not John’s). If it goes into effect then I think the moderates of the world will need to use the law in a creative way to not allow the fundamentalists(and I would suppose that would in theory mean Christian as well) to steal the show or our freedoms.

Oby,
But why give this special privilege to Islam? Doesn’t that go against all norms of equality and justice? Why aren’t the people opposing it?

The way I see it, this is a hypocrisy of orthodox Muslims, who think they have a right to criticise everything and evryone and no one should criticise them.

Unfortunately, moderate Muslims criticise the orthodox ones in private, but they don’t oppose them in public. That complicates the problem. Islam is the only religion that doesn’t have space for self-criticism and doesn’t allow criticism from others either. All other religions have this space.

a journalist is asked about Geert Wilders and his right-wing Populist Party and is asked if there is a new anti-Muslim, anti-migration sentiment emerging in Europe?

I quote:

Absolutely! More and more Europeans have felt the impact of Islam and Muslim immigrations in their own lives. Danes are forced out of their neighbourhoods by Muslim dominance and criminals; more and more people have close friends or family who have been physically threatened or injured in connection with Muslims; more and more parents experience how Muslim children ruin their own children’s day in school, etc. Women have increasingly experienced that Muslim men are looking or treating them chauvinistically, and people are now seeing signs of civil war on TV and outside of their own kitchen windows.

The economic consequences are equally catastrophic. A Muslim coming to Denmark costs the Danish taxpayers 300,000 euros on average. Schools, hospitals, homes for the elderly, public salaries, etc. suffer tremendously due to this expenditure.

Almost everything that the critics of Islam and Muslim integration warned about last century has become reality today. The only thing that has not yet happened is the emergence of a strong Islamic party… On the other side, I am sure that it is not necessary to have a strong Islamic party in order for Muslims to wreak havoc in our cities and destroy our social societies. It is also not necessary to have an Islamic party to create Muslim parallel societies that are beyond the reach of non-Islamic authorities. Actually, it seems that Denmark and other countries in Europe will have their own Gaza Strips.

According to the cultural-psychological trait in Muslim culture – that different cultures and religions cannot be equal – these parallel societies will never be able to exist in harmony with their surroundings.

We also do not need an Islamic party to create periodic or permanent martial law in certain areas of Europe. The only thing we need for this is politically correct politicians, a fearful police force and normal, thinking individuals who don’t bother to write letters to the editors and talk openly about their views on Islam and criminal Muslims at their workplace, family dinners, etc.

http://www.germanbookreview.com/the-one-thing-muslim-immigrants-fear-is-being-deported/

This is the meaning of the vote on the minarets. Ignore this to your peril. I really don’t understand why the guy sees a possible formation of Islamic parties in Europe. Muslims don’t need their own party because they have the dominant parties acting in their behalf.

I can assure that all over Europe millions of people sit with friends and family every week and ask themselves ‘what are we going to do with our Muslims.’ That is the big question. They will look at their political options first. You can also be assured that Muslims will have no say in this because Muslims cannot change, they cannot live in peace, in numbers, with non-Muslims. Muslims can only make excuses and blame others. Muslims will also not return to Islamic societies, for sure. This is certain. The situation will deteriorate into civil war in 5 years, give or take 3 unless the Muslims do something very stupid before.

I am sure it is hard for good “moderate” Muslims to accept this. They dont see why they are responsible for the terrible things that others do. They look at their husbands, friends and family and do not see evil. I have no good answer for this. They do, however, allow this evil to exist and cannot come to terms with it.

There, I have said it. That is the meaning of the minaret vote. Basta!

Oby–thank you for sharing your personal experience. You know best about your own family, but I have the sense that for some families the north-south divide would be potentially worse. On the other hand, one Indian-Canadian woman told me her family didn’t care as long as the man was a Muslim, hence her Turkish brother-in-law. I am glad for you that the love for you of your in-laws and vice versa became genuine, and not just the public face of the relationship. The Indian women I see are indeed extremely distressed about their relationships, wanting to preserve them, uncomfortable that they are secret relationships, and even more fearful they will become known to the family, and that the man will back out of it. It is always preferable when it works out.

At least in the case of Oriana Fallaci, her writing was clearly hate speech; the initial Corriere della Sera article can be read in English and Italian here:
http://italian.about.com/library/fallaci/blfallaci01.htm
The book version was more of the same but worse, and something of a call to arms from an ex-partisan (faught, aged 14 in WWII, with the partisans in the Italian woods against the Germans). Both describe Muslims in the xenophobic and racist terms characteristic of anti-Semitism at its worst, and make no distinction between terrorists and Muslims in Italy for whatever other reasons.
Brigitte should think before she decimates the livelihood of poor East coasters, based on out of date information (or just plain false information), however to stick to the subject at hand, she has been judged by the laws of her own land, and been found guilty 4 times of hate speech. She is married to a member of the extreme right Front National, and agrees with that party’s views, ie enough said.

Daisy–thanks for summarizing the different permutations of -isms in Indian marriage arrangements, and with which I have become familiar in various ways over time. I am also aware of the mixed marriages, and the high level of tolerance of some. The Indian men I see in therapy are the ones distressed because Momma has announced she is immigrating, or moving to their city ie to their place of abode, sometimes with little brother who needs supervision, sometimes to escape life in an unhappy marriage (given generational influences most often arranged), sometimes to keep an eye on sonny boy. What to do with the white livein girlfriend? So far the pattern has been: move her out and maintain the relationship; relationship strained by Momma’s control and demands, and white girl’s hurt, disappointment, and impatience; dump white girl, feel bad and justified, at the same time. This is accompanied or not by drug and alcohol problems as self-medication for stress, or recreational habits that got out of hand. Of course, the happy ones don’t come to see me, so I realize this represents a skewed view of the whole population, and of the cross-whatever dating population. Some come with other issues: devastated by the failure of a love match; hoping for an arranged marriage that isn’t happening; father who visits each year for 2 weeks for the last 15 of the 18 year old male’s life, leaving him chronically unhappy and worried about his identity as a man and capacity for positive romantic relationships; oh, and since they are all students, occasionally academic issues! Again this is a skewed view, but they are accurate about their own cultures of origin; and other happy friends confirm what they tell me.

As to why target Muslims, they are the current best target, the most “other” because of religion and recent immigration. They are not as well protected as Jews are by the lessons of WWII, and have arrived in (small) waves including recently Eastern European ones, who are annoyingly qualified for high end jobs, and careers. Western Europeans have generally felt imposed upon by Eastern Europeans who are able to compete for positions, as opposed to doing undesired work. Given the War on Terror and the actions of some extremists, they are a recognizable entity easy to demonize because so little is known of Islam generally, including, ironically. because there are so few of them in Switzerland. They are also easy to characaturize based on dress, see the photos linked above.

Daisy…

I don’t think we should give this special privilege to Islam…that is the way it was written, I believe, and some stupid idiots…our President included didn’t say, “hey wait a minute. Before I sign this we need to make some clear modifications to leave nothing in doubt that it should apply for all religions.” Personally, I think it is a stupid,ridiculous piece of legislation that should never have been brought up, but I don’t get to make that decision.

Why are people not opposing it? Well my opinion (and it is only my opinion) is that a lot of normal everyday people probably don’t even know about it. And those in the UN especially Europe and now evidently the USA are too PC to say anything about it or at the very least rewrite it to include all religions. I want to say clearly that I could be very wrong…but I found some people who wrote about it and read what they said and they said in essence, that although it seems to indicate other religions should not have to suffer hate speech, Islam is the only one named by name. I believe the exact words I read were, “Islam and other religions”. To me that is WAY to weak and it should have been spelled out far more clearly to include ALL religions. That wishy washy wording in my opinion leaves far too much wiggle room for Islam to not take it’s responsibility to other religions to heart. If they are being hateful they should have to stand against the wall with everyone else accused of it.

I do agree that Islam does not have the ability, in general, to be introspective or allow others to do it for them. Of course, others probably wouldn’t feel the need if they did it themselves… I feel that if Islam is the “true” religion, (which I don’t agree with or I would be Muslim. I do, however, believe it is one of the world’s faiths) it certainly should be able to stand up to some criticism and self examination. If it is the true religion what is there to fear? Why not just put it all out there for everyone to see? why guard it from any sort of negative commentary or critique? It should be able to stand any test of fire, right? God or in this case Allah can stand anything anyone might say about Him so I am not sure why the need to protect it so fiercely. Unless there is another reason. And perhaps it is not just a religion, but a form of governance and a total identity and that is what is unable to stand any scrutiny. For example, part of my identity is Catholic. But it isn’t how I define myself completely and it isn’t my only identity. It is part of who I am. For Muslims it seems that is their first identity…they think of themselves as Muslim first and foremost. And that identity takes precedence over all others including nationality. If that were to be fiddled with perhaps it is going to the absolute core of identity and that is not tolerable for them to have that examined or look at it themselves.

I am not Muslim so I don’t know but I have listened to enough to get the feeling that this is true.

I’m signing off for the night. See you tomorrow.

I was typing while Chiara and J Kactuz posted…so if mine sounds out of context that is why.

JKactuz…

I was going to sign off and got distracted and I am back for a moment.

In terms of financial consequences I think you might be on target. As I posted earlier, Muslims are 5% of the population of Denmark yet consume more than 40% of the social services (welfare). It is not in any countries best interest be they Muslims or whatever, to bring in poor people who are going to drain the government. I think immigration should bring in a mix of people but certainly ones who can contribute to the society more than they take or at a minimum equally so the ledger balances. Why would anyone, on a regular basis, bring in people who are not able to contribute? I don’t think it is the West’s job to take care of and invite all the world’s disenfranchised to come over. Isn’t it far better to help them solve their own problems within their societies so that rather than have a shifting of the world’s poor from one side to the other they can experience prosperity in their own cultures? Eventually the shift will be too great and there will be too m,any poor for the non poor to care for. If we help them in their own societies everyone benefits.

I’ll agree that Oriana’s rant was odious and equivalent to anti-Semitism. But I don’t think either should be illegal! They’re obnoxious, stupid, a-historic and tons of other negatives. But they are speech, not action. I don’t think speech should be criminalized outside of very, very narrow bounds and ‘hate speech’ just doesn’t come close, in my book.

I go with John – either shouldn’t be illegal. Muslims don’t see that an abusive attitude towards other religions is ingrained in Islam and they endorse it vocally but are quick to take offence if someone criticises them. If they have the right to criticise others, they should also be open to criticisms from others. The point is Muslim leaders have openly criticised other religions as “myths,” false religions, their followers as defaulters. So they have no right to portray themselves as victims and say they are the most “Other” now – others have taken it from them and they better take it from others.

If Obama has signed this draft without looking into it carefully, I have serious doubts about Obama’s wisdom especially because he is the President of the US. Same goes for the people at the UN.

Oby – I agree with you completely.

Chiara – this is precisely the point I was making – Indian men don’t have the courage to stand up to their parents and tell them not to interfere in their lives. If they don’t have this courage, they should not be complaining about it – it’s their own fault if they don’t speak up. I have no sympathy for such men and they don’t deserve any sympathy for their depression. I have seen enough Indian men ruining their lives and ruining other women’s lives because of this. There is no point in being a spineless coward and blaming everything on parents.

Chiara,
To continue from above, Indian society is structured to benefit men, not women and I have seen many such cases of “depressed” Indian men because of familial problems in love, where men ultimate gain everything and the only losers are the women who fall prey to these men.

The truth is that Indian men are the most selfish creatures on this earth. They want the best of all the worlds – they want to be the blue-eyed boys of their parents, they want to enjoy with a foreigner girlfriend abroad (or with an Indian girl in India) and then using the excuse of familial pressure etc they dump the girlfriend and get married to the daughter of a rich and perhaps influential man, who is willing to give them a hefty dowry and help them in career.

I still wouldn’t have any problem with them if they accepted all this honestly, but they also like to play the role of victim in front of the world very well, so that no one will blame them, only the parents will be blamed. I am not saying parents are not guilty, but the Indian men are no less guilty in all this stagemanaging the show.

And if you meet them after a couple of months of their arrangd marriage, you’ll be surprised to see that they have no remorse, there is no sign of depression and there are no strained relations with parents – rather they are happy their parents found such a “useful” girl for them. And to top it all, they also play the role of a “devoted husband” to this wife very well, who thinks she is the luckiest person in the world to have found such a husband!

The amount of hypocrisy and falsehood that Indian men possess is not funny. And perhaps you’d like to know that they also have this idea that they have done a girl a great favour by getting married to her and she should be grateful to him all her life for this.

I have seen this drama played out so often, that I have no respect or sympathy for Indian men. In any case Indian society takes care of their needs very well, so there is no need to have any sympathy for them. The only people who deserve sympathy are the girls who were dumped in this process and who went through depression. Honestly, Indian men don’t deserve any sympathy, they only deserve to be straightened out properly.

Gee Dasiy…

That was quite a lashing you gave Indian men. Even despite what I wrote elsewhere (you know what I mean) I wouldn’t have recognized that as an Indian man. I’m feeling pretty lucky about mine right now! LOL! My husband did stand up to his parents. His father flew from India to meet me and also try to talk to his son about another choice of woman. Out of respect for his dad they went to lunch at the prospective brides house directly after our meeting(which was more like a friendly interview) and halfway through, while in the kitchen privately he told his father no way would he consider her, that he should not pursue it any more. So they politely tied it up and left. He told his dad and mom he was going to marry me and that was that. I will say this however…for a month or so before, he was back and forth about telling his parents about me. How could he disrespect his parents when they had given him so much etc. We would be having pizza or watching a movie and people from all over the USA would call to propose their daughters in marriage. He referred them to his parents. THAT was one of the most difficult experiences. I finally had enough and laid down the law and gave him an ultimatum. I told him he had two weeks to make his decision about me and marriage. In that time he was not to contact me, write me, drive by my house, bump into me or in any way have contact with me. At the end of two weeks he was to call me and give me his decision. IF he chose not to marry me, no hard feelings at all…I will think of him as a wonderful man, but our connection is permanently over…no long sad and dragged out goodbyes. It would have killed me any other way. Easier to bite the bullet and work through the pain alone. If he decided he wanted to marry me, fine, he would have to take the bull by the horns and do whatever he had to do to make that happen. In less than a week he called me and told me he had made his decision and he wanted to marry me. He told his parents, his dad came to meet me(the interview I spoke of) with permission from the family if I seemed OK to move forward with the plans. Once that ball got rolling it kept on until the day we did marry. I do know it was very very difficult for him to tell his parents but he did and at the same time stood in the divide between them and me working as hard as he could to reconcile both worlds to each other. I never really realized until your post just how brave that must have been for him to do or unusual too. To an American mind it was so easy… just tell your parents. what’s the big deal…but for him it must have been quite terrifying to stand up as he did. They are great people and after some crying and wailing(and hey, my parents weren’t thrilled either) they accepted it and have been fantastic ever since.

Sorry to get off post….I was compelled to respond to Daisy’s post.

After reading the article of JKactuz I do have to agree it is a problem. These countries like Denmark are highly ordered societies. They respect their secular laws and attitudes and follow them and on the whole the country ticks along nicely. Perhaps more to the heart of the problem is not Muslims in the country… I would imagine educated Muslims who are contributing to society as engineers etc. probably blend fairly well and have a vested interest in making sure that the country continues to tick along nicely. It is poor, uneducated Muslims that might be the bigger problem. People who live their lives by the letter of the Qur’an and don’t have critical thinking skills, no job skills and have been raised in a rough and tumble environment like many poor of all stripes are. Are Muslim societies highly ordered as is the Danish one? I have never lived in one fulltime, but I would have to say no just from what we see and read. So they bring with them this disregard for anything other than the law of the Qur’an which also says that anyone other than a Muslim is unworthy and have no respect for secular rules and actions that enhance cohesion and inevitably it becomes a bit of a mess. This might work well in their home societies but not in one that is not ordered in that way. For any country to thrive, the immigrants if they are in large numbers have to have a vested interest and respect for the countries cultural norms…otherwise there is trouble. That isn’t racist…it is just fact.

Let’s suppose we were able to transplant a huge swath of Westerners to the Middle East. They brought their culture, their holidays, their immodest (by muslim standards)clothing, their love for pork, their beer, their non segregation, their secular laws, and on and on…They didn’t try to conform to the society and moved in the area with Muslims. Then let’s say one day one of these westerners decided that they wanted to sunbathe in a shorts and tank top. On their property but able to be seen by everyone. Completely acceptable in the West…now imagine the discomfort and scandal that will cause among Muslims. The sense of disrespect that they will feel that the Westerners have toward them and their culture. Can you imagine if you have lots of these people moving into these predominantly Muslim societies…the people from those societies are going to feel a huge level of stress and anger and resentment. Now add to that, that these Westerners are taking money from the government to live that the Muslims have paid in taxes. Is it racist that they feel angry and upset with the Westerners? Or is it that it is so far outside of their societal norms that they are having a difficult time tolerating it? Is it not disrupting their societies? Why shouldn’t they feel upset? What would make the folks from the Middle East NOT racist and yet Westerners will be seen as racist?

I see it as a marriage of sorts. In any bicultural marriage generally one culture will be the dominant one…usually the culture/country you live in. If both partners insist on living in their own culture within the marriage without acknowledging the other person’s culture that marriage is not going to last. They will ultimately live parallel lives within the marriage which is not really a marriage then. It loses it’s traction and cohesion. the same thing with adapting to a foreign culture.

I am sorry for my lengthy posts…this is really important to me but I will try to keep it simpler.

Up until the late 1930s, Saudi Arabia and the West existed mostly in parallel worlds. Today, though, that’s impossible: we’re all interlinked. That puts Saudi culture at a disadvantage–actually, many disadvantages–because what was the culture of a homogeneous society is now just a minor member of a multifaceted global society. Oil certainly plays a role in cutting Saudis some slack in criticism. It also buys the Saudis some time to fix the disjunction problems. But those indulgences won’t last forever and pressures to change become greater by the day. Something’s got to give, and I’m betting that it won’t the the rest of the world.

The question then is, “How messy will the transition be?” It needn’t be terribly messy or terribly painful if measured step, with small doses of pain, are taken promptly. If people wait until things explode, well explosions are rarely good things.

John–I think the basic point is that both Brigitte’s and Oriana’s rants were illegal in France and Italy, respectively, which is where they were charged and prosecuted. Hate speech, particularly theirs, which was just a publisher’s lawyer’s hairbreadth away from inciting to violence, has been shown by social scientists to be the preliminary action (speaking is a form of action) that precedes further violent hate crimes (though of course not all hate speech leads there).

Daisy–thanks for further elaborating your perspective. I am well aware of the damage that not standing up courageously, though respectfully, to parents does to individuals and relationships in both traditional and more liberal cultures. I see the aftermath, sometimes as it is unfolding, sometimes years later. Both men and women are “guilty” of this. I do think that at an individual level these Indian men deserve my concern and expertise, as they are struggling and it is part of my job to prevent a full blown depression or substance abuse problem. They are usually well aware that they don’t have the courage to stand up to their parents, and remorseful about it, but not able to alter their life course at that moment in time, whether for emotional or materialistic reasons. Helping them through it can make their handling of the girlfriend a lot easier on the girlfriend. As I stated, and Oby pointed out by example, not all men go down this road; and I would add, not all have the insight and emotional strength to seek therapy for it.

