Because the topic proved so interesting to readers, I’m looking around for more on the conflicts in Europe on the subject of Islam and ‘Islamization’. Below is a piece from the German website Qantara. The writer takes a look at who the critics of Islam are and what their motives might be. He notes a category that is often missed: the ex-Muslim critic of Islam. I think the piece is worth reading.
The New Cold War
Stefan WeidnerGermany’s debates on Islam are becoming ever more caustic and confusing. Islamic Studies expert Stefan Weidner explains the background to the debates, to help neutral observers to find their way around
Sometimes it helps to think back. For example to 1983. The frontlines of West German opinion had been entrenched for decades. How to deal with Socialist countries, how abominable Communism was – these were non-negotiable matters of faith. Disassociation seemed more important than conciliation, nuances were easily overheard.
The discussions on German opinion pages and internet forums over the past few weeks are fatally reminiscent of this situation. The subject of the new op-ed cold war is Islam. And now the troops are settling in: the time for finding the truth and preparing arguments appears to be over, the time has come to dig the trenches for the coming media warfare.
…
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
February:05:2010 - 10:30
Glossing over that…I feel that Europeans are fearful that if they give Islam too much leeway then they won’t be able to live life in a society that they want. Fact: Life in an Islamic State is a different type of life than that of a Western Capitalistic State.
Really until someone has fully experienced both then they lack the knowledge of contrast.
February:05:2010 - 16:29
People are taking sides. All people, including Muslims in Europe, will have to decide where they stand on basic issues of culture and human rights. There will be no middle ground.
The article is vague and wishy-washy, in my opinion, but then again it says “the debate is confusing” – duhhhh. I’m glad they noticed.
The article sees too many shades of gray in a painting that is black and white.
February:05:2010 - 16:57
Sparky said it right. I think that if Muslims worshiped in privacy and the religion didn’t spill into society via separation of sexes, and other traditions such as Sharia that are foreign to Europeans and they weren’t afraid of losing their society as they know it, I don’t think there would be such an issue.
Uh oh John…our favorite subject!
February:05:2010 - 17:19
Interesting article. In fact the ex- anything are often the most intransigent and intolerant: ex-smokers, reformed criminals, ex-holders of political office etc. Rather like trusting the exiles word on Iraq–we know how accurate that was.
The article’s author does frame well the mindless appeals to fear that fuel this kind of “war”, and the entrenchment of positions by extremists, ie the black and white thinking that belies the reality, eg at most in any given country in Europe the Muslim population is 6% of the total.
February:05:2010 - 17:40
JKactuz, you are rather hard on this article, which try to summarize a debate, which concist of over 100 (not short) comments in german papers.
Whats special of the debates in the ‘FEUILLETONS’ (the culture and debate pages in german papers, and they still are a very important part of the modern newspaper) is that it is a rather new feature.
Not that they hasn’t discussed immigrants issues in germany, but because of the post war traditions in Germany political and religious generalizations hasn’t been central. But in the last year or so things has indeed changed. When a director in Deutsches Bank ( Sarazzin) made some rather harsh comments on the turks in Berlin ( where he earlier had been minister for economy), the debate took of, but he wasn’t fired ( he would have been 5 years ago), then the minaret vote and the attack on Vestergaard ( we are neighbors) the debate took of.
Among others with