Oby–thank you for sharing that, which I am sure was a very painful time. I think you captured well the North American response “So tell your parents”, without realizing the difference culturally of the implications. While both cultures value family and familial approval, for Easterners this is closer to risking amputating a part of themselves ie their innermost concept of self, than it is for Westerners. This sense of self and behaviour is generally the norm, whereas a Westerner with the same attitude would be suspected of psychopathological attachments, and having an “enmeshed family”. Or, as a Greek Canadian child psychiatrist friend said about marrying a WASP: oh yeah, his family reacted normally, my family is ENMESHED. You also captured well the pain the period of indecision brings and the need for well-considered clarity.

I must admit I had to laugh when I read about your ultimatum, because I issued only one ever, and in an analogous situation. We were far down the road to marriage, including my making major career decisions in consideration of that fact, and handling my own family’s varied responses, when it became clear that he was not finding the courage to tell his family–the courage to marry me yes, but not the courage to tell his family, which went on for months. He finally told them that he was planning to immigrate to Canada, which was worse. They thought he was giving up an excellent job in Morocco, and excellent marriage prospects to move to Canada and start all over, or maybe just “be with” me. His mother wound up in hospital due to her somatizing response; father and brother were angry and blocking my calls. I was interning in a new city, when he finally was able to contact me, starting to hesitate, and saying “my mother is in hospital” (cue the scene from Moonstruck), all at 7 in the morning before I flew off to the hospital. I told him that either he told his family that day, or I would call his father at work the next morning. He just sputtered, and said, “You don’t have his phone no. at work”, and I said “As a matter of fact, I still have it from when he gave it to me; and besides, I will go through the whole national company being passed along, as his DIL, until I do get him”.

I got off the phone, and went into full mentally planning life without him mode. I was so fed up and angry by then I didn’t much care one way or the other. My psychiatry professor asked me what was wrong (basically after saying Good Morning), and I said “Nothing I’m fine” whereupon she said “No you’re not, what is it?” Wishing I were doing some nice oblivious rotation like emergency medicine, I said “A family member is in hospital”, and she was satisfied (and triumphant). Meanwhile, in Morocco, he told his family, got their blessing, and all was right with the world; they were in fact relieved, and ultimately pleased (not about the job loss though).

To bring this all back somewhat closer to Swiss minarets, a friend who was raised in a Ukrainian Catholic immigrant family in rural conservative France, did graduate work in Canada where she met a south Indian Muslim doing a PhD. They were together happily until her grant ran out, and then the marriage issue came up more pressingly. She also “fell pregnant”, as the French say, and he wasn’t about to marry her, so she returned to her village to have and keep the baby. She cut of all contact, refused phone calls, messages, mail, gifts. She had the baby boy there, and she claims he was well-received by the villagers. 6 months later he arrived in her village to beg her forgiveness. They have lived in Canada happily ever after (mostly), and also have a daughter.

Some people on both sides seem to forget that often the other side isn’t thrilled either.

Sorry, ‘preliminary actions’ aren’t sufficient ground for me to call for bringing down the force of the state. It needs to be far more immediate than that. I mean, drinking milk is preliminary to 99% of mass murderers’ actions… they all drank it as babies. As you note, not all ‘hate speech’ leads to acts of violence. Shall we therefore punish those that don’t because some others might? Whatever happened to the democratic principle about ‘X guilty parties go free rather than one innocent be punished’? And what happens when, instead of one innocent, we’re talking about potentially millions?

There needs to be specificity and both temporal and geographic proximity for speech to become actionable, IMO. Laws against ‘hate speech’ are vile corruptions of justice in my book, and incredibly dangerous. They provide for the “heckler’s veto”, permitting any one to thwart the public will, at the least provocation.

Oby and John,
Sorry for this off the topic discussion and if I sounded too cynical. I just couldn’t hold it back because I have seen too many women’s lives getting ruined because of this – men here go off the track for a while, but they always end up standing on their feet again – the society sees to it that they do. But a woman’s well-being and achievements are highly devalued in India.

Oby, I truly admire your husband for being honest and courageous with himself and with you. I don’t say they have to be disrespectful to their parents, but they can hold their ground in a polite and respectful manner as your husband did. If only all Indian men were like your husband, this country would be very different.

And yes, Indian men do need that firm approach that you adopted.

Yes, all of them are not so weak either. I have seen very upright and very sensitive men in India. My own father was one.

And as an Iranian woman once remarked to me, if a man here is being offered an attractive, educated and working girl, lots of money and property in dowry, a father-in-law willing to set his life right for him, all the household goods and all the luxury items he needs, he has to be crazy not to go for this marriage! So the entire social structure is responsible for this, not only the man.

Besides, let’s be fair, there are also women who dump their boyfriend and go for a rich and well-placed husband through arranged marriage, though such cases are less in number.

And all of these behaviour patterns cut across the boundaries of religion and social group.

Chiara, I greatly appreciate the fact that you tend to look at them with sensitive eyes – not only because it’s your profession, but also because perhaps you are capable of finding that sensitivity within yourself.

John,
You are right about the laws against hateful speech. All religions – Islam being no exception, better learn to be self-critical and also accept criticism from others.

Thank you so much Chiara for sharing your story…I completely understand how you must have felt.

“and went into full mentally planning life without him mode. I was so fed up and angry by then I didn’t much care one way or the other.”

That is exactly how I felt. I was so fed up with the “yes I will marry you, but I can’t tell my parents” dance back and forth I was going to explode. Just make a decision for heaven’s sake! Had I not been so frustrated that I was prepared to lose him I could not have taken that risk. But I was at my limit and NOT having him was preferable to the torture of the unknown.

I am so happy that your ultimatum worked for you as it did for me…your poor husband…all that agony over telling his parents and it worked out perhaps better than he expected.

I guess the moral of the story is, taking your friend’s into consideration, that women sometimes have to force the issue, but be willing to accept the consequences if it doesn’t work out the way we hope.

As a differently gendered person, I have to say the same thing applies to women, too! There are many who, if not commitment-phobes, do need an occasional push (or boot) from time to time.

Chiara/Daisy…

For me the Indian thing was on the job training for sure. I look back now and realize how in many ways, not understanding the inner workings of the culture that I probably did many things that came off as insensitive and rude to both my husband and Indian family. My American independence and Western attitude I am sure left a few bruised feelings in my wake. If there was one thing in my relationship I would wish for it would be to go back and do it all over again with the more sensitive and sensitized eyes that I now have. It took me years to figure some of it out…Indian culture functions on such a subtle/unspoken level…Not at all like American or Western culture.I had NO ONE Indian to talk to or learn from and tripped over my own ignorance many times I am sure…

Quick story…when we had known each other a month or so, I offered to make him an omlette( I think). I was making one for me as well. He said no once. I offered again. He said no twice. “are you sure?” Yes,said he. So I said OK and proceeded to make one for myself. when I finished he was quite insulted that I had not made one for him. I was baffled! He had just refused twice. “why didn’t you say yes when I asked?” “Because it is impolite to accept on the first or second offer.” OKAY…go figure. Says he, “why didn’t you offer again?” To which I responded “in America if you ask a couple of times and are told no, to continue to insist is seen as rude and pushy. I was respecting your wishes” And so goes the story of the beginning of our relationship. Like I said it took a LOT of understanding and making allowances to make it work.

Sorry John…not sure how to tie that to minarets…I’m done and back on subject.

‘They provide for the “heckler’s veto”, permitting any one to thwart the public will, at the least provocation.’

Agreed. And unfortunately appeal to the lowest common denominator rather than the highest.

John–I guess we will have to disagree on “hate speech” and its imminence to violence, although I agree that not just any disagreeable speech should be considered hate speech with the potential to lead to harm.
Regarding commitment phobia: waving both hands, guilty as charged, happily delayed getting married, it was all his idea!

Daisy–thank you for your kind and thoughtful words.

Oby–Yes it did work out better than the hub expected, and his brother was stunned he hadn’t confided in him, and his grandfather had been wanting him to marry me all along. LOL at the “omelette incident”. We had one where he kept sitting politely thinking I would stop eating to get up and get him seconds, which took me a long time to even figure out, and then I chose to be bemused and said “because you have a broken leg?”. Also when my SIL visited for 3 months, never having been outside Morocco, I told her that if someone offers you something accept it on the first offer if you want it, because they will be their version of polite and not push it on you. It was part of the “a few key ideas to survive culturally” that I gave her and which she found helpful. The indirect and unspoken is sooo important in non-Western cultures.

It seems to me that at broader social levels, similar efforts at explaining and understanding cross-culturally would mitigate the power of the fear-mongers and extremists on either side to bamboozle the unknowing.

John,
You are right, in the West it works in the reverse direction. I have seen my cousins in US and England, who, born and brought up there, are like Western women and are married to White men. During my stay in London, I also mixed with Western families. I feel rather sorry for the Western man. In comparison, an Indian man appears even more like a pampered royal of some kind! In this case, all my sympathies are for my cousins’ Western husbands.

Oby, if you are on close terms with an Indian, you don’t even have to ask, just make the omelette and give it to him. Asking and refusing are symbolically related to a distance between two people in the Indian context.

Yes I know that now. Or for example, when someone elder offers for you to go first in a line or through a door, you should automatically defer to them and signal for them to go first instead. Here, it is ladies before gentleman…so if someone offers even if they are older it is quite right to thank them and take their offer that you go first ahead of them. I don’t know how many elderly gentlemen I jumped in front of after they offered that I go first until someone explained to me my mistake. It is the little things that will get you!! Like a piece of glass tumbling in the ocean floor,most of the rough edges are worn down now. LOL!

Hate speech is bad, but incitement to violence is worse. So, if you think that Bardot and Fallaci were prosecuted because their speech was illegal in France and Italy, why does it seem that certain immigrant groups are not subject to these laws? Do you really think that many imams and Muslim activists are not systematically engaged in hate speech against non-Muslims and their host countries? Furthermore, do you not think that many of the “average Muslims” accept this without protest? Do you believe in “good” hate speech vs “bad” hate speech? Or do you think that Muslims should be exempt from basic principles of human conduct because they are just Muslims and human rights is a western construct? bla bla bla. Worse than a bad law is a law that is selectively used.

Take the example of a British TV station that went undercover in British mosques and filmed Imams preaching hate against and violence against non-Muslims. After showing the tape they were charged by British courts for “stirring up racial hatred” against Muslims. The Imams, of course, were left undisturbed to propagate their message. I could go on and list dozens of incidents like this in Holland, Austria, Germany, France, England and Italy. It is obvious that “hate speech” is a one way street, just like tolerance.
It is obvious that governments, the media, academia and the liberal clergy have willingly and knowingly decided that Western freedoms and culture are not worth saving. Muslims march in the streets of Europe calling for the death of writers and cartoonists and nothing happens.

If Europeans do not act to change things, the freedoms painfully won in for the last 500 years will become vague memories, and the art and literature of the West will be obiterated from the face of the earth. That statement was a little drastic, but probably not too far off the mark. The fact is that Islamic immigration is a low level jihad, and slowly Europe is surrendering its soul to a cult that is exactly the opposite of everything Europe says it represents. The people of Europe are being betrayed by their leaders and intellectuals. These, the prophets of multiculturalism and political correctness, have preached a gospel of tolerance and diversity, while feeding the beasts of intolerance and hatred.

So, as unrest grows among the Europeans, what do their leaders and intellectuals say? Do they apologize? Do they admit that “Multiculturalism” and “diversity” have created a gigantic, ugly problem. Que nada! Their answer is to do more of the same: more tolerance, more special privileges for immigrants, more immigrants, and more money. According to these people, the problem – if there is a problem – is because Europe has not done enough to accommodate foreigners. Europeans have not been tolerant enough and/or respectful of their cultures, or have not spent enough money. Bla, bla, bla…

Here is how the New York Times responded to the horrific murder of Theo Van Gogh (5/dec/2004): Something sad and terrible is happening to the Netherlands, long one of Europe’s most tolerant, decent and multicultural societies… Urgent efforts are needed to better manage the cultural tensions perilously close to the surface of Dutch public life. The problem is not Muslim immigration, but a failure to plan for a smoother transition to a more diverse society. One very real danger is that the public trauma over the van Gogh murder may lead to a clamor for anti-Muslim policies that could victimize thousands of innocent refugees and immigrants. The challenge for Dutch political leaders is to find ways to reverse this disturbing trend of politically motivated violence without making it harder to achieve cultural harmony (end of quote). Notice who gets blamed.

Now a quote from the classics: “Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, They first make mad.” (Euripides). So it is… Europe has embraced a politically correct, multicultural madness that blinds it to the monster it is breeding in the guest room. They say: “Maybe if I feed it and be nice to it, and say kinds things about it, maybe it will not eat me… Please, oh please.” Europe has gone mad. The US, Canada and Australia are not far behind. Bad times are a coming.

JKactuz…your comment about obliterating art and literature is one that I think needs to be at least considered. If for no other reason than in Islam showing any sort of depiction of anything alive (human or animal) is considered idolatry or at least that is what I have been told. That being the case, could there be a demand at some farther point in the future if there is a stronger Islamic voice that these things be removed from museums because they are offensive? Seems like a stretch,but in theory?

I do agree that it is insane what Europe has done in terms of calling undercover agents to task about inciting violence for filming what essentially was the truth (no coersion)and yet let the Imams continue on their merry way. I don’t see that happening here in the USA. I don’t understand why the laws are selectively applied unless of course, they are afraid of the Muslim reactions. which is of course in my opinion no different than a petulant child who is having a temper tantrum on the floor and the parent doesn’t know how to handle it or refuses to do something about it. I think that if they took swift actions and actions that are felt then perhaps the immigrants wouldn’t feel that they could muscle their way around so much. Peaceful demonstration is allowed…violence is out and if you do that you will feel swift and painful consequences. Part of the problem is the French, English, Dutch etc…why don’t they get out and make a counterstink as well and DEMAND that the government apply the laws more fairly. they are allowing themselves to be mowed down and in my experience the French demonstrate at the drop of a hat.

This goes back to what I was saying earlier…there must be rules to follow when you come to the country (Muslim or Non Muslim…applied equally to all) and if you chose not to do so you get booted out. You must adapt to the country not th other way around. It feels very much like the child is the tyrant and the parent is standing there begging the child not to hurt them.

I personally feel very bad about what is happening. As a person who has traveled all over the world and met many interesting people of all stripes I had long held the fantasy that everyone could link arms and walk into the sunset singing “Kumbaya”. I used to be very liberal about accepting the disenfranchised into our countries. Howevr, the older I get and the more I learn about Islam the more I think it may not be possible. I have spoken with Muslims who have told me that Islam has been so distorted nowadays that the directive that was originally in the Qur’an about living in harmony with other religions and respecting the laws of the land you live in are practically obliterated. It is cultural directives that have taken over the religion and those cultural directives have made it very difficult to get along with them and conversely for them to live in our societies. I am not a Qur’anic scholar, but even I, as a lay person just simply observing can see how it is difficult for them to blend in many ways. It seems Canada and America have, to some degree, managed it better…

Perhaps the better solution is to realize that whatever Islam was in terms of peaceful coexistence is not applied on a large scale anymore and we would be better to help them achieve a level of prosperity in their own countries that they can be proud of. That way they are among the culture that works best for them and they don’t feel the need to leave and immigrate to the more prosperous countries that are not suitable to the way they prefer to live(shariah or Qur’anic law.)

I think the vast majority of the world 1.6 billion Muslims do live peaceably with others, don’t try to shove their values down the throats of others. Those Muslims who are annoyed (well, pissed off) over any number of things, though, find a false refuge in their religion and use it as a weapon to achieve what they otherwise cannot. They don’t know or don’t care that they themselves are their religion’s worst enemies; they’re too busy trying to find a way to live that makes any sort of sense to them. Any sense does not imply good sense.

John…

It is a shame because these vocal/violent ones are drowning out any other more mainstream voices and rather than being greeted with a feeling of sensitivity from others they are starting to feel like a problem and the good ones are getting dragged along with the rest. I think most people, if given the choice would like the multicultural thing to work out well. Perhaps some are xenophobic, but overall due to the democratic way the west thinks I think the preference would be for everyone to live peacefully and mix well. Even though I know I have seemed to be advocating something other than that on these posts the truth is I WOULD like to walk into the sunset with everyone singing Kumbaya (figuratively of course)if it is possible.

I agree, that would be great. But I’d insist on some alternative to Kumbaya, too!

I agree with John in that a lot of muslims do live peacefully with others. Just a small story – Only yesterday I was chatting with some Muslim friends and one of them said in a joke, “why don’t you convert to Islam?” At first I was taken aback, because in India we usually think it’s bad to say something like this to a person from another faith – converting someone to any faith is an offensive activity in India. Then I quickly realised he was joking. He continued, “if you convert, the government may give you a high position in the commission for minorities.” I said, “But I don’t think I can convince anyone I am a true Muslim – I study images.” (amongst the many things I do, one is to study religious images – Indian religions included, which use a lot of sculptures and paintings). He said, “No, images are not against Islam; those who think like that don’t understand Islam.”

The point here is not whether Islam accepts images or not, but rather that he was willing to give even that concession to the people of other faiths in India, who regularly worship images and he was willing to argue in support of a culture that uses images on a large scale.

Then, to maintain the equilibrium, I said to him, “why don’t YOU convert to Christianity? The Church gets lots of money from abroad and they’ll take good care of you.” He said, “Yes, if they give me some of their money and a good job, I’m willing to convert to any religion, not only Christianity.”

This shows how much space we can take from each other and Muslims don’t really mind if someone talks to them like this. They don’t go into a mould of “Our religion is the only true religion; all other religions are false etc.”

Oby,
I agree with you that the democratic environment in the West can give everyone a reasonable breathing space without sifling their freedom. That’s why it’s necessary to preserve this democratic freedom there.

I also feel that till only a few decades ago, the Muslims were blending perfectly fine in other cultures. This rise in orthodoxy is a recent phenomenon. Perhas it’s influenced by Iranian revolution and picked up and accelerated by Saudi Arabia. Saudi society was conservative even earlier, but they were not exporting their ideology to the West, nor were the Islamic countries asserting their dominant presence in the West by bringing in UN resolutions such as against hateful speech etc. Now, somehow Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries have begun to export the orthodox version of Islam abroad. I wish Indian and South East Asian muslims got engaged in exporting their versions of Islam abroad – that would change the image of Islam greatly.

‘I also feel that till only a few decades ago, the Muslims were blending perfectly fine in other cultures.’

Daisy from my perspective that is quite true. coming from right outside of NYC it seemed that I cannot remember any of this anger or animosity that we are experiencing now coming from the Muslim community. I mention NYC because I came up in a fairly multicultural area which I think formed my earlier liberal attitudes about immigration and blending, so to speak. I cannot remember all this “our rights” stuff and it seemed that the neighborhood was pretty consistent and quiet. I am 48 so we are going back 30 years or so. As I mentioned elsewhere it was ABSOLUTELY NORMAL to wish a non Christian Merry Christmas and they would usually reply with a smile and wish it back. THEY knew and WE knew that it was not an attempt at conversion or proselytizing …it was meant as a wish of goodwill and peace and joy of the season…everyone understood that and NO ONE was offended. And if Mr. Lefkowitz wished us a “Happy Hanukkah” it meant the same thing and we wished it right back to him. (In fact, just this evening in my email I got a Merry Christmas wish from someone Jewish.) Muslims, Jews, Christians and others all got along well and made space for each other. I think that Saudi Arabia has done the world a grave disservice and perhaps an even bigger one to Muslims by bringing this super strict Islam overseas. They have made a lot of Muslims feel that unless they follow this strict interpretation that there is something wrong with them Islamically speaking. What? They weren’t Muslim, God loving and good Muslims before when they were actually able to mix better? So crazy!

an example…A few weeks ago I was in a store shopping. The store is mostly women but a few men. I was leafing through the racks when I turned around and almost bumped into a woman covered head to foot in an abaya, niqab,gloves…the whole outfit. I said “oh I’m sorry. Excuse me”. She said nothing and didn’t acknowledge my presence or even look at me and I was practically close enough to whisper in her ear(narrow aisles)and I stayed somewhat close as I was going through the racks on the other side of the aisle now. The thing that freaked me out once I got over the immediate shock of almost walking into her and her obviously unusual(for here) outfit was she got on her cell phone and in PERFECTLY accented American English started talking about a party she was going to attend later that day. On closer inspection(I could see the skin around her eyes) I realized she must have been a new convert because she was African American and very obviously not foreign via the accent. The outfit isn’t what threw me so much off guard. What really threw me was knowing that most likely prior to her conversion this same woman would not only have made eye contact and said “excuse me” back to me, we might have even exchanged a few polite words. I became a NONPERSON to her once she put on the “uniform” and became the pious Muslim. THAT was very unsettling to me. Of course, I am assuming things here, but she was not a foreigner so eye contact would NOT have been unusual to her. Had she come from a country where she grew up like that…different story. And to be honest I wondered if I had on a headscarf if she would have acknowledged my presence. It was kind of creepy. so it made me start thinking why all of a sudden was I not even worthy of a polite “excuse me” or “no problem” from her. why ignore me as if I didn’t exist? (And there is NO WAY she didn’t hear me or notice me.) Due to my reading these blogs I started thinking that maybe she felt she was better than me because she was a Muslim. She voluntarily segregated herself by being under the abaya/naqib and even more so by not acknowledging me at all. It is attitudes like this that are creeping into the Muslim world and are causing trouble. I am truly worried where this can lead…and it has changed my once liberal attitude to immigration.

the National Geographic a few months back talked about the subtle changes going on in Indonesia due to Saudi influence. They said for 1000 years they have been very gentle, moderate, accepting of other religions, not dogmatic in anyway. The article was about,in part, how this Saudi version of Islam is creeping into their culture and having an influence. One part of their country, Aceh, has adopted Shariah law as the form of governance and there is a strong push for other parts of the country to accept it. Now in Aceh they have adopted stoning as a form of punishment. They were saying that they have been a happy republic for a long time and now are having to battle this influence. So far moderation is the name of the game throughout most of the country, thank goodness.

http://www.mysinchew.com/node/29270

Here is the Nat. Geo. article in it’s entirety I believe without photos.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2009/10/indonesia/finkel-text

Oby,
In fact, you were not just a non-entity, as a non-Muslim, you were a follower of a false religion and therefore, to be avoided. It is this closed-mindset that irritates me. They may think they have redeemed themselves by following the only true religion, but I feel it is a height of arrogance to think that all others in this world are lowly creatures. Unfortunately, it is this orthodox version of Islam that is being promoted by Saudi Arabia and the neo-converts in the West are also following this version, under the mistaken belief that this is the only version of Islam possible. Because Saudi Arabia has been pampered so much, now this version of Islam is also penetrating the more tolerant parts of the Muslim world viz, South Asia and South East Asia, as you have shown in the National Geographic article.

There is a serious need for the world to rethink what Islamic practices really mean. Islam is not a monolithic religion – there are regions in this world where Muslims are highly tolerant, but they get marginalised because of the kind of international geo-politics that exists in the world and instead, the highly intolerant, violent form of Islam is the one that is being propagated. I think non-Muslim parts of the world have to understand that there are various shades of Islam existing in this world and the Arab Islam is not the only one – it should not be accepted as the “valid” form of Islam, especially because it is not applicable to the democratic world and also because majority of the world’s Muslims do not practise the Arab version of Islam. Unless the world accepts this, the situation in the world is going to only deteriorate.

Daisy…

It would be wonderful if India could inject some of that into other countries. I think that fact that an Indian Muslim can say that goes to the heart of your society. Although they are Muslim, they also identify themselves as Indians and have a very practical attitude toward Islam. It seems to transcend the religion and go to the heart of the “everything is workable” attitude i find in many Indians. I was always charmed and equally amazed that they were able to figure out their way around obstacles that might stop others…more than that they did it cheerfully. I am sure not all are like that but I knew enough that did that to think that it must be a bit of a widespread ethos. In fact, I came to almost depend on it. If I had a question or objection that it can’t be done it was often met with a hand held up and a waggle of the head as if to stop me and say “don’t worry. I will get it done for you”.

He said, “No, images are not against Islam; those who think like that don’t understand Islam.” i don’t know enough to say one way or the other but I had been told it was against Islam…I am not surprised in a country where “everything is workable” that that is OK too. Feels like a breath of fresh air.

Oby,
Thanks for that. I too was amazed at what he said and that really shows the kind of tolerance that each religion needs to show towards another.

Here is another beautiful example – there are some Hindi film songs which talk about “having the desire to worship a stone image as God,” symbolically meaning – loving the cold-hearted beloved, who doesn’t respond. These songs are sung by Muhammad Rafi, a famous Muslim playback singer of many Hindi films, who never had any problem singing such songs, which are very popular in all communities in India, including the Muslim.

John,
Show me only one Arab Muslim who can match the examples of these Indian Muslims above, then you can argue that Saudi Arabia should be treated as the leader of the Islamic world.

I do feel that the West’s perception that Arab version of Islam is the “true” one is adding to the problem, because it allows the Arabs an unfair advantage and they get the space to promote extremism around the world. If you look at it this way, unconsciously – without realising it – the American State may be indirectly promoting Islamic extremism in the world by having extra-friendly ties with Saudi Arabia and by treating them as the leaders of the Islamic world.

The truth is that majority of the Muslim population doesn’t live in the Arab world and doesn’t really bother about what Saudi Arabia says. For non-Arab Muslims, the non-Muslim population in their own countries and their own government’s policies are what matter. There is a serious need for the American State to understand this and to have diffrent policies for Muslims in different parts of the world, rather than treating Saudi Arabia as the leader of the Islamic world – this is far from truth.

And perhaps the US can also spread awareness in the West about these other tolerant versions of Islam that exist in the non-Arab world, not with a view to convert but so that people can know that there are tolerant Muslims around and it’s just this one version of Islam that is problematic and it is followed only by the Arab Muslims.

Thank you, Oby, for the observation about art and literature. I did hesitate as I wrote that (calling it drastic), but I think it is a valid observation. Let me explain:

I also see Islam as unfriendly to the arts, not just democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and equality. Needless to say, Islam is not known for its sculpture, paintings, theatre, dance, opera and music. Muslim societies seem to have little interest in museums and art galleries. Yes, I know that there are some museums in Islamic societies and the Louve will open a branch in Abu Dhabi. Even so, there seems to be a very relaxed attitude among Muslims regarding the arts that ranges from indifference at best to outright hostility. Treasures of antiquity from pre-Islamic cultures are often ignored or even destroyed. Of course, I need not mention that has happened even to ancient Islamic sites in Arabia. Archeology is not big in the Islamic world except for Egypt, and I could argue that even this is driven by tourist money. I could also add a few words about Islam’s prophet and his attitude towards the arts: “Mohammed’s dead poets society” is all that one need say. Muslim Q&A sites are full of this “art is bad” stuff, as well. Cat Stevens gave up music for 20 years because they told him is was “unislamic.” Who is ‘They’? Once again, I see no reason to believe that the so-called moderates would be able to prevent the radicals from implementing a repressive Islamization agenda that would suppress the arts.

This attitude towards the arts is a consequence of the dogmatic approach to Islam’s teachings and history, which itself is a consequence of the lack of tolerance and the inability for Muslims to self-reflect or self-criticize on any aspect of their faith, as well as the distorted relationship between the sexes in Islam (Note that ‘love’ and the eternal conflict between men and women have inspired much of art for the last 6,000 years). Because Islam is a complete way of life (so they say) art must then be a slave of religion, and, as you say, there are quranic and hadithic (???) injunctions that limit artistic expression (calligraphy and some elements of architecture are the exception). Anything pre-islamic or non-islamic is seen as having little value.

I don’t see a place for these in an Islamic world:
this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbLl2C3ChYY&feature=related
This especially
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=md-ws6knYkE&feature=related
this type of art
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkTQwP2gFxU&feature=related
Oops, I meant this (wrong dance video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFLZReE0_0Y&feature=related
As well as these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_(Michelangelo)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Leonardo_da_Vinci_020.jpg
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/gperf/shows/romeoandjuliet/romeoandjuliet.html
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/introduction.html
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/animalfarm/
and so on…

You are right about the need for dialogue and rules. However, I see no desire from Western elites to tackle the hard issues, and the so-called moderate Muslims are equally silent (or afraid/unable to face their hardcore brethren). In a strange way, people like me and you are Muslims’ best friend. I know all of you are choking and that is hard to swallow, but nobody does Muslims a favor by patting them on the back and pretending all is well. Personally I don’t mind people telling me I am wrong, as long as they tell me why and give me information to consider. I don’t mind hearing the Muslim side of things, as long as I can express my opinions freely. I know that much of that I say is subjective and unsubstantiated – so far. It is an opinion, and not engraved in stone by anyone on the 7th floor up in the clouds.

This, too, is part of the meaning of the minaret. It is a rejection of those who reject Western Civilization, and includes many aspects, including the arts. It was a vote on what is acceptable in society and the rights and relationships of members in a society to each other.
K.
PS: I like art and I don’t consider much of the Arab rock/rap/music videos on Youtube to be art (anymore than the junk Western ‘civilization’ produces these days). Maybe that is just old age speaking.

A confession: Actually I just wanted a chance to throw in a Mario Lanza video – my mom’s favorite singer. She has been gone over 40 years now, but everytime I hear Old Mario’s voice I think of her. Lanza was one of the original Hollywood self-destruct idols. We had a conversation with friends the other night as to the best ‘drinking songs’ and Drink drink drink won easily. Shelly West’s Jose Cuevo was second followed by Margaridaville and Beer Barrel Polka. There was one song that eveybody liked, Cachaca nao e’ agua, but it suffered because none of us had ever had ever heard it performed sober or by anybody that could carry a note. I kid you not. Sample:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRJhjtQPhQo

Not that Princess Lea does a bad job with Amidala at 1:20 in the other video. Maybe Darth Vader will destroy us all so we won’t have to worry about all this ‘clash of civilization’ stuff.

The point is drinking and dancing and islam, for the most part, don’t mix.

Kactuz

J. Kactuz,
They mix very well in the non-Arab Muslim world. This is the point I have been making above. You don’t have any idea how many Muslim singers and dancers both India and Pakistan have had and how many songs they have sung about drinking. In fact, drinking is a common theme of Urdu poetry, much loved by Muslims and non-Muslims alike in South Asia.

In fact Urdu poetry has transcended all barriers of religious orthodoxy. Look at this Urdu couplet by Ghalib, regarded as perhaps the greatest Urdu poet ever born – “Do not lift the veil from the Kabah; who knows if even from here our Beloved will emerge in the form of a Kafir (ie, a transgressor from Islam).” This is a reference to the fact that a stone is venerated at Kabah. The poet is speaking in facvour of the Indian religions here, which regularly worship images.

Ghalib was an aristocratic Muslim poet who lived in Delhi in the 19th century.

It’s no longer possible to write this kind of poetry in today’s intolerant world supported by the Arab Islam.

This is precisely why I am arguing that the West needs to know about the other versions of Islam that exist in the world – and these versions are the practices of the majority of Muslims, not the Arab version, which happens to be the intolerant, violent, closed-minded version.

It’s only the Arab Muslims who have been creating these kinds of problems, and they are the minority amongst the world’s Muslin population, so I don’t see why the US should consider Saudi Arabia as the leader of the Islamic world which is in fact giving impetus to all this problem about Islamic extremism, getting a kind of indirect approval from the US, without the Americans realising that they are in fact encouraging this extremism.

My question to John above relates to exactly this issue.

J. Kactuz,
Ghalib’s poetry cited above goes on to say the following about drinking – “What’s the status of a wine-house and what’s the status of a religious scholar (ie, there is no comparison between them). However, one evening as I was coming out (from the wine-house), I saw him (the religious scholar) going in.”

Not only is this verse in support of a drinking culture, it criticises the hypocrisy of religious scholars who preach these restrictive values to the society, but do not follow them themselves.

Urdu poetry is full of descriptions of drinking sessions.

sorry Daisy i do not totally agree with you. Non of islamic versions is in favour of drinking or debauchery which late Ghalib, who by the way happens to be my favourite poet
” may mercy of Allah include him” was so fond of and we are not judge him or anyone else, but as all human beings we have cravings and desires instincts ,the way we direct and give vent to them contributes to well being or destruction of any society.
Islam is not to be blamed for the severe rules and punishment rather than the societies which inforce them randomly nor it is responsible for not building churches and synagogue nor for prohibing women from driving etc.
in fact islam is as the prophet (pbuh) said religion is easy and flexible do not make it difficult and hard to repel people from following it.
and after all Allah shows us the way and says : who does good he is doing favour to himself and who does bad the result will be bad to him, but making it police state and chasing people in every nook and corner hunting mistakes and lapses is not the way people should live their lives.
to all nonmuslims i to appeal and call on their open democratic minds not judge islam through the images we the muslims of time reflect, investigate islam yourself and ask good poeople for informations preconceptions and propaganda are advisable means to judges things.

Daisy,

India is one place (or better, another of the many places) I have never been. I would love to visit it. My daughter has been there many times and speaks very well of it (one of the suitcases in my garage has a ‘taj mahal – Mumbai’ sticker on it. One thing I noticed (when young) was that Indian women are very beautiful(and this from a person raised in a land of women known for their beauty).

I totally agree with you. Islam has changed in my lifetime. Of course, there is no one reason, but a wide variety of related and unrelated factors have combined to give us the joy that is radical Islamism. The problem is that “the other versions of islam” are more and more MIA. It seems that the moderates are losing ground to the radicals. I was doing research on Turkey the other day and even this country is slowly going down the road to a more fundamentalist version of Islam. As regards to Egypt, I give it 5 years before the brotherhood takes over, and you know what that means.

About poetry. In the West we have forgotten this art. Most people don’t realize how common it was for everybody to write poems up until the 1920s and 30s. My grandparents all left pages of poetry, to their children, to each other, about love and nature. It is a shame. Now we tweet!

As to drinking, it is part of mankind. All societies do it, it is only a matter of degrees and the choice of what vegitable they will use to make their poison. Take the case of soubiya…

To a certain extent, art has a duty to transcend normality and even shock. To do this it requires freedom of speech. Islam at its best and greatest always occurred far from the sands of Arabia (Bagdad, Delhi, Spain). Now, unfortunately, Arabia is now in control and its 7th century version is sweeping the world. Of course, the problem is that you can’t have Islam without Arabs. More than anything else, Islam defines Arabness. When the Swiss voted, they were thinking of the that islam, not that of Ghalib.

Take care, lady

majed Said:
December:12:2009 – 09:18

Daisy,

i do not totally agree with you. Non of islamic versions is in favour of drinking or debauchery which late Ghalib, who by the way happens to be my favourite poet
” may mercy of Allah include him” was so fond of and we are not judge him or anyone else, he has as all human beings have cravings, desires and instincts ,the way we direct and give vent to them contributes either in well being or destruction of any society.
Islam is not to be blamed for the severe rules and punishment rather than the societies which inforce them randomly nor it is responsible for not building churches and synagogue nor for prohibing women from driving etc..of things many nonmuslims specially the European and Amercians attribute to Islam as a religion defects.
in fact islam is as the prophet (pbuh) said religion is easy and flexible do not make it difficult and hard to repel people from following it.
and after all Allah shows us the way and says : who does good he is doing favour to himself and who does bad the result will be bad to him,so if someone make it police state of any country and start chasing people in every nook and corner hunting mistakes and lapses is not the way people should live their lives, although there is only few examples for this yet most critics consider it as a general rule.
to all nonmuslims i would like to appeal and call on their open democratic minds not judge islam through the images we the muslims of this time reflect, investigate islam yourself and ask poeople with knowledge for informations, preconceptions and propaganda are not advisable means to judges things.
we should remember that nations are just like human being they are born and in the process of their growth they make mistakes and learn from their mistakes then they reach the stage of maturity just like you people did after all we have reborn after long period of colonialism and ignorance.
and forgive for my poor english but i did my best.

J. Kactuz,
This is the great misconception that the West has – that Islam can’t be defined without Arabness – in most of the Muslim world, Islam HAS BEEN defined by non-Arabness – Arabness is a minor section of Muslimness. So there is absolutely no need to give them so much of importance – it is absolutely undemocratic and against the laws of social justice to define a system by what the small number in that system are doing and not by the majority of that system are doing.

I understood John’s argument about Saudi airspace, but I think except that, Saudi Arabia isn’t important for anything else – now Russia is there to supply oil and Saudi Arabia is useless for Islamic policy. As for airspace, I think the cost to the entire world is too much in terms of extremism, hatred and violence that is taking place everywhere just because the US wants to use the Saudi airspace. It’s high time the US develops another strategy for airspace in West Asia.

About religious definitions, look at it this way –

Has anyone tried to find a world spokesperson for Christianity? Isn’t it absurd to think of a single region as a world spokesperson for Christianity? And if at all one has to do it, should we nominate the area around Jerusalem as the sole spokesperson for the entire Christian world, simply because Christianity was born there? Isn’t it absolutely stupid to think like that?

Same with Buddhism – historical Buddhism no longer exists in India where it was born, but many versions of Buddhism exist in different parts of Asia. Isn’t it absolutely stupid to nominate any single one of these societies as the sole spokesperson for the entire Buddhist world? Isn’t it absolutely stupid to reinvent historical Buddhism from 6th century BCE and try to impose it on every Buddhist society in the world in 21st century?

Same goes for Jainism, which is as old as Buddhism and exists in India as well as in the West through the Indian diaspora. If after a few generations these diaspora Jains begin to change according to the environment in their host countries, won’t it be absolutely stupid to nominate India as the spokesperson for Jainism and try to control the diaspora Jains through this “spokesperson?”

OK Jews have decided to have Israel as their identifying place, but does it mean that Jews all over the world are exactly similar to the Jews in Israel? Can you measure the entire Jewish population by only Israel? Isn’t it a stupid idea?

OK, since Hinduism is a very different kind of a religion, with no single sacred Book, no single prophet and no single overarching principle, let’s leave out Hinduism.

But from the analogy of other religions, can’t you see how absurd and impractical this policy is – when the majority of the world’s Muslims DO NOT follow the Arab version of Islam and besides, it’s the Arab version of Islam that has created all the problems?

Is a world power like the US supposed to make this kind of stupid religious policy? Aren’t they supposed to be smarter than this?

What legitimate ground does the US have to marginalise the majority of the Muslim population of the world – to relegate them to almost nothingness and to glorify a small section of Islamic population? And if a layperson like me can see that this is giving impetus to the Arabs to spread extremism in the world, can’t the US experts see it? Isn’t a global power supposed to be much more insightful and responsible than this?

I am not arguing that the US has done this consciously, but this is the consequence of their Islamic policy and it’s high time they realise it, rather than going on creating conflict everywhere in the name of containing terrorism. If you don’t strike at the roots, how can the terrorism be contained just by plucking the leaves?

You have talked about increasing extremism in Turkey, Egypt etc – can’t you see that this is happening because the US is supporting Saudi Arabia?

It’s absolutely essential for the US to realise that this policy is wrong, they should have different Islamic policies for different parts of the Muslim world rather than relying on the culprit who is in the minority anyway.

This only shows how ignorant the US has been about the diverse nuances of different Asian societies and going by the kind of education that goes on in the American schools and colleges, I’m not surprised at the ignorance of the US policy-makers. With this kind of policy, Americans aren’t doing any service to their own country and they aren’t doing any service to the world.

So far I have the faith that perhaps even Americans don’t want to be the indirect supporters and cause of Islamic terrorism. I sincerely hope that I won’t have to revise my opinion of the Americans.

You are welcome to visit India. This is a country you can’t comprehend in a couple of weeks. It’s too diverse for that. And there are so many places to see. You should come here for longer periods and perhaps several times. You won’t get the sophisticated infrastructure that you are used to in the West – unless you want to spend a lot of money – but you’ll have a very interesting experience that you won’t get anywhere else in the world.

My argument wasn’t whether the Kingdom deserved the reputation it has within Islam. Rather it was that it does have that reputation. As such, it is useful to the US (and others) to have the Saudis in even general agreement with foreign policy initiatives. Not critical, perhaps, but it helps.

John,
It hasn’t helped – it has increased the incidents of terrorism. And it doesn’t have that reputation. The majority of Muslims do not think of Saudi Arabia as their leader – they are not going to rush to fall in line if Saudi Arabia gives a call. This is what the US has to understand and has to stop treating them with that greatness – the US is indirectly encouraging terrorism by doing this, without even realising it. Does the US have to have its foreign policy at this cost to the world? This is a faulty policy and it’s time the US develops different policies for different Muslim populations – it’s not logical to have one single Islamic policy for this diverse community. And how can you contain terrorism by helping the terrorists? Does it make sense? Please tell me where I am wrong.

majed…

I think in fact Daisy was saying what you are saying. That in other parts of the Muslim (non Arab) world Islam is followed in a more “livable…less police state” way. for Example in India or Indonesia it is a much more moderate and accommodating to life in general and to other religions. It is the strict, “police state”( I love that phrase-describes it well)Islam coming out of ‘Saudi Arabia that they are spreading around the world that is problematic. and in fact, after following these blogs, it seems to me that so much of Arab Islam is more about culture than the religion anyway.

PS….

majed, your English was fine…we understood. Thanks.

Majed,
I am not talking about Quranic theology, which is not diverse but monolithic – and much of it Saudi Arabia tries to impose on its people, the argument of Western muslims that Saudi Islam is not what the Quran preaches not withstanding. In fact it is possible to find the basis of most of the Saudi laws in the Quran or in the Hadiths.

My argument is very different from the imposition of a monolithic theology everywhere. I am talking more about how different Muslim societies have interpreted and practised Islam in different environments, which has made the non-Arab Muslims tolerant and non-extremists, unlike the Arab Muslims who have never learnt to be tolerant of a viewpoint different from their own. This is what is creating the extremist problem in the world, especially when the global powers like the US begin to give too much of credit to this violent, intolerant version of Islam.

And if you think Arab Islam is the “True Islam” then please check the demographic profile of the Muslim world. You’ll know where the majority of the Muslims live and how miniscule is the Arab population. You can’t deny the right of these non-Arab Muslims to practise their faith in whichever way they find it convenient. Arabs have no business trying to disrupt peace in the world by trying to impose their version of religiosity on everyone.

Oby,
Thanks for saying it so simply and so clearly. Yes, it is also about spreading the Arab culture everywhere because Arabs are so arrogant about their culture too.

Majed,
I’m not ignorant of Islamic injunctions. I know there are problems in Quranic injunctions. We have debated it at length on another blog, so not repeating it here, since we are the same commentators.

Daisy…

‘You are welcome to visit India. This is a country you can’t comprehend in a couple of weeks. It’s too diverse for that. And there are so many places to see. You should come here for longer periods and perhaps several times. You won’t get the sophisticated infrastructure that you are used to in the West – unless you want to spend a lot of money – but you’ll have a very interesting experience that you won’t get anywhere else in the world.’

Amen to that!!! I have traveled around India and I am sure it helped that I was with a native but it is so diverse from region to region and yet in some ways I found it to be comfortingly similar. I will say however, there were a couple of things I could not get used to no matter how hard I tried.

Eating with your hands. My husband is from the North and from my experience they all use a spoon…(for those not familiar with Indian food a fork will not work because most Indian food is wet, and sitting in a gravy or sauce. Hence the need for a spoon or a piece of bread to use as a spoon…) Of course in the south rice is the starch staple and when you mix that with the saucy foods and eat with your hands…well…let’s just say it is hard to watch and even harder to master.

they need more public bathrooms suitable for tourists. I traveled when I was 5 months pregnant and could not find a bathroom when I needed it.

Don’t get me started about the crazy policies America has. Makes me want to scream at times.

The rest of the world may be moderate Islamically, but Wahabiism is spreading and THAT is the problem. Muslims themselves are starting to identify with the more extreme Islam. Bad, Bad News. And the USA has enough clout to lean on KSA to try to put a stop to it…question is why don’t they? Cause in my opinion if they don’t a big fight is coming and not necessarily among nations.

oby: While you’re blaming Wahhabism, take a look at India’s Deobandism. Strains of it are as fierce as anything you’d find in the KSA. It’s my conclusion that when the two of them mixed, along with the Muslim Brotherhood, in Afghanistan, we have the modern terrorism of today.

I’m going to have to re-read what you’ve written here and think about it. I’m not dodging the question; I just don’t have an answer in my pocket…

Going for the big two oh oh, ho ho ho.

Majed–I agree with you that people should make time to get to know more about Islam, and to get to know Muslims so they appreciate how to put the news images and the war propaganda into perspective, and to understand that by definition extremism represents a minority of any group, and that like the other 3 Abrahamic faiths Islam has many currents, from more liberal to conservative to extreme.

Thank you John…I always love to learn so I will be looking up and reading about Deobandism. I appreciate the heads up.

Daisy, I stand by my statement that Islam cannot be divorced from the Arab people. More so than ever, Arabness definess Islam. Not only that, Arab money (from the Saudis) is pushing Islam towards a more radical, intolerant position. The salafis (including the deobandis) control a majority of mosques around the word and they teach a very intolerant flavor of Islam. Note that Islam holds that the true Islam expressed in the Quran can only be understood in Arabic. Note that converts often take Arab names.

Here is a quote:
The linguistic superiority of Arabic, and the superiority of Arabs in achieving full knowledge of Arabic, is a reality which is derived from the necessity of knowing the Qur’an and the Sunna fully, and they are expressed in Arabic. In that superficial linguistic sense, as in the accidental historical sense, Arabs also have a natural superiority.
http://www.sunnah.org/aqida/status_of_arabs.htm

Of course, I can find opposite views from Islamic sources:
“There is no superiority of an Arab over a non-Arab, nor of a non-Arab over an Arab…. except in whoever fears Allah the most.” (Note that is doesn’t say that infidels are equal to Muslims. We obviously are not as good as Muslims).

And there is the problem of ambiguity: “You are the best of peoples” (3:100). Exactly who is “you”? The Arabs? The Muhajirun/Shahaba? The Ummah? (For certain we infidels are not ‘the best’ as quoted.). Not only that, Muslims believe the Rashidun era (all Arabs) to be the best example of Islam in practice, as crazy as that sounds. Of course this debate is as old as Islam, when the concept of Mawali (client Muslims) arose in the Abbasid dynasty. In my opinion, the concept “Islam” cannot be separated from the concept “Arab”.

Daisy, when it comes to “the hypocrisy” of religious scholars (and preachers, priests, bishops, Imams, rabbis, etc…) , you can sign me up. Well, for 99.9% of them.

As to vice and debauchery, I support them – to a certain extent. They are part of human society. It is my opinion they have their purpose but they should have a certain stigma attached to them.

Majed – So what if we have investigated Islam, and based upon that investigation, have concluded that it promotes hate and violence? What then? Why do we have to ask other people about Islam and why can’t we judge Islam by what Muslims do? Should we judge it by what Buddhists do? I would also like you to not assume that non-Muslims are ignorant of Islam, its writings and history. By the way, have you read the ahadith? Did you notice anything?

Kactuz

John,
I have the special honour of writing the 200th comment on this page! So I think I deserve a special treat from the blog-owner!

I am going to catch my flight today and will access the internet only intermittently till 27th. So please keep this page open for comments – I’ll write the comments whenever I get Internet access.

John,
Please read from comment No 173 onwards to understand the chain of argument running here. I would love to see your proper elaborate response once you have time and are no longer tired.

About Deoband, yes, they are an orthodox school in India but it’s not as if they control the behaviour pattern of all Muslim population. They issue their fatwas, often quite controversial – in the Indian context, “controversial” is orthodox, not the opposite. Yes, some illiterate, semi-literate and economically backward Muslim groups may fall in the trap of Deoband fatwas, but any educated Muslim who is even middle-class does not necessarily take these fatwas seriously. As a part of freedom of expression, Deoband has a right to issue orthodox fatwas if it likes. As a part of freedom of action, Muslims have a right to decide whether they want to follow or not – and there are many Muslims who don’t follow them.

Please Compare this with the Arab situation and you’ll see why the Arabs should not be defended.

J Kactuz,
I am aware of that link between Islam and Arab culture – in the Islamic Paradise Arabic is the only language that is spoken, so all of you better learn Arabic – so far only John will be able communicate with no one in the Islamic Paradise and may have to talk to himself! Seeing this argument going on here he may already be considering that option anyway!!

The point that I am trying to make is that this has to be changed – it has been changed in the non-Arab Muslim world and the West should emerge out of this trap too. Otherwise you’ll never be able to solve this terrorism problem.

Oby,
That’s right. There are many things in India you may never get used to – I haven’t got used to the heat and dust and the argumentative Indians – you have one specimen here throwing enough material for a WW III here.

The reason why Indians eat with hands is that Indian food follows the principle of blending the flavours and the Indian flavours can be blended best with hand. I eat with spoon or hand as the necessity arises, but the food doesn’t taste as good if the flavours are not blended properly. That’s why we wash the hands before eating and also afterwards.

But as a foreigner, you can use the spoon and fork all the time, I don’t think people will mind that.

Daisy…

As it is Christmas time, the TV here is full of Christmas themed shows. Kid shows, fun shows, comedies, OLD movies with wonderful loving themes, but the ones I particularly like are the historical shows that talk about Jesus, his life, the archeology of the area where he lived and preached etc. For me that brings him to life and makes him real. Last night while watching a particular three part series I could not help but think of you very strongly…

One of the people speaking on the show was a professor of theology at a big, very well known college and for the life of me I can’t remember his full name…I wanted to look him up for you. Anyway, that’s not important. What he said about the gospels (they were comparing and contrasting the Gospels and how they were alike and how they also differed and what that meant). He said one statement which was “Were the people of antiquity so stupid as to write the Gospels to be taken literally and we are so brilliant that we take them symbolically? Or were the people of antiquity so brilliant to write these Gospels to be an allegory ie: a symbolical narrative meant to teach a lesson and we modern people are so stupid that we are taking the Gospels literally today? He said “I think it is that we are the stupid ones.” Meaning that the people back then wrote them to teach a lesson and it had it’s basis in truth but might not be able to be taken literally. I wanted to jump up and down and say “Yes…that is one of the problems as I see it.” Things written in Islam 1400 years ago are in some ways being followed literally today and it doesn’t fit in our society today. Literalism and religion don’t mix well.

The other thing that I was pleased about and some people might think that this is cracked…but I am glad that as a people and as a religion that we are able and not afraid to take a look at things and question, interpret and think critically even when it comes to our religion. I LOVE the fact that they find things that might enhance the view of our faith and that it is not a stagnant faith and it can change and adapt.

A simple example…they talked about the Garden of Gehtsemane which is where Jesus prior to being given up to the guards went to pray while his disciplines fell asleep waiting for his return. They now think that the translation of the word “Gethsemane” is incorrect.. it wasn’t a garden after all; it was a cave where olives were pressed. The Hebrew word for olive press is VERY close to the word Gethsemane. So when it was written down and translated somehow it got translated from cave for olive pressing to Garden. Although the geographic area named for the garden of Gethsemane was extremely close to the cave and they found the cave where the Garden was supposed to be.

Some people might find that very upsetting but I love that we are able to work with our interpretations and grow as needed. And since you have said that so strongly over and over I couldn’t help but think of you.

Daisy, I’m too old to learn another language. So I guess I’ll pass on the Islamic paradise. Not only that, what the heck would I do with those women? (or technically, houris, or worse yet, hoor al-ayn/hurs)

One woman telling me what to do is enough, thank you very much. I donate my hoors to john.

j. kactuz

LMAO!

Oby,
You are absolutely right! I love to read the archaeology of the Bible and thre has been a lot of criticism and reinterpretations of the Indian religios too – that’s way to grow.

J. Kactuz,
On Carol’s blog we created a 21st Century heaven, where you can customise your own features in the heaven – perhaps you’ll like to join there. See “How many heavens are there” on Carol’s blog.

Mine comes with a beautiful sea-beach.

John,
You are going to have a nice time (or tough time, depending on the way you see it) in Paradise with everyone’s houris along with your own!

OK, see you all, have to rush to catch my flight.

Daisy–”Please Compare this with the Arab situation and you’ll see why the Arabs should not be defended.” You mean that the vast majority of peaceable Arab Muslims ie the vast majority of 15-20% of 1.6 billion shouldn’t be defended against a shared reputation with the violent extreme minority, some of whom are not Arabs but South Asian, Filipino, Indonesian, African, European, and American?

Oby–#202–wonderful. If you haven’t read him already you might enjoy the work of academic John Dominic Crossan, an ex-priest, Catholic historian of Biblical times who has written a number of books for non-specialists on the historical Jesus. He is retired from Loyola, the famous Catholic University where he was a chair professor for decades. His website has some interesting texts online, including his wonderful biography, and his elaboration of Jesus identity as a peasant class Jew:

http://www.johndominiccrossan.com/

Wiki is also a good starting place on him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dominic_Crossan

Jay–brilliantly funny! (who knew? LOL )

Chiara…

I could kiss you! Thank you! THAT IS THE MAN WHOSE NAME I COULDN’T FULLY REMEMBER! I am very impressed with him each time I see him on a show. I was entering John Grosse in Google and couldn’t find him…I even entered John Cross with no luck.I was so close. Of course I couldn’t remember his school either. You have made my day….I will definately read up on him…I don’t know much about him so I appreciate the links… thank you once again and Merry Christmas to you and the others on this website. For those of whom this is not your holiday…Season’s Greetings…enjoy the love and good feelings of this season. I wish you all the best!

Everyone: Please read this…very heartwarming. We need more of this worldwide.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091224/ap_on_re_us/us_a_muslim_mitzvah

enjoy!

Oby–the kisses are returned! LOL I LOVE JOHN DOMINIC CROSSAN! Be sure to read as well, online, his critique of Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. Brilliant as usual. I often find wikipedia provides good references, and often a good overview as a starting point as well. Fortunately Crossan has his own website, which I shall have to return to since the St Paul stuff looks new, since the last time I was there. Crossan is great in a documentary or talk show. I must see if he can be found on google videos or youtube.

Thanks for the heartwarming link, and truly in the spirit of the season.

I will be addressing more interfaith issues shortly on my blog–may put Crossan in there somewhere as you have reminded me of his excellent work. Thanks.

Chiara,
I have been arguing all along that the Islamic violence and extremism in South Asia and South East Asia (and now in North Africa as per J. Kactuz) has been perpetrated by the West Asian Arabs – primarily Saudi Arabia, becuase Saudis have got such an undue advantage under US support. This in black and white means that you can actually trace back the perpetuation of Islamic violence, intolerance and extremism that exists in South Asia and South East Asia to West Asia, especially to Saudi Arabia.

Perhaps you and the other visitors of this page, will like to know that Osama Bin Laden is NOT A SOUTH ASIAN – he belongs to a prominent SAUDI FAMILY. He was born in Riyadh, his father had close ties with SAUDI ROYAL FAMILY and he studied in Saudi Arabia. It’s not surprising that he has got this kind of violence in him that he thinks should be imposed on the world.

It’s bad enough that South Asia is being turned into a Saudi terrorist training zone and on top of it, South Asia also gets the blame for Saudi Arabia’s crimes!

That’s because it hurts the interests of the West to admit that the entire Islamic policy of placing the Arabs on a high platform has been wrong and has in fact given rise to the terrorism in the world. So, South Asia, an impoverished and helpless region gets blamed as the easy scapegoat of the West and of Saudi Arabia.

This kind of closing your eyes to the reality isn’t going to solve the terrorism problem. Rather than being closed-minded, it’s high time for the West and for the US in particular to think clearly about whom they are supporting for what reasons and what’s the price this world is paying for this.

It is a reality that Saudi Arabia is exporting Islamic violence across the world, making less powerful regions as South Asia and South-East Asia as its base and the US has not understood this strategy of Saudi Arabia – their support to the Saudi Arabia has only accelerated the rise of terrorism in the world. In this situation, there is no point in adopting the strategies that the US is adopting to control terrorism – they have to strike at the roots and distance themselves from Saudi Arabia and be strict with the Saudi policies.

And this can be done only if the Americans realise and accept these linkages between Saudi-Us partnership and terrorism in the first place. Blaming the victim that is South Asia isn’t going to solve any problems.

John,
This answers your point about Afghanistan as well. I would really appreciate your thoughts on this.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all!

Daisy–I think you would be safe in assuming that those commenting here are well aware of Osama bin Laden’s biography. On the other hand you seem to conflate bin Laden, the Saudi government, Saudis and Arabs.

I don’t know who here you think is blaming the victim South Asia. Or are you conflating the West, the US, Obama’s wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the commentators here?

I have read many, many of your comments here and elsewhere, and while you are obviously bright and knowledgeable, you seem to dismiss internal South Asian strife and to focus on problems of and with Saudi. I have no doubt there is proselytizing by Saudi, but I find it hard to believe they are exporting terrorism while combating it themselves. Rigid and conservative is not the same as radical and violent.

Many of us “Westerners” are underwhelmed (to say the least) with American foreign policy. To look at voting patterns, and exit polls one can only conclude that about 1/2 the Americans are too.

I’m not sure what the purpose of your above comment is, especially as you seem to think I am so obtuse that explanations are wasted. On the other hand, you seem not to have read my full sentence as written above:
“…a shared reputation with the violent extreme minority, some of whom are not Arabs but South Asian, Filipino, Indonesian, African, European, and American?”

Maybe when you are rested from your travels, and I am rested from waiting up for Santa, we will be able to comprehend each other better, without the need for ANGRY CAPS.

I have serious reservations about the concept of a “peaceful Muslim majority”. I turn on the computer yesterday and it defaults to Yahoo. There are two news items on the page:
1.Threats, Ashoura bring blue Christmas in Iraq.
“Christmas is bumping into Shiite Islam’s most mournful ceremony this year, forcing Iraqi Christians to keep their celebrations under tighter wraps than usual.”

And
2. Pakistan Christians celebrate Christmas in fear
“No Christmas decorations brighten the tent camp sheltering Christians left homeless by the worst violence against minorities in Pakistan this year. Instead, there is a pervasive sense of fear. The Christians have received cell phone text messages warning them to expect a “special Christmas present,” they say, and are terrified of their tents being torched or their church services being bombed.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091224/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan_christmas_of_fear

Today I open my browser and I get this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091225/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_gulf_arabia_s_christians

“The Vatican’s top cleric in the heart of Muslim Arabia tends to a flock of 2 million Christians spread around six desert nations. But he has to do it quietly: Most of them must still pray in secret and are forbidden to display crosses and other symbols of their faith.”

The commonly expressed idea that most Muslims are peaceful and tolerant doesn’t hold water in my bucket. Neither does the theory that it is just Arab Muslims that do these things. If this were true there would be no apostasy laws and there would be no restrictions on other religions. Any survey of Islamic societies shows a generalized hostility to other religions and even to other sects of Islam. These same people are also the ones that deny others the right to criticize their religion. Rather than peaceful, the best one could say is that most Muslims are indifferent to the situation of non-Muslims. This indifference (or low level hostility) is what allows the radicals to thrive. This applies to all islamic societies. In those countries where Muslims are a minority, this rule does not apply, because Muslims don’t have then numbers to impose their mentality. I do not give any credit to Indian Muslims for their peacefulness because it is circumstantial. As mentioned, the deobandis are every bit as radical and intolerant as the Wahhabis, and they are not Arabs.

Add to that my personal experience with nice kind sweet Muslims… When asked about certain difficult issues these same people seem incapable of getting their answers right about texts in the Quran and hadith. It may just be me, but I don’t consider “You don’t understand” or “out of context” or “Everybody did it” to be a proper responses to questions about hate and violence.

Muslims seem to only care about themselves or any discrimination / hostility against them. What they do others does not concern them. Take for example the case of the Muslim woman killed in Germany a few months ago. It is pure outrage, all over the world:
http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/07/06/egyptian-woman-killed-in-german-court-for-being-veiled/

Yet if Christians are burned alive in Pakistan, by Muslims, no outrage…
If the Maldives strips citizenship from non-Muslims, so what…
If Turkey oppresses Orthodox Christians and seizes their monastery, so what
If Malaysia sends ex-Muslims to re-education camps and imposes sharia on all, so what…
If Algeria passes laws to penalize other religions and criticism of Islam, so what….
If Afghanistan decrees that apostates must die, so what…
If Morocco detains converts to Christianity and restricts “non-Islamic materials and proselytizing,” so what
And so on…

Where are those moderate Muslims? Where are the peaceful Muslims that respect others? I don’t believe that Muslims in the West are any different from those in Islamic societies, Arab or not..

Now an article by P. Chesler
http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2009/12/24/could-jesus-live-safely-in-bethelehem-today/
In case you don’t know, this woman married a Muslim a few years ago, moved to his country, and from one day to the next, watched her polite sweet considerate Muslim husband change into a brutal “woman is object” domineering man.

I am not much into religion, but on this date it is relevant to think what some people are doing to the followers of jesus – and other religions. Worse yet, they pretend it has nothing to do with them.

j. kactuz

you have demonstrated that you are very wise and erudite person, but i wonder why should you use your good bucket to hold what the tolerant and so peaceful americans (the followers of Jesus peace be upon him ) are doing in Iraq and in Afghanistan and what their black water is doing in pakistan , they are i guess spreading the message of peace and the blessing of democracy and love, ironically you also hold in that same good bucket what the nice and civil french did in Algeria, they were so good that they only charged the poor Algerians a million soul to give them their own land and freedom back, and it is not a secret the harm they are still causing behind the scene in north africa in general, let us not forget the massacres committed by Serbs the God fearing christians in Bosnia, there is also Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini.
about indian muslims no one can hold a finger against indian muslim without having the remaing fingers altogether pointed to him, muslims conquered and ruled india for long prosperous centuries as indians they did not steal to send it back to their homelands as did other colonial powers, they were mostly good tolerant rulers let alone isolated cases no one is perfect, do you think there would have been any trace to hinduism in india if the muslims during those centuries of absolute power tried to force indians to convert. it would have been just like what the followers of Jesus PBUH the catholic Spaniards and the Portuguese did in the philippines and latin america and also what they did in Al-Ándalus (the light house of Europe) after the defeat of Muslims, they have literally eradicated muslims and jews, and less those who coverted to christianity might pray or read from their books in their basements or in darkness of the night they stablished the The infamous Spanish Inquisitions. try to exhume anything which is that shameful during seven hundered years of arab rule in spain.
and regarding your not getting convincing answer from those muslim u have spoken to them, it is simple you cant to anybody who simply knows how to pray do the basic mulsim duties and ask him to answer scholarly questions,so go and find someone your own size even a child knows that.

Jkactuz …

I saw that article about the bishop who oversees two million Christians in the Gulf and I actually found a kernel of positiveness in it. Instead of negative I thought at least they are not persecuted anymore…what bothered me about it is that the churches are in a compound and not allowed any architecture that says “hey I am a Christain house of worship”. Yet, the Swiss Muslims are upset about two minarets. Tell me how this even remotely seems fair? Again Christians are not allowed to worship openly or freely within the Islamic society. What i don’t understand about this are several things:

1. why are the Muslims afraid of letting non Muslims worship freely and have to lock them away where they aren’t seen and in contact with others who are not of the faith? They(other faiths) are a minority and if Muslims are strong in their faith, which it seems to me many are, what is there to be afraid of? You can’t say on the one hand that Jesus is a Prophet and a part of Islam and on the other, lock any signs of him away as if it were something to be ashamed of. What are Muslims afraid of? why can’t Christians worship freely there as a minority as Muslims do in the west as a minority?

2. Why is the West expected to be tolerant of Muslims and afford them full rights within our societies and yet it almost seems to be a defacto unwritten rule that the Middle East should stay Muslim with little offer of any rights to those of ANY other faith.

3. It feels a little like “we want our section of the world to stay Islamic and we want your section of the world to become more and more Islamic.” all I am saying is if Muslims want rights in other parts of the world they should be open to giving them and not just a paltry “token” kind of rights. Non Muslims of all stripes should be allowed to practice freely, wear any sort of symbol or clothes that they want that reflects their religion as Muslims do here(Abayas, skullcaps, hajibs,etc.)they should be able to have a church look like a church and there should be some sort of written law to protect them and if they face persecution they should have a voice and recourse.

And as unpopular as it will be, I think that the West needs to hold the Islamic world’s feet to the fire in terms of offering full rights to each countries’ non Muslims. I am not sure Muslims themselves will advocate for that on non Muslims behalf as non Muslims here do on behalf of Muslims…(minarets notwithstanding) so it seems it will have to be up to the West to say something about it. I do think that people are slowly getting tired of the one way tolerance.

Majed…

I don’t know what country you are in but I feel that if a vote were taken in the USA most Americans would vote to get out of Afganistan and Iraq if they ever wanted to go there in the first place. It is not a popular war and many Americans are against it and feel terrible about the whole situation.

As for Christians eradicating any other religion or population…lets face it…most people including Muslims have done their fair share of eradicating and brutalizing other peoples. No matter who does it it is 100% wrong and I pray that we, as well as our fellow religions around the world, have grown up enough to realize to hold a sword to someone else’s throat and threaten them with conversion or death is not really bringing happy followers of that particular religion into the fold. There have been untold slaughter done to millions of innocents all over the world in the name of religion and INTOLERANCE. Whoever was doing the “converting” (aka convert or die…not of one’s free will) was intolerant of another’s religious beliefs. Christianity has had it’s day and I pray we will never see those days from Christians again, Jews did their won version of conversion and intolerance and also Muslims ahve done a pretty good job as well…wherever intolerance goes it brings misery and tyranny. And in reality, IMO it isn’t really all based in religion but in greed and power mongering.

I guess what I am saying is that none of the three Abrahamic faiths can point fingers at others and say you did this or that, because they have all done one form or another of it. Better, should we not live our lives as examples to our faith and let people choose for themselves?

I just wanted to post an aside for those who might be interested…tonight on National Geographic on the Natgeo channel is a show called “Inside American Terror”. I thought it only fair that as we are talking about Islam and the difficulties that it can cause with terrorism that we also recognize it isn’t only Islam but right here in our own backyard. It is talking about white supremacists and the KKK. It is on at 9pm EST.

Oby and Majed,
You both are right in your own ways, eventhough you dffer from each other!

Thanks John, for opening the commnts again.

Chiara,
You said it right, radical and conservative are different from violent and intolerant. Yes, orthodox forms of Islam have existed even in Muslim populations outside West Asia – including India. Of course, we can’t brand an entire population of any country tolerant or intolerant. There are good and bad people everywhere. In fact I am not talking about the people; I am talking about the dominant strain of Islam that is being practised in any country. There are very nice Saudis, Iraqis, Yemenis, Moroccans and there are quite vicious and evil Indians, Pakistanis, Indonesians, Filipinos etc.

But that’s not the point I’m making. I’m talking about the form of Islam that is practised by the majority of Muslims in each of these countries and if you study that, you’ll find that the West Asian countries are practising a version of Islam that is the most intolerant, violent, unaccepting of other cultures and religions, oppressive of human rights, which believes that this Islam is the only “True Religion” and their ways are the most superior in the world and this is the way the whole world should live. And that’s where the entire problem lies.

I don’t know why Iraq is being singled out here – Iraq too is an Arab country – and therefore follows the same intolerant Islam.

Now the question posed by J. Kactuz and you – what about the intolerance that the Muslims in these other countries have shown?
My contention is that the orthodox trends are not the dominant versions of Islam being practised in these regions outside West Asia, since having been been multi-cultural and multi-religious for millennia, these Muslims have always accepted non-Muslim religions as a natural way of life.

I have argued repeatedly above that this intolerant version of Arab Islam has been recognised as the “True Islam” by the US and therefore, Saudi Arabia is made the spokesperson of the entire Muslim world, which is a faulty policy because 1) Majority of the world’s population doesn’t follow this version of Islam, 2) Muslims outside the Arab world don’t look upto Saudi Arabia for everything – for them the non-Muslim population in their own countries and their own government’s policies are more important, 3) This US support has accelerated the export of this intolerant Islam to these more tolerant regions – without the US being a conscious accomplice in this Saudi plan and 4) This misleads the non-Muslims in the West to wrongly imagine that Arab Islam is the way Islam is and should be practised.

Hence, my contention is that the American Islamic policy needs to be changed, otherwise the infiltration of this violent ideology throughout the world and terrorism can’t be controlled.

Now, let’s leave aside South Asia for a while, since that’s a complicated region with a complicated history.

Western converts to Islam, under their false impression that Arab Islam is the true Islam, try to follow that version as much as possible and therefore show an intolerance towards other religions.

Look at the profile of past 100 years of countries like Indonesia, Philippines, Latin America etc.- Do they have a history of religious intolerance? Were they unaccepting of other reigions? Did they try to impose their worldview on non-Muslims? The answer is – no, this is a recent development and this is what I am talking about – this intolerant Islam is making inroads to these previously tolerant societies and making them intolerant because of this excessive US support to Arab Islam and the Saudis exporting their violent Islam to these parts of the world.

Proselytising is a soft word for what Saudi Arabia is doing – it’s exporting terrorism and it’s high time we understand this.

Now about South Asia – I have given insanstec above of Indian Islam accepting of Indian religions. Pakistanis were no different from Indian muslims till 1947 when partition happened. If you look at the history of the Indian sub-continent, you’ll find that during 5000 years of its history, there is not a single evidence of inter-religious conflict till the British came to power. And for about 1000 years before the British, India had a series of Muslim rulers. Majed is right above, if the Muslim rulers wanted to convert the Indians, what could have stopped them from eradicating Hinduism from here? How is it that 80% of Indian population remains Hindu despite 1000 years of Muslim rulers in Indian history?

It’s not a joke to have 5000 years of history with so many religions existing here and the entire communal conflict has a history of about 200 years in this region.

Please note that both Islam and Christianity came to India immediately after they were born. During Mughal period we also had a lot of Jews here, most of whom emigrated to Israel later. In a comment above I talked about a synagogue in Kerala, which is still under worship.

I won’t go into the growth of communalism in India during the British rule. But we all know that after partition, Pakistan has been gradually drifting away from its indigenous tolerant culture and moving towards the ideology of – yes, of Saudi Arabia.

About Afghanistan – during the period of Muslim rulers in India, Afghans formed a significant section of the nobility and army here. And they didn’t show any trace of intolerance towards non-Muslim population.

In fact, the growth of Taleban is directly linked to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Hence, it started off as a political movement which has become a religious malady now. And whose idea is the orthodox Shariah government that they wanted to impose? Of Saudi Arabia. Of Arab Islam.

Please note that even during the 1000 years of Muslim rulers in Indian sub-continent, this region was never under Islamic rule or under Shariah. The local customs and religions were allowed to prevail by those Muslim rulers.

The export of terrorism in the form of Al-Qaeda by Saudi Arabia to this region has only strengthened this malady. They also pressurised Pakistan into allowing them to function there and succeeded to a large extent. That’s how we have the tie-up of terrorism in Pakistan and Afghanistan – under the influence of Al-Qaeda, a Saudi Arabian terrorist organisation.

So it’s obvious that even in South Asia, this intolerant ideology is not indigenous to this region, but an influence of Saudi Arabia and Arab islam.

You think I am not critical of South Asia – that’s not true. I have criticised even India on this very blog. Besides, I can also argue that you are blindly supportive of Arabs, not criticising them for any of their faults. But what will come out of this accusing of each other? Nothing.

It’s a fact that Al-Qaeda is a Saudi Arabian creation and it is the intention of Al-Qaeda to infiltrate everywhere. The Saudi royal family has not done anything to help the US to fight terror in Afghanistan. It’s a reality that Osama has links with this royal family. So why shouldn’t we suspect the intentions of Saudi Arabia and its royal family? The king may be a shade less orthodox than the others, but we all know there are staunch orthodox factions within the royal family. Why should we assume that they are innocent when everywhere in the world there are imprints of Saudi Arabia and Arab Islam in causing an intolerant world? Why should Saudi arabia be absolved of its crimes?

The US should not be supporting such a country. There is no other way to solve the problem of terrorism. They can wipe out Al-Qaeda, but dozens of Al-Qaedas will mushroom in different parts of the world, because of the infiltration of Arab Islam everywhere that is taking place now. The worst part is that it’s not the Saudi terrorists who are going everywhere – they are recruiting local people and influencing them into believing in this violence.

John,
I’d really appreciate it if you give your comments on the above. And I think your linking of Afghanistan terrorism to Deoband is wrong. If that was so, Deoband would have generated terrorists within India first of all. With a non-Muslim majority, this country would have been an easy target for them. However, products of Deoband are conservative Muslims, but they are not terrorists. I do think you need to revise your analysis, but would like to get your response to this. Terrorism in Afghanistan is linked to the Arab world.

J. Kactuz,
I think I have replied to your point about violence in non-Arab Muslim world in my comment to Chiara above.

Chiara,
About Al-Qaeda coming back to attack in Saudi Arabia – you can train a person to murder and hand him weapons, but you can’t ensure that the person won’t turn around and kill you as well. That’s what has happened to Saudi Arabia. They have opened the floodgates of terrorism and can’t stop their own house from getting flooded now. If they export poison to the world, it serves them right to get a taste of their own medicine.

“I have argued repeatedly above that this intolerant version of Arab Islam has been recognised as the “True Islam” by the US”.

I am not sure that I can agree with that Daisy…not that the US is guilt free but rather that it is perpetuating that this is the one true Islam. Maybe because I am American I see it as slightly different. I am old enough to remember a mild, nonviolent and peaceful strain of Islam…we NEVER thought of Islam equals violence ever… until perhaps the last 15 or so years when it became so in your face. Until that point it was a non issue here. Again, I am not the most politically savvy person but I know it wasn’t on anyone’s radar. Now the USA is so concerned with making sure that they say repeatedly that this violent Islam is not the TRUE Islam that I feel fairly confident if you walked on the street and asked the average person if violent Islam is the norm they would say no…it is a group of people that have taken it and twisted it. In fact, the average person probably does not even know that the Strict Islam comes from KSA. They probably do equate Islam with the Middle East primarily, but I think that is more a function of the fact that our eyes have been turned there battling terror for 8 years. I do agree with you that the USA has a good amount of responsibility but I also think it is a function of being in hostile territory and these guys( KSA ) are the ones who will deal so you are left with a situation where you might not want to join hands with the bully but if he is the one who is going to help you gain ground in the area to help defeat the other bullies then you don’t have much choice. Part of the problem as per the book I read “Inside the Kingdom” is that the royal family gave a lot of control to the religious elite of the country when the petrodollars started rolling in and didn’t really have anyone guarding the hen house so to speak. The foxes (Imams, Sheiks etc.)started to spread their version of this strict Islam. No one was really watching what they wee doing and even if they did the Royal family was loathe to upbraid them…(John if I have got it wrong make sure you set me right)…As per the book there are efforts underway to counteract this strict Islam but it is only starting and who knows if it will be successful…

Meanwhile we are left dealing with the effects of this cancer that has spread. Yes I agree that Pakistan has become pretty scary place…but I wonder if that is a function that the Muslims there don’t have another indigenous population(Hindus and Christians for example) to modulate their expression of Islam. Logic would dictate that if it is spreading India would not be immune and you should see the effects there. Perhaps it is the fact that Islam is the minority in India and America and have other sensibilities to help modulate their attitudes…rather than coming from an all Muslim country where perhaps a bit of a “crowd mentality” can flourish.

Off subject…did you have a nice Christmas and are planning for a good New Year?

Oby
Yes I went to Goa for Christmas and am back. John was supposed to reimburse me the money for that trip!

Will have New Year with my family, so travelling again till 4th of Jan, but most likely will have the Internet access there. John, please keep the comments section open.

You have an insight about the non-Muslim population not existing in Pakistan which modulates the Muslim sensibilities in other multi-cultural places. Perhaps that’s also a reason why Pakistan has gravitated towards Saudi Arabia. And perhaps that’s also the reason why the Arab Islam is so intolerant.

You are right about the Americans. I know they don’t accept violent Islam as true Islam and I have said that they haven’t consciously promoted terrorism in the world. Americans, like others, are also normal people – some are good and some not so good and they don’t want to accept or promote violence. It’s just that when a global power like the US gives too much of prominence to Saudi Arabia, going soft on its version of Islam and its policies, people in other countries begin to give importance to the Arab version of Islam, which I’m arguing is the intolerant version.

For example, when a European or North American person converts to Islam, which version s/he follows? Which country does s/he begin to feel sympathetic towards? It’s the Arab Islam s/he follows and becomes sympathetic towards Saudi Arabia and to West Asia in general.

But it was not always like that. On Carol’s blog when we were discussing early English translations of Quran, I had given examples of Europeans who came to India, converted to Islam and translated the Quran. So, how has this changed?

In those days, the British were the global power and they were in India. So, these European Muslims also came to India. Today, the US is the global power. Obviously, the US support to Saudi Arabia lies at the back of this kind of thinking.

The American experts haven’t been able to recognise that the Arab version is the intolerant version of Islam and that if they support Saudi Arabia too much, that country will get the leverage to spread terrorism across the world. Of course, merely distancing from the KSA isn’t going to solve terrorism, but the effort at controlloing terrorism has to begin from there. Next, it has to be taken to the level of curbing the efforts of the Saudis to spread their ideology across the world. Simply bombing different parts of the world isn’t going to solve the problem. It’s a tremendous waste of American resources if the source of this ideology is not hit at.

Daisy–rest assured that I read your comments and reply to them carefully, and in no way have I pointed fingers at you or any group or any country. I have only remarked on the content and style of your comments as is part of a normal discussion.

I am sufficiently aware of the history of the Al-Saud and the 3 Saudi States, the most recent being KSA, for having written on them in a number of posts starting with:
http://www.chezchiara.com/2009/12/royal-saudinon-saudi-marriages-and.html
and reprised here
http://www.chezchiara.com/2009/12/royal-saudinon-saudi-marriages-and_4643.html
to know that the Al-Saud/Al-Wahhab tribal alliance began at the very beginning of the Al-Saud rise to power in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, as a mutually serving military-ideological pact–one which continued through the 19th and 20th centuries to today. The narrowly defined Salafism, which is an extreme within a broader Salafi interpretation of Islam, grew to dominance within this same context. The overthrow of the Shah by religious extremists in Iran in 1979, and the fear it engendered in the House of Saud did most to cement the current configuration of power, and the swing to an extremely conservative version of Salafism not seen in Saudi prior to that time, and which persists today, with signs of a very gradual evolution toward more liberalism under the guidance of King Abdullah, always mindful of a backlash.

Similarly I have previously looked at the relationships among the Al Saud, the bin Ladens, the Salafists, and Al-Qaeda and know that while various states have tolerated Al-Qaeda’s presence, and various individuals funded it, no state has actually sponsored it per se, including Saudi Arabia, which did indeed get its own wake up all in 2003. Osama bin Laden who is at odds with the rest of his family, the Al-Sauds, and Salafism in Saudi currently operates or symbolically heads a network rather than a fixed satellite force of any particular state. While the arguments you give about the Saudi propagation of extremism and violence are reflected in those of conservative Western writings, I find the BBC’s summary more compelling:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/country_profiles/791936.stm
The BBC contends that Saudi has its own struggles with an extremist group that is attacking it, and which it never sponsored as an entity, although Muslim charities in Saudi, and individual Saudis did. Given that Osama bin Laden is Saudi I don’t find the fact that he draws the support of cetain Saudis as individuals odd, nor that the majority of 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. After all he funded a Saudi mujahadeen unit in Afghanistan, from which he drew recruits for Al-Qaeda.

I certainly have studied the type of Islam dominant in other MENA countries, as part of formal research endeavours, and personal interest in what currents are affecting family and friends based in those countries. In all of them the rise of conservatism is a highly visible minority but a minority nonetheless. In Canada I am surrounded by the hijab and the niqab, and Muslims from MENA countries and far more from Central and South Asian ones. However, I still don’t see where exporting the hijab (as a metonymy) is exporting violence to such far flung regions and cultures as Al-Qaeda is operating in. On the other hand it is well documented that the alienated and disenfranchised are more likely to find an ideology, a sense of purpose, and financial incentive in joining Al-Qaeda. The alienated of course include the materially and socially well off who lack a clear sense of meaningfulness in their lives.

I am not sure where you get your information on the attitudes of reverts/converts, and the version of Islam which they adopt. Perhaps you could provide references, thanks.

Chiara,
Thanks for showing the linkage between religious orthodoxy and polity in Saudi Arabia. This also confirms Oby’s quotation from the book she refers to.

Yes, that’s what I’m also talking about, though from a different angle – rise of intolerance in Muslim populations outside West Asia (what you call MENA) and I’m arguing that it’s coming there from the Arab world – it’s not an indigenous feature of these societies, which have never had a history of intolerance because of their inherently multi-religious nature.

It’s not really about the women wearing the veil or the minarets. Hundreds of thousands of Muslim women in India have traditionally worn the veil and all the Indian mosques – and also the Indian tombs (see the image of Taj Mahal, which is a tomb) – have four regular minarets – this hasn’t led to the Indian Muslim population turning intolerant of other religions.

The bottomline in this is – what kind of attitude does a particular group of Muslims have towards other religions? My contention is – Muslims outside West Asia have historically endorsed other religions they have lived with as perfectly valid ways of life. They believe in their Islam as a perfectly good religion, but at the same time, they are willing to accept the fact that there are people in this world who follow other religions and their faiths are equally valid too.

In case of Indian Muslims, this attitude endorses the Indian religions as well, which have the practices of image worship and multiple forms of divinities ingrained in them. Above, I have given examples of how image worship is not a problem for Indian Muslims – it was not a problem for other South Asian Muslims before the British rule.

In fact, sometimes they also borrow from other religions around them – especially in India, you can see not one, but many versions of Islam, depending upon the part of the country you go to. That’s because Muslim groups here have borrowed from the immense diversity of the country. And these myriad versions have not much to do with Arab Islam.

The point that I am trying to make is, that Muslims outside the Arab world have been used to seeing people following these practices, which may even be against Islam, but they accept them as valid forms of religiosity for the groups of people who follow them. This is why a violent ideology such as “accept my religion or die” was not a part of these countries in history – not even when they were ruled by Muslim monarchs.

On the other hand, Oby and I have argued before and I’m sure you know it too, that Arab Islam considers its own version of religiosity as the only “true religion,” all other religions being false ones, its own God as the only true God, all other gods being “false gods.” Even that would be fine, but Arab Islam believes in imposing itself on the whole world, whether the world likes it or not. There is no space for an alternative viewpoint in Arab Islam. The element of intolerance and violence is ingrained in this kind of thinking.

When this ideology gets transported to other parts of the world, it taints the erstwhile tolerant local Muslims with intolerance and since non-Muslims are also there, it gives rise to violence. Of course, you can add to this the socio-economic and political dimensions which complicate the problem.

Precisely because of this, Arab Islam should not be supported. If they want to follow it, that’s alright for them, but this ideology ahould not be allowed to be transported abroad.

This is something the US policy experts have not understood and I feel news analysis such as those of the BBC are also not completely comprehensive of this – I happen to be an admirer of the BBC, but am not a blind follower of anyone or anything.

About Saudi state’s role in the growth of terrorism – what evidence has the Saudi royal family given so far that they do not support the Al-Qaeda? In what ways have they expressively helped the US to counter terrorism across the world? If they have not done this, why shouldn’t we believe they are supporters of Al-Qaeda?

Add to this the fact that it is the intolerant version of Islam that the Saudis are preaching abroad – the version that does not give space to alternative religiosities. Of course, the Saudis are involved in spreading terrorist ideologies across the world.

Add to this also the fact that the private Saudi individuals and institutions you have referred to are funding the terrorist cause abroad with money amassed from the American purchase of oil. Of course, Americans are not consciously funding terrorism, but it’s the US dollar that is being used to fund terrorism.

If the Al-Qaeda comes back and hits the Saudis, that serves them right for exporting intolerance and violence across the world.

John,
Without the interjection of a US foreign policy expert, we seem to be going around in a circle. I can raise the price to 2 and a half cents if you like! Does anyone want to bid any higher?

Majed,

I will answer you in a few words. I will not even give links as I usually do.

The issue is this. Christians, too, do terrible things. Yes, I am against the US Government and its policy in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and so on. We, the US, are wasting our time, money and the lives of our people in those places. We ought to get the heck out of all those places, the faster the better. The are throwing gasoline on the fire. It is my opinion that we can do nothing to help those people. As soon as American troops are gone, the radicals will take control. I know this sounds callous, but let them simmer in the cold soup of odium.

The difference is that we can be honest about our mistakes. We can criticize the Pope and Billy Grahm. We can criticize our leaders, clergy, Bible and anything. We can read the Book of Josua and say “I don’t agree with that.” We can condemn Abraham, Jacob, David, Peter, Paul and Mary. We don’t say “praise be upon him” after the name of American soldiers that kill innocents. Hopefully we will court marshall them and convict them. We don’t say “praise be upon him” after the name of Hitler, Bush, the Pope, or any crusader. On the other hand, anything the Quran says, any deed in the hadeeth, is done or said by the will of Allah and you cannot criticize it, no matter how abhorrent.

Muslims cannot, will not do this. I would hope that a fine, intelligent person such as you would admit that there are terrible things in both the Quran and hadith. These are the same texts that the radicals use to promote their hate and violence. But you cannot question these in logical terms, so moderates such as you are forced to use weak and/or silly arguments to support your version of islam – arguments which are easily knocked over by the fundamentalists. Moderate Muslims take the easy way out, they ignore anything and everything that doesn’t conform to their ideal of what Islam is. They ignore the Quran, the ahadeeth, the actions of other Muslims, and the hate and violence that Muslims do in the name of their religion.

To be honest, the hate and violence in your sacred texts bother me less than the attitude of Muslims. The fact that Muslims will not reflect on these issues and will try to silence any voice that asks inconvinient questions is problematic. This denial, indifference and desire to silence criticism that I see in so-called moderates is as bad as the hate and violence done by the radicals.

I hope you understand my position. Now, having said that, let me wish a very good new year to you and yours.

K.

PS: Of course, admiting that there are terrible things in Islam’s texts is to say they are not perfect is to say they are not divine is to say islam is spurious. Something of a dilemma there, hummm? Are you familiar with the term (or novel) “catch-22″? I can almost empathize with the moral implications of this reasoning. What I cant sympathize with is the silence and indifference.

@Daisy…

“The bottomline in this is – what kind of attitude does a particular group of Muslims have towards other religions? My contention is – Muslims outside West Asia have historically endorsed other religions they have lived with as perfectly valid ways of life. They believe in their Islam as a perfectly good religion, but at the same time, they are willing to accept the fact that there are people in this world who follow other religions and their faiths are equally valid too.”

And if I am not mistaken is this not commanded by God in the Qur’an? (My Koran for Dummies book said so too!) So what has happened? In one word-CULTURE! The Arab Cutlure has infiltrated Islam and become almost one in the same…robbing it of the clear Qur’anic directive to live in peace and respect the laws of the country one is in.

“On the other hand, Oby and I have argued before and I’m sure you know it too, that Arab Islam considers its own version of religiosity as the only “true religion,” all other religions being false ones, its own God as the only true God, all other gods being “false gods.” Even that would be fine, but Arab Islam believes in imposing itself on the whole world, whether the world likes it or not. There is no space for an alternative viewpoint in Arab Islam. The element of intolerance and violence is ingrained in this kind of thinking.

When this ideology gets transported to other parts of the world, it taints the erstwhile tolerant local Muslims with intolerance and since non-Muslims are also there, it gives rise to violence. Of course, you can add to this the socio-economic and political dimensions which complicate the problem.”

I do agree with that, and for me personally and I think a lot of other non Muslims that is the main problem or “fear”. It is fine if others don’t think your God is the true one…happens all the time or we would all be one religion. As long as we can agree to disagree with tolerance and respect things are fine. When one religion wants to impose it’s form of religiosity on the world then it becomes a problem. I don’t want to live the type of life that this very strict Islam prescribes too and I don’t want my country to have to have it imposed on them. If the other countries want that then that is fine…but don’t try to make over my country and religion into yours. I think intolerance is ingrained in this kind of thinking but I think the violence is carried out by the more extreme radical followers of the ideology.

Daisy…

“About Saudi state’s role in the growth of terrorism – what evidence has the Saudi royal family given so far that they do not support the Al-Qaeda? In what ways have they expressively helped the US to counter terrorism across the world? If they have not done this, why shouldn’t we believe they are supporters of Al-Qaeda?”

Actually, the book “Inside the Kingdom” does a very good job of explaining what is going on and how the Saudis are trying(admittedly in a less than all out aggressive way) to help curb extremism.The book has only been out a few months so it is very up to date.

~they are monitoring the clergy more and have taken much of the power out of their hands.

~they are trying to reframe the education to take out the violent books and replace them with more tolerant versions.

~they have made a ruling that some charities are not allowed to accept zagat anymore as they found that some of them were a front for terrorism.

~ immediately post 9/11 it was the Saudis that were very proactive more than the Americans in forming a task force to try to combat terrorism. I felt sort of ashamed of that one. Evidently it was the Saudis who badgered the Americans a bit to get on the stick.

I recommend reading the book…it is an honest and open look at KSA written by a British journalist who lived there full time for 4 years and was given unprecedented access to the country and it’s inner echelon. It would not be allowed in KSA because it does talk about things that are not always flattering to KSA.ie: the common homosexuality/lesbianism that is found in KSA. But it feels honest and balanced. I found it to be a real page turner!

I was going to drop off the reimbursement, but my Christmas stocking did not contain that Maserati Quattroporte!

The US government is well aware of the dangers of certain strains of Islam promulgated out of Saudi Arabia. Rather than ignoring it, the danger is to make too much of it, alienating the more moderate strains by lumping all Saudis with the most extreme forms of Salafism/Wahhabism/whatever-ism. The difficulty is that there are extremist Saudis who complicate issues and their analysis, not only for Americans but for Saudis, too.

The US certainly does not accept that Islam as practiced in Saudi Arabia is the ‘one, true Islam’. Those in government and those with any familiarity of the Islamic world know that to be not the case.

More complications arise though, when non-Muslims (and Muslims, come to think of it) are told that there actually is ‘one, true Islam’ when the reality is that there are myriad manifestations of it. The core issue is and has been, who speaks for Islam? Who gets to define it?

The Saudis have been able to convince many (certainly not most) that their interpretation is closest to authentic or orthodox. Whether that was done through the Saudis’ own efforts in proselytizing; through funding mosques, schools, and book publishing; through generous invitations to visit the Kingdom and partake in Haj or Umrah; through generosity in foreign assistance… it’s effective PR if nothing else.

I’ll be reviewing Inside the Kingdom in the near future. Yes, it’s an excellent book. I certainly don’t agree, however, that the Saudis were more proactive than the US immediately following 9/11. I was sent to Riyadh immediately following 9/11 and know very well that most of the country–including senior Ministers–was in complete denial that Saudi Islam might have played the least role in the 9/11 tragedy. Two years later, the Minister of Interior–responsible for anti-terrorism efforts–was still looking for the Zionist hand behind the attacks.

Without going in to enormous detail, I’d point out that India’s indigenous Deobandi Islam brought its own potency to Islamic extremism. It, more than any other reformist (in the sense of returning to fundamentals) Islam brought a sense of the political and activist. Its origins, of course, were focused on the British colonialist Raj. But more than anywhere else I can find, up to the Iranian revolution in 1978/79, India was the source of political Islam.

Deobandism has split into two branches. That in Deoband itself has tried to toe a moderate path; the other branch–now mostly in Pakistan and Afghanistan–resorts to violence far more easily. The Taleban publicly consider themselves to be Deobandi, so it’s not just me casting aspersions.

Hmmmm…could swear I read it the opposite way about the post 9/11 task force. Maybe I am remembering it wrong or misunderstood. If you have read the book John, what was your take on what the writer said. Thanks!

I think one of the best analysis of the Saudi / Islam / Arab dilemma can be found in Trofimov’s “The Seige of Mecca, ” about the assault and takeover of the Grand Mosque by a group of semi-Radicals in ’79. Towards the end of the book, it makes the point that much of the radicalization we see today was the result of that incident.
http://www.amazon.com/Siege-Mecca-Forgotten-Uprising-al-Qaeda/dp/0385519257

Understand that the House of Saud has a problem, or rather several problems.

On one hand they need to keep their radicals happy so they don’t attack the Royals (again). To do this they fund Wahhabi mosques and Imams around the world. These preach a very intolerant form of Islam. Some of the money finds its way to al Queda and other jihadi groups. Note that this also enhances their power, as the protectors of the two holy sites. By virtue of geography and decent (race) they claim this temporal authority is legitimate.

On the other hand, they need the US and Europe for many things, including support and weapons (and resorts). They have to pretend that they have nothing to do with the radicals (yeah, right) that attack all things infidel. The Saudis continually tell us that “we are in the same boat” and that they, too, are a target of radicals. This is true, but this doesn’t mean that the radicals that hate the royals hate us any less than they hate others. In a way, this is a case of the animal biting the hand that feeds it.

The existence of the House of Saud depends on this delicate balance of appeasing both sides. Forget Islam. This is about keeping a royal heads on royal shoulders. It is about billions of dollars that make life very nice for about 50,000 of the House of Saud, so-so for 1-2,000,00 other Saudis and miserable for much the rest. Of course, Islam means power because it is a political system with economic aspirations (rather vague but true, nevertheless).

The Saudi (leaders de facto of the Arabs) continue to fund radicalism because if they don’t, the dogs will turn on them. They do this but they know the radicals don’t love them. To complicate things, they are stuck with Sunni theology that doesn’t give them a case for spiritual leadership. Bummer.

Let’s not forget the crazies across the gulf. The Iranians would give their right arm to be able to cut off a few Saudi heads. They have not forgotten Karbala. When/if they get the bomb, the whole Sunni/Shia debate changes.

Like it or not, the Saudis are responsible for much of the radicalization of Islam (but not all) and subsequent violence (Note that the Islamic texts make this very easy). They have for years been teaching a very vituperative form of Islam in the schools, mosques and media. They lie to us about this and we let them get away with it because we need their oil – and because we believe there are worse people out there than the Saud family.

All this would have been a minor issue except for: 1. the importance of oil. 2. Western governments accepting massive Muslim immigration after the oil crisis in the 70s; 3. The doctrines of multiculturalism and political correctness in the West; and 4. The advances in telecommunication technology All this has combined to make Islam’s problems our problems.

I hate to say it but it looks more and more like my Dad is right.

The Muslim issue in Europe and the reaction to it in the Swiss vote are all part of something that will become a major issue in the next decade. Be prepared!

JKactuz…

Went on a small hunt for info of the siege.

You have probably read this but I wanted to post it here for those not as familiar with the siege. It is an abbreviated version of what happened out of the Brookings Institution.

http://www.brookings.edu/events/2009/1202_siege_of_mecca.aspx

This, from the Wall Street Journal in 2007:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119007965327330717.html

Oby

I found Trofimov’s book to be very informative, particularly because of the background information about the consequences of the seige, including the attempt on the Pope. Many years ago I had heard the story of the siege of Mecca from French friends. Their version was somewhat different (a company from French Foreign legion, 1 million Francs each, flooding and electrocution) but in many other ways it was similar to the book above. What is incredible was the amount of raw carnage in the fighting, with armored personnel carriers grinding up mounds of putrefied dead bodies with entrails and body parts everywhere – and this in Islam’s holiest sanctuary. The Saudis used artillery and RPGs around the Kaaba. can you imagine? They shot TOW missiles at snipers in the minarets (oh no, minarets again). For two and a half weeks this battle raged with no quarter asked or given. I find this scenario hard to imagine, but it must have made a deep and lasting impression on the house of Saud. I never gave much credence to the versions about Pakistani or Jordanian troops being used.

K.

John–thank you for sharing your knowledge and experience,I agree with what you have said about Saudi, and trust you on the post-9/11 reactions as it coincides with other events/denials I am aware of in that period.

Daisy–MENA is Middle East (all of it, not just Saudi) and North Africa (all of it including Sudan, Mauritania). Having lived in Asia as well as studying post-colonialism I am familiar with the term West Asia, and others for the region.

I agree that the hijab and minarets are but manifestations of a broader issue, a part for a whole, hence my use of the word metonymy in reference to hijab.

I have every confidence that any given group can both repel outside extremist forces, and develop their own if they wish. Specifically regarding India it does seem that Muslims and Hindus and Sikhs have managed to have their own extremisms and fights amongst each other without the help of Saudi. To say so is merely to point out well-known historical troubles in India, not to point fingers anywhere. It only becomes necessary to reference it because you seem to insist that Saudi is behind so much of the religious violence elsewhere.

The Arab Islam you refer to is not one that I see in most of Islam in Arab countries–extremists are extreme, and so might hold this view, meaning that by definition the majority do not. There are some South Asians who are particularly preoccupied with this issue, like Canadian Tarek Fatah.

Back to Saudi, it is different to say that there is racism within Saudi, regarding South Asians, and to say that Saudi is promoting violence elsewhere. I certainly don’t consider the BBC to be a unique source of wisdom to which I turn systematically but for the purposes of my comment above that article by them was an appropriate summary.

Aside from your own conviction I really don’t see you backing up your claims with references, and sources. Please feel free to do so, including those in uni library sources as I normally have excellent access. Otherwise you seem to simply re-explain to me your beliefs which I understand the first time and with which I disagree.

Oby–thanks for the references, I will check them out more thoroughly at my leisure.

My review of Siege of Mecca can be found here.

There was a lot of friction in trying to get the Saudis to take part in various task forces, largely because it would require foreign experts in money laundering, terrorism writ large, and basic police work to directly interact with Saudi officials. The frictions came, sometimes, from the top; other times, they came from the Saudi officers who didn’t like the implication that they didn’t know what they were doing.

Jkactuz…

I must get the book but just listening to your description is horrible enough! I cannot imagine how people felt about it…they must have been completely destroyed that their holiest place was treated in such a disrespectful manner. On the other hand what to do about the militants? Perhaps it could have been handled in a more sensitive way…even with the terrorists.

oby

You are one fair person, i salute you, if all of us have as big as your heart and as open mind as yours, we would have spared the humanity a lot of miseries.

The examples i listed in my previous post about intolerance among christians, were only to a respond to the prejudice that our dear brother j. kactuz has been showing again again against muslims, he rather should have followed what simply Jesus peace of allah be upon him said (if any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her).

he also contradict himself when he says he is muslims ` friend (In a strange way, people like me and you are Muslims’ best friend) and that he does not want to pat on their backs and say everything is all right. But is it like a good friend and who means well to ridicule and mock his friend `s beliefs whenever the situation allows? for example he says (not engraved in stone by anyone on the 7th floor up in the clouds) that would only instigate your friend to say at least i dont worship a god that was tortured to death, and at least non of the physical laws and therories we know of apply my God, so it is better for the sake of argument to be polite and civilized ( which you are, yes often all of us get drifted ) it is already a productive dialogue and that will make it even much better and cosntructive.

And regarding the vote against minarets in Switzerland, in any country was it a muslim country or any other country a minority should be considered as a heart or any other vital organ that is implanted into our body we must give it protection and care necessary to keep it healthy and make it feel it is surrounded by a friendly tissue, because anything that will hurt it the whole body is going to pay the bill.

i would also like to thank my big brother j. kactuz for thinking that i am fine and intelligent person, but unfortunatly i am not like that , i have to admit i was alhamdulillah so lucky that i passed the secondary school with flying colours and could not do more, and the reservoir of data and little of open-mindedness is only the result of gratefully licking the minds of great people like your good selves through reading their comments columns and books, though rather like to listen, read and watch but only rarely i speak out my mind when i feel someone is going to be patient and will tolerate me.

and wish you all happy prosperous new.

J Kactuz,
Sometimes, we do have Muslims criticising the actions of other Muslims – I know many of them. Please read this post on the Swiss vote on minarets – http://sinhale.wordpress.com/2009/12/13/muslims-should-learn-to-build-bridges-before-they-demand-any-more-minarets/

Those who are concerned, please note that the writer is a Muslim and that he is a South Asian Muslim.

I have been arguing that this kind of insight comes only from the Muslims outside the Arab world. I am yet to see this understanding from the Arab Muslims.

J. Kactuz,
In fact there is a school of thought that Al-Qaeda itself is a direct result of the US attack on Iraq using Saudi territory – hence, the Al-Qaeda’s attacks on the US and its European allies as well as on Saudi Arabia. However, I am personally not convinced by this argument. I feel this is just an excuse they are using to spread terrorism across the world.

Chiara,
I have acknowledged earlier that there have been inter-religious clashes in India. I don’t deny it. But, these conflicts have been intermittent and they have a complex history in the colonial period – before the colonial period, such conflicts didn’t exist in India and it’s not as if India is torn asunder by everyday conflicts between religions. Besides, these conflicts haven’t contributed to the global terrorism that we are discussing here, so I don’t see how they are relevant.

While you say to me that Arab Islam is not the way I describe it, at the same time you have accepted John’s analysis above – but John has acknowledged that there are problematic strands in Saudi Arabia that lead to conflicts and violence.

For a moment, I accept your argument that as far as you know, Arab Islam is not the way as I describe it. So show me one Arab Muslim or one Arab Muslim writing in any genre that endorses the image worshipping religions as valid forms of religions. I have shown examples of this from India and personally know many Muslims who accept image worship of Indian religions as valid for these Indians.

I mean West Asia, am not including North Africa in this.

John,
Thanks for your very insightful and knowledgeable comments. You deserve your dream car only because of these comments!

But I am not sure how you describe India as the source of political Islam in postcolonial period upto the Iranian Revolution. Can you please elaborate on this, as I am really not aware of this kind of development?

As for the products of Madarsas – the orthodox Islamic religious schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan calling themselves Deobandis and being violent and extremists, I think it needs to be explored why these Madarsa products are extremists while the parent school in India, with which they identify themselves, remains orthodox but non-violent. Deoband products in India have not been terrorists, though all of them are orthodox.

This obviously means that the Pakistanis and the Afghans are definitely getting their violent influences from somewhere else, not from India and it needs to be ascertained from where they are getting these influences. Can you throw any light on this?

Oby,
I haven’t read the book. But my guess is that the British writer got his information by talking to people who told him what they believed – or what they wanted this British writer to believe, by presenting a positive face of Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, John certainly has seen many varied kind of reliable sources because of his term in that country. Hence, his explanation is different and more reliable.

Daisy…

I agree that I will trust John’s version of events over the book and i am glad that he corrected my version… He lived it, dealt with it and was on the inside as it was going on so I totally defer to him. I am actually now wondering if in fact, I misunderstood what the writer was getting at. But I remember when reading it feeling a lot of shock that, as per the author, the Americans were a bit behind the Saudis. In fact, I wish we could have an even bigger discussion on that whole “what went on right after 9/11 from an insider’s view” because I am sure it would be utterly fascinating!!

majed…

Thank you for your kind words. I am glad that I sound somewhat balanced in my views. I try to be open minded and fair to both sides depending on how I see things. Sometimes I am successful and perhaps at other times not so much, but I continue to try.

“in any country was it a muslim country or any other country a minority should be considered as a heart or any other vital organ that is implanted into our body we must give it protection and care necessary to keep it healthy and make it feel it is surrounded by a friendly tissue, because anything that will hurt it the whole body is going to pay the bill.”

I think your point is well taken and that was a very good analogy. I would agree with you. However, one of the things I have been arguing for here is that while the West as a whole does work very hard to accommodate other people and nationalities be they Muslims or non Muslims, I think the West is starting to feel that it is time to have the Islamic countries show some good faith and goodwill towards non Muslims and grant them the same civil rights that the Muslims in the West want for themselves and by and large receive. Obviously it isn’t perfect, but in the USA Muslims are not restricted in any way to my knowledge and if they are it is minimally. It sounds from Chiara that Canada has been even more accommodating. My contention is that the West wants to see more equality and fairness towards non Muslims in Muslim lands. I don’t think your previous analogy about being “cared for and surrounded by friendly tissue” would apply to non Muslims in Islamic lands, more specifically the Middle East.

Another concern of mine is that people (and I mean anyone not just Muslims) who come to a country to live (any country-not just the West) need to be mindful and respectful of that country’s culture and can’t demand that the culture change in a large way to suit the immigrant. When people go to Saudi Arabia for instance, the women must abide by certain rules that are considered respectful of that culture. Ie: covering fully, not driving, not talking to anyone male outside of their immediate male family. I argue the same should be true when someone comes to the West from the East…they need to adapt themselves to the culture and abide by the cultures rules even if they don’t like them. they knew what the rules were before coming to the new country and they still chose to come.

I am just trying to argue for a more fair and equitable acknowledgement of rights not only for Muslims in the West but for non Muslims in Muslim majority countries. It has to be a give and take…not take and take and take and little give. People will get fed up with that eventually. They don’t mind opening their doors to people from other cultures but they then expect those people, who come to the new country of their own free will, to contribute to that society and in some way become part of that society rather than trying to change it to be like the immigrant wants it to be…especially if they are not contributing financially to the bottom line and tax base of the country. And No, my opinion doesn’t apply only to Muslims but to all people. And it is only my opinion. Others may not agree with me.

Oby,
While I agree with you in spirit, there are some points on which my vision is different from yours about foreigners’ conduct in Islamic countries – they can enforce whatever rules they like on their people as long as it is not violation of human rights, but they shouldn’t enforce all of these rules on foreigners. For example, as a foreigner woman in Saudi Arabia, I am willing to wear covering clothes such as an Indian “Punjabi dress” – which actually came to India with the Muslims and has got modified and crystallised as an “Indian dress,” but why should I wear the veil or cover my head and face? Further, why shouldn’t I talk to men in public? Why shouldn’t I drive if I want to? Why should I have a legal guardian? Why should I have to seek permission of a legal guardian for all my activities including my wish to leave the country? I have never sought permission from my own parents for anything in India. I think Saudi Arabia has no business imposing these kinds of rules on me as a foreigner.

In fact, there are Islamic countries surrounding Saudi Arabia such as the UAE or Kuwait where rules are not so strict for foreigners at least.

But then, as Majed says, perhaps you are more adaptable than I am in giving concession to others’ orthodoxy.

Daisy…

While I agree with you in spirit(sorry for borrowing the thought from you) and think it would be wonderful if women entering the country of KSA didn’t have to abide by these rules as they are against my Western ideals, at the moment, unless they live on a compound they do (although I don’t think that they must cover all the way like a Saudi would.)It goes to the heart of my discussion…if I know what KSA is like and I am still willing to enter the country say, as the wife of a Saudi and live within the society (not on a compound)then I have to accept the rules as they are at the moment. Do I think that they are right? No. Do I think that they are fair to women? No. Do I think they should be changed for the betterment of Saudi women? Yes. That is why I most likely will never live in Saudi Arabia or even visit because I don’t want those rules imposed on me and they are too draconian for my taste. Obviously, a man’s experience would be far different from mine. I am not neccessarily talking about someone there for a vacation or a visit to a family member. I am referring to someone who is taking up long term residence there. (even if it is temporary )I can’t argue that someone coming to my country should have to live by my country’s rules and yet not apply that same logic in the opposite direction. I suppose I could argue that the rules shouldn’t apply to me because I am not Saudi, but again that feels not right to me.

When I was first married and was traveling in India, I generally wore only Indian clothes…salwar Kameez partially at my husband’s behest and partially because I found it to be phenomenally comfortable rather than the closer fitting western clothing. (This was in 1995 and in Delhi which I understand is more conservative than other parts of the country.) We were traveling by private car to Agra one day and I absolutely insisted on wearing my western clothes. Afterall we were going to a world renowned tourist attraction that would be filled with foreigners. If ever there was a moment to wear my western clothes this was it…they were shorts of a fairly modest length and a short sleeved knit shirt. Absolutely unremarkable by Western standards and probably downright dowdy even.

As luck would have it the car broke down on a desolate stretch of road where there were no petrol stations or anyone to help. While the driver fiddled with the car we were forced to wait by the side of the road as the inside of the car was getting to be like an oven and at least outside there was a touch of air. Let me tell you, I never in my whole life gathered as much attention as that day when every darn truck driver that drove by hung out the window, honked his horn and according to my husband(who was VERY unhappy with me that I had not heeded his advice)said some pretty nasty and suggestive things about me. From that day forward I wore only Indian clothing not becasue he insisted upon it but because the experience was so uncomfortable to me that I didn’t want to go through it again. So you can break the rules but it isn’t always advisable as the culture has certain expectations whether we like them or not.

Oby

As usual your arguments are very objective and fair, i agree with you that immigrants in Europe and America are getting of rights,advantages and opportunities, that some of them would not have in his best dreams thought they would get even in their own countries, and some of those immigrants are getting it unduely (often on the basis of to some hidden goverment agendas) generally immigrants in western countries are happier, more tolerated and feel more at home than their counterparts in some arab countries.

with regards to that, foreigners, should be mindful and respectful of laws and dressing codes in host countries, i am rather in the mind of Daisy, that foreigner should not be obliged to abide by rules that are not reasonable like the way they should dress, or the rule that tells them not to talk or walk or even dine with anyone they like and anywhere they wish, or the rule that necessitate an adult to take permission from some guardian in many rediculous incidents this guardian might be a woman `s own son that she used to teach what was right and what was wrong and many other restriction that should not be applied on foreigners, that is why i can say that most foreigners here are helpless and are slaves of their needs had they gotten any viable alternatives they would not have come here in the first place, but luckily, nowadays i notice a lot of changes that might be the herald of even deeper changes in near future.

Majed…

I think perhaps you are even more open minded than me! LOL!

If I were able to wave a magic wand and change things in Saudi Arabia and make it so that there were more rights for foreigners and women I would love to do that. I don’t agree with the rules in place for women such as the no driving or having to get permission from a Mahrem etc. I think it puts women in a position of being far to dependent on men and in turn I don’t think Saudi Arabia is getting the full benefit of half of their citizens’ abilities. It also puts an unnecessary burden on men to have to manage these things when women are quite capable of managing themselves. All the other Gulf countries have looser restrictions and women manage to handle things fine. I think women should have more choices available to them because, by and large, women will make good choices and not just ones that will benefit them. If they have the opportunity, women tend to make choices that will benefit the whole family/community. She will make sure everyone is taken care of and happy and in my opinion that can only have a very positive effect on Saudi in terms of family, in terms of economy, in terms of skills brought to the table by women. So in that sense I do agree with you and Daisy…

Daisy said I was more adaptable to others’ orthodoxy. I am not sure it is adaptable because that to me says that I am OK with the way things would be if I were there. I wouldn’t be that is why I wouldn’t be able to live there…I am, however, somewhat pragmatic. I definitely think that Saudi should lighten up it’s rules, but I know that for now it is the way it is and if I were there I would have to work within that framework.

It sounds as if you might be from Saudi Arabia and Yes, it does seem that KSA is taking steps to change and I am delighted about that. I think it can only benefit Saudi in the long run as the world becomes more globalized and intermingled.

Oby,
You are absolutely right about India – there are no laws here about dress etc but the society – mostly the men’s behaviour even in a metropolis like Delhi places restrictions on women – if they don’t conform, they are vulnerable. I find this deplorable and it really makes me angry. Well, I don’t conform, live my life on my terms and keep on fighting my way through life. I do feel Indian men need to learn a lot from the Western men. In fact, I love Goa not only because of its beaches but because it’s one place in India where I feel free – I go there alone, live and travel alone, go to the beaches alone, wear whatever I like and no one thinks there is anything wrong with that.

Yes, I too can never go to Saudi Arabia no matter how luxurious a life it can offer, because my temperament is to question the wrongs in a system and such women are not meant for a traditional society, least of all for Saudi Arabia. As for the foreigners’ space vs the host population, I feel any country shouldn’t impose unduly restrictive rules on its foreigners and the immigrants should also not expect the host country to change itself for their convenience.

I don’t mind wearing full clothes, not eating pork and taking wine, eating their food, learning their language if possible, perhaps won’t mind not driving if I manage to get a good driver, but imposing the conditions of a face-covering veil, not going out alone and the requirements of legal guardian are taking things too far. As Majed says, many people go there to work because they really have no other option and it’s really unfair to such people, who are offering their labour to the host country but have to live with restrictions. I guess a woman who marries a Saudi man has probably made up her mind to change herself, though she may not realise how hard it is, so it’s different for her, but a foreign worker shouldn’t be treated like this.

Chiara, I believe you are sadly mistaken about non-Saudi Arabs and non-Arab Islam. While not as malicious as the Wahabbi version, these too show a generalized intolerance that leaves much to de desired. I would site the Malaysian and Indonesian examples as typical of the latter and any North African and almost any non-Saudi Arab country as examples of the former. All Muslims countries have a clear predilection for discrimination against non-Muslims – both legally and socially – and North African nations and Southeast Asian nations are no exception, and it is getting worse. The simple rule is that where Islam dominates, other religions are subject to varying degrees of unpleasantness – and there are no exceptions. Perhaps you are too close to the trunk to see the tree, and you cannot be objective.

Daisy, I read your Sinhale link. It was good. Of course it was a Sri Lankan site. A few more, a lot more Muslims like RR would be welcome and maybe I could go back to my study of Mexican history. Your stories are very interesting.

On the other hand, the deobandis are not a bunch of boy scouts. They believe that Islam should rule Indian again and consider all non-Muslims their enemy. This sect practically controls UK mosques and is a huge factor in the radicalization of European Muslims.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2402973.ece

John – Good review of the Mecca siege. I agree with you that the author is on very shaky ground when commenting on many aspects of Saudi life not directly linked to the assault. Can you imagine if something like that had happened in the last 10 years with cell phones and Internet? The Saudis lucked out (that sounds silly but true). Too bad you missed those exciting events. I took the foreign office exam in the 70s – but didn’t go that way – I would have made a lousy diplomat. Oby, the assault was simply horrible. The Saudi grunts seem to have fought bravely but they had no idea of what they were facing and even their leaders in three different forces did not coordinate or share information, not that the police, National Guard or Army were given much information either on what was really happening. It was a military disaster.

Oby, Your response to M. (#248) is a masterpiece of moderation and consideration. I commend you. M. is right about you.

Mr Majed. I would say that you are probaby “open minded” – for a Muslim – if for no other reason than associateing online with the likes of me. As to “fair” – well I wouldn’t go that far. To me the issues are simple: 1. do or do not Muslims practice generalized discrimnation against non-Muslims where they dominate? 2. Does islamic theology contribute to this oppression? The answers to each question are a big unequivocal ‘yes’. But what you you do? You ask me not to throw stones. If you were fair, you would ask your brothern not to throw stones, also. You would work to change things and not pretend there are no problems. What you call “prejudice” I call “being informed” and “caring about others”. I do what I do, I say what I say, because the answers are ‘yes’ and I believe it needs to be done.

Let me quote a few words from the TimesOnLine article linked to above: “Revered by many young Muslims, he draws on his extensive knowledge of the Koran and the life and sayings of the prophet Muhammed to justify his hostility to the kuffar, or non-Muslims. “ So this Imam uses his knowledge of islam to justify hate and violence against non-Muslims. How is that any different from what I have been saying? You may argue that those verses don’t exist. Nope! Well, maybe you can argue that they are irrelevant or misunderstood, or maybe those verses have nothing to do with the oppression of non-Muslims. Naaaah. Too many, too clear and contrary to the “Quran is perfect” belief. In fact, that reasoning is just a roundabout way of saying that “Allah doesn’t know how to write.” I was going to go to town on your analogy of ‘muslims as a vital organ transplanted into a body’ but I have to go. You are saved! Praise the lord!

Majed, I do wish the best of luck to you. Life is often not fair and luck usually is a wasted word. I have known so many good people that have suffered so much for reasons I will never understand. I hope that some words and ideas here will leave a few scars on your soul. I say that kindly. Sorrow and suffering are good for the soul – in limited quantities, of course, we hope. Take care.

Kactuz

And for you, Chiara, Carlos Gardel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpHCyRUtCN4
Kind of funny that Argentina’s greatest singer was born in Uruguay and died in Columbia while Brazil’s greatest was born in Portugal and died in the US.

Thanks Daisy about the Western men comment. You know, I never asked him, but I now wonder what my husband (who wouldn’t be the type to hang out the truck window and cat call)thought when he first came to the USA and saw the different ways of dressing. He is even WAY more pragmatic than I…while I can get really fired up with moral indignation, he goes through life not allowing much to ruffle his feathers. THAT in and of itself can make me nuts! It is a total bucket of cold water on the fire to get a really good indignation going complete with fiery speech and he just kind of yawns at me!! But he has a real “when in Rome” attitude about life so, though I am sure it raised an eyebrow or two, he got used to it and took it in his stride. He is a true chameleon in that way with a touch of politician too.

Yes, sexist attitudes do exist everywhere but certainly more so in India than in the USA and more than I had ever been exposed to. I never really thought about it in context to KSA, but that social pressure really made me conform faster than I had ever done before in recent memory, so this male pressure does indeed have the effect of keeping women in their place. I will say however, had I not been with my husband, newly married and trying hard not to embarrass my in laws I might have just had a somewhat different attitude to it. Because I was in a place where saving face is important and I was not only there for me I was indirectly reflecting on the family, I fell in line much easier than if I didn’t have others to consider(and a really hacked off husband to deal with!)Yes it is deplorable that some men have not learned how to behave in a civilized manner and once again who gets the brunt of it? women, of course! I am glad that you are strong enough to live your life on your terms…so many women don’t have that chance. There is nothing so great in life as freedom. I wish more people, particularly women especially in the restrictive Muslim countries could experience the joy of freedom…and I wish perhaps even more, that men were not so afraid of women having that freedom that they continue to deny it to their women. Given the chance, women would be mature enough to use it in a wise and judicious manner. They are the stabilizers of the world and would not do anything to put their children in harm’s way. That, by the way, is why microloans are given mostly to women…from trial and error they have found out that when they gave it to men they had a tendency to show off to their peers and often misuse the funds and not pay them back. Women, however, tended to use the funds to raise the lifestyle of themselves AND their family by starting business and then making sure that their children got an education. In some cases their community also benefited from their efforts and they found that by lending the money to women the level of ALL boats was raised and they pulled themselves out of poverty (relatively speaking of course.) AND they have a 97% payback rate because they want the funds and programs to be available to other women who need it.

No offense to the wonderful men with whom we share this blog!

JKactuz…I have ordered the book from the library and I am waiting…I wanted to ask who took the major beating? I am surmising from your words it was the Saudi military rather than the terrorists. Not to mention all the innocents stuck in the crossfire. It must have been devastating for the Saudis. And I find it amazing that with that experience Islam became more restrictive rather than less so considering it was the strict vision of Islam these militants embraced that started the siege in the first place.

J. Kactuz,
Thanks for appreciating my stories. But please don’t make me think that all the Muslim friends I have here are conspiring against me because they secretly think of me as an enemy (I am born in the tradition of Indian religions, though am not very religious by temperament)! It’s next to impossible for me to think of them in that light. Only tonight, the first friend to call me to wish me on the New Year was a Muslim woman.

Please believe me, there are many Muslims like RR in India – there are also other more orthodox types, but this type is also numerous. I gave you some examples of the tolerant variety above.

Please also consider this about Majed – he said somewhere he is just a high school graduate and has gathered his understanding only by reading on his own. Considering the kind of struggle he has gone through and the little opportunities he may have got in his life – as opposed to many of us who got good education and opportunities – I think it is indeed commendable that he shows this kind of open-mindedness and understanding. We should judge a person according to his/her background.

About your observations regarding Deobandis – first, I would like to clarify my own stand regarding them – being opposed to all kinds of religious orthodoxy in all religions, I am not really a fan of Deoband – in India or abroad. Given a choice, I would rather not have them preaching orthodox ideas. But I don’t have that choice – they are here in India to stay and even contributed to the freedom struggle of India against the colonial rule, so I am willing to let them issue their orthodox fatwas as a part of their freedom of expression as long as they are not violent. Indeed, in India, they are not violent and haven’t produced terrorists. John mentioned that too, though I wouldn’t call them moderate. Besides, India can trust its Muslims not to get swayed by their mad fatwas.

The important question is – why can’t the other countries trust their Muslims not to get swayed by their mad fatwas? What makes those Muslims different?

John mentioned that they have a more violent branch in Pakistan and Afghanistan and I asked him from where they are getting their violent strain if the parent Indian branch is not violent. The link you gave suggests a possible link with Pakistan, not with India. But I do feel it’s important to explore from where this violent strain is coming into Pakistan in the first place.

And I think I know the answer. No prizes for guessing.

In any case I strongly feel this violent variety should be banned everywhere.

As for Deobandis feeling Islam should rule India again, if they really feel like that – I want to clear this misconception which many non-Indians have and being an originally Indian school I don’t see why Deobandis should feel this way. The fact is that the Indian sub-continent did have Muslim rulers for about 1000 years before the British, but this region was never under the Islamic rule or Shariah – please note the distinction between Muslim rulers and Islamic rule.

During this entire period, the indigenous religions and customs of India were allowed to flourish by the rulers, who only engaged in political and economic administration. In fact, the Mughal dynasty actually implemented a carefully elaborated plan to patronise the Hindu art forms and cultural practices. The Mughal emperors themselves were involved in promoting Hindu culture and many Hindu nobles were given place in the Mughal court alongside the Central Asians, Mongols, Turks, Afghans, Persians and other Muslims. India is greatly indebted to the Mughals for contributing to this composite inter-faith culture here.

All this is a well-known part of Indian history, taught in high school level, so it’s truly surprising that the Deobandis should hope to establish an Islamic rule in India now in the 21st century, when it was never established while the Muslims ruled here. Doesn’t it appear foolhardy? I would certainly like to get your responses to all this.

Daisy–I respectfully decline at this point in time to take up the gauntlet you have thrown down, not for fear of not finding a reference but for the following reasons: 1) I am not convinced that you would accept any reference I did find–this is meant as a compliment to your rigour of thought, your belief in your findings, and your abilities at intellectual debate; 2) I don’t restrict Arab Islam to any one Arab majority country; but you seem to conflate Saudi and the rest, or at best the GCC and the rest–thus a philosophical difference on what constitutes Islam, or if you wish, the political rather than theological term, Arab Islam; 3) I do believe that Islam has the right to decide it doesn’t want to give the same social weight eg in marriageable terms to “image worshipping religions” (what most would call Dharmic religions and Buddhism, or restrict, given numbers, to Hinduism)–I don’t have to agree with it and certainly never condone racism over it, but I can agree that it is the right of a religion to define itself, in the same way as I regretfully agree that Catholicism has the right to elect its Pope and he can make all manner of foolish decisions (in my opinion, and that of science) regarding reproduction and human sexuality; 4) I disagree with your fundamental premise repeated in many ways, that South Asians are incapable of repelling whatever noxious foreign influences are coming their way, or of concocting from within their own cultural and religious extremist conflicting strains of whatever religion they choose to; 5) I don’t know how you are salami slicing history, religion, the Raj, postcolonialism in India, etc to exclude the fights which I am hard pressed to find any Saudi, or if you prefer West Asian, influence as major etiological factors–not because Indian history is so uniquely complex that I cannot manage to understand any part of it, but because it seems so obvious to me that Indians are fully capable of their own extremisms and all wasn’t sweetness and light before or after colonialism even though all colonialisms prey on internal divisions of the oppressed; you seem to be the one raising Indian and South Asian contexts contrapunctually to the most extreme forms of violent salafism–or maybe I am too aware of the Air India disaster, the reason there are so many Indian Sikhs in Canada, Indian Tamils in Canada, Indian Muslims in Canada, etc. 6) My father has been very ill the last week which means I am currently a combination GP, ER doc, ER shrink (for family support), first responder, first aid provider, nurse’s aid, chief cook (for some reason only my spaghetti preparation will do) and bottle washer (alas dishwasher died Dec 21 may it RIP), and night nurse, meaning I sleep where ever and on what ever surface near enough by to where he is to help him throughout the night–in other words, my willingness to discuss the Islamic version of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, is at an ebb. This of course has nothing to do with you, and is hopefully resolving so I may get back into top interest on this in future. I will let you know when I do.

Jay–what can I say. I am “sleeping with the enemy” so to speak, and continue general fraternizing–real, blogospheric, intellectual, and academic. I suspect I am a hopeless case (and a sucker for black curly hair and an accent). Thanks for the Carlos Gardel link. Your knowledge of Hispanic music is impressive!

Re: foreigners adhering to social norms in other countries, I find it normal and proper, prudent and legal that they should do so. In most countries including Saudi the norms are less onerous on foreigners, both legally and culturally. In Saudi the headscarf is not required for foreign, non-Muslim women, and the niqab certainly not. There are self-appointed religious police (note the self-appointed) everywhere. I was once dressed down (pun intended) by an indignant padre de familia in Spain because I was wearing knee-length shorts on a Sunday-he didn’t care that I was foreign (although he probably thought I was Spanish) or that I was walking a short distance to the beach–he didn’t want to subject his wife and children, not to mention the rest of the town, to the sight of shorts on Sunday; he couldn’t look the other way, leave it alone, fail to address it, as it was simply too appalling. Think what would have happened if I had worn my short shorts, or bathing suit and long T shirt–Salvanos Dios!

Oby–regarding becoming more restrictive in Saudi after the Siege of Mecca, it was seen as a preventive strategy to prevent a similar overthrow of the monarchy as of the Shah by Khomeini style and influenced extremists. Something of a better the salafists we have been historically allied with than the outsiders; better to make concessions to appease the extremely conservative than to lose the country to others.

Re: Western Women and Eastern Men- I have a post coming up on my blog, Chez Chiara http://www.chezchiara.com on that topic in the next few days, and I hope all will share their views and experiences. Meanwhile, enjoy the newly posted last part of the 3-part Cross-Cultural Christmases: Saudi, Arab, Muslim, and Non

http://www.chezchiara.com/2009/12/cross-cultural-christmases-saudi-muslim.html

Happy New Year to All!

Oby,
Thanks for sharing all this. Yes, in a country like India, if you don’t acquire the unruffled attitude, you can lose your sanity very fast. Most Indians acquire it in social and official settings.

But the traditional society also has a privilege for women which the modern society doesn’t give – it’s the privilege of the woman to not worry about fighting her own battles – the men in her family are supposed to fight for her. I know you are a modern woman, not a traditional one. But in a traditional setting, your husband is under obligation to defend you against others. And he is not supposed to acquire the unruffled attitude. But obviously, you have already crossed those stages after so many years of marriage.

You are right about women being more responsible in matters of loan payment. Only today I was talking to a cousin of mine, whose husband is a retired engineer from the steel plant in India that is the largest in Asia. She was telling us how, when the government established this plant, the villagers whose land was taken for this plant, were compensated by a government job, money and houses. But the government made the mistake of compensating through the men in the families. These men wasted all the money on alcohol and gambling, didn’t show up for the job 90% of the time so lost their jobs and ultimately the entire families fell below the poverty line, surviving only on their women’s earnings based on their work as housemaids. If only the women had been compensated in these families, perhaps this wouldn’t have happened.

With due apologies to all the men here who are responsible and mature.

Chiara,
I hope your father gets well soon. We’ll continue this discussion after that as the strain really shows in your response.

Chiara…

Please accept my deepest regrets for your father’s illness and be assured I will keep him in my prayers. Let’s hope for a speedy recovery. You do sound a little tired and crispy around the edges…and no dishwasher? That might just send me over the edge!! Your spaghetti sauce must be amazing. I always enjoy your input and will enjoy seeing you back in top form. Please get some rest as you are able and we will see you soon. I will also visit your blog…I do read it often and did contribute a LONG Christmas story which talked about all the things that could go wrong (trying to be funny!) but for some reason it didn’t post and I just didn’t have the energy to rewrite it. Besides, the spontaneity and humor within the story is lost second time around. god bless.

Daisy–“I hope your father gets well soon.” Thank you.

“We’ll continue this discussion after that” Maybe

“as the strain really shows in your response.” No, the response was carefully thought out and deliberate. I am trained to, and practised at, performing complex intellectual and emotional tasks under stressful conditions.

Thanks again for your kind thoughts for my father. He seems to be on the mend.

Daisy…

Your comment about Majed is well taken. And I also try to remember that he and non native English speakers like him are commenting on an English language blog. I could not reciprocate him in his language so my hats off to people who are willing to jump in and do their best and try to go out of their comfort zone. I think for his level of education he is remarkably open minded. Some Muslims with far more education would not be so open minded or even tempered in their response.

Your story about the factory workers is so darn annoying and sad. It happens all the time I am sure. And frankly that is one of the things that annoys me about the male dominated world and society we live in.

(OK gentlemen I am NOT talking about all men so please don’t get offended.)

If these men were good stewards of the family’s future and thought with a “we” mentality rather than a “me” mentality things would be so much better. In this case as in many others it is about education. That enables you (hopefully) to anticipate the consequences of your actions. “they were compensated by a government job, money and houses.” good heavens! They were so far ahead of the game that had the good fortune been managed properly it could have provided for several generations.

My dad told me something once when I was younger that I didn’t really understand until I had a family and responsibilities of my own. He told me men will respond to a challenge while women respond to a need. So the family needs to be cared for and provided for; if the man does not do his job the woman will do it. I think that is very true as seen through the microlending. She doesn’t think about how much better SHE will be. She thinks how much better WE will be. Her vision is much longer term. She might like a new dress or something for herself but she makes sure that her family has it’s needs met first and not just immediate but long term like housing and education. Once everyone is OK then she might start to think about herself. Of course, good men should and do think the same way.

“But the traditional society also has a privilege for women which the modern society doesn’t give – it’s the privilege of the woman to not worry about fighting her own battles – the men in her family are supposed to fight for her.”

So THAT explains some of those chivalrous attitudes when we first met…hmmmm…wished I had been wise enough to cultivate them more. Oh to be young and wiser… But he was never really a “defender”. He would take the more passive role of just ignoring it and leading me away. I can’t picture him getting into a big scene. Unless of course I was accosted, then I imagine he would take action. But that has never had to be tested yet. And I will admit that he has gotten completely used to my “modern” attitudes. I never really looked to him to fight my battles for me and I think he got used to me taking care of things myself. Now to try to get him to change boats midstream would be pretty impossible I think. I think deep down he likes the fact that, unlike his mom and female relatives, I am completely competent on my own and he has to do very little to help me. Although I wouldn’t mind giving the chivalrous thing another try! LOL!

Oby–thank you for your kind words and prayers. He is on the mend but frightened and, well you know, has a Y chromosome LOL Fortunately he has a wife and 2 daughters brow beating him into health care services. LOL

I am actually a little tired of the direction of some of the comments on aspects of this topic, so at some point I think some of us, or maybe just I, need to agree to disagree.

On the spaghetti front, the irony is that in this case I am just reheating my mother’s homemade sauce, and making the spaghetti al dente–must be something about the way I boil water LOL The dishwasher has been unfortunate timing ie multiple festive dinners to prepare, and no delivery on a new one before January. On the other hand, it is like being little again and drying and chatting while mother washes.

I am so sorry about the problems with the comments on my blog, and I do look forward to readers sharing their stories. The trick I have learned in commenting elsewhere is to highlight and click copy before trying to submit and then just paste it back in if it goes poof! I shall look further into other remedies, but I thought changing the commenting format had it licked this time. Anyway, try again on the new post, or if you get the courage to do so, try on the older one again! Thanks for the effort! and I look forward to future comments.

Oby,
Thanks for explaining the difference between the way men respond to challenge and women respond to need. I mix with men all the time, but never quite understood this. I’ll be more observant now.

In fact, I too like the chivalrous attitude in men quite a lot and don’t mind if a man fights for me – though I never ask any man to do so and am quite capable of fighting for myself. But if someone is willing to fight my battles for me, he is most welcome!

About the workers in the steel plant, in fact the government couldn’t remove them for 5 years despite the fact that they were usually absent from work. The labour laws of this country prohibit the government from removing its workers so easily. For 5 years they were given their salary without them working and then they were removed. Then, they opposed this and their sons had to be given jobs – never worked and again had to be removed after 5 years. Now their grandsons are demanding jobs in the steel plant as a birthright – in a country like India where government jobs are scarce and population explosion keeps many qualified people without job. They basically want a regular salary with all the facilities of a government job without having to work for it. Cases such as this make me a supporter of industrial economy. I really feel India should become a fully industrialised economy.

Chiara…Yes copy and paste…why do I always think of it AFTER my post winds up in cyber heaven somewhere?

I am so glad that your dad is on the mend…funny how that Y chromosome always takes very strong and competent men and somehow they become like little boys again when they are sick. Probably a world wide phenomenon.

Your story about you and your mom doing dishes together made me smile…those simple moments where family just enjoy each others’ company over mundane tasks are the ones that will be remembered for a lifetime. And if your Italian family is like the ones I remember from growing up near New York, well, I am sure it is a special time indeed.

Dasiy…

Wow! That factory story is amazing. Feels so much like blackmail on the part of the employees. Getting paid for doing little and then having the gall of demanding it for their relatives…Seems like government work is the same the world over! LOL! But you are right…those jobs should be given to industrious people who want to work and make things better not only for themselves but the country. It is a waste to give them to people who collect a check and are able to do nothing for receiving money…seems a lot like Welfare. to bad the government can’t kick the bums out on their behinds. If they were afraid of losing their jobs they might actually do a better job.

By the way, you might check out American Bedu’s blog. Her latest subject “photoshopped hajib” is very thought provoking. I want to write but have been trying to formulate a cohesive thought that will not be misunderstood. You might enjoy it.

Oby, the Saudi soldiers that took part in the recapture of the Mecca sanctuary were victims, too – victims of the official version broadcast by the Saudi authorities. They were told it was just a small group of crazy fanatics. Well, the rebels were fanatics but weren’t crazy, they were well armed and there were hundreds of them. The soldiers also were at a disadvantage because they didn’t want to damage the Kaaba. I think Juhayman believed that once he took the Grand Mosque Muslims would rally to his cause. What saved the house of Saud was that they were able to cut off all communications, so much that even the people in Mecca never really knew what was happening. If word had gotten out… The irony is that, in many ways, the rebels won and Islam turned to a more radical outlook.

This issue is not going away. How many bombs this week? How many killed? They are killing people in Volleyball games! I said volleyball! How many cars burned in Paris last night? Who attacked the cartoonist in Denmark today? Who kills people in Finland? Why does a Nigerian try to kill a bunch of people he doesn’t know on a plane… Who is doing this? This is what the minaret thing is about. People in Europe and around the world watch the news, read the papers and the Internet – and associate the concept “Islam” to the concept “violence.”

Daisy, your Muslims friends are OK. I will be the first to say that there are many good Muslims and they sincerely believe their religion teaches peace and love and tolerance. Note, however, that India is not a Muslims country. I can say with the same certainty that in a Muslim–dominated society these same Muslims will probably, direct or indirectly, active or passively, accept restrictions on the rights and status of non-Muslims. Now you tell me why?
1. is it fear? Of what other Muslims might think or do – or of just thinking about islam
2. Is it because they think Muslims are better?
3. Is it because they don’t what to think…
4. is it mindless indoctrination? Is it because their world would fall apart if they were to question their faith?
5. Is it because they (and their tolerance) have never been tested? (See item1)

I really don’t know why this is, but it is a fact. I also know that Muslims have a very small comfort zone. As long as you do and say what they want, they are just fine. If you push them on certain issues, or insist on basic moral principles, Muslims usually get: a. confused, b. insipid (wishy-washy) or c. belligerent. My opinion. These nice Muslims are the same ones that say they accept criticism of islam, but want it to be “constructive criticism” – that is, criticism that is not critical of Islam (the old “it is only a few” and “they misinterpret Islam” narrative).

This is the same question you ask: Can we trust Muslims. You, being the kind sweet person you are, see it one way. Me, (the I me not the me me) being old and cynical, view it very differently. I think your whole perspective on the 800+ years of Muslim domination of India is wrong. Note that this period has been called the “bloodiest era in human history,” based upon the sheer numbers killed by the Islamic rulers of India. While there were some periods of peaceful coexistence, on the whole it was not a good time for Hindus, but at least they did better than the Buddhists (exterminated!). Of course, you know where my biases are. Oh by the way, I understand it is official Indian government policy to portray Indian history in much the same manner that you present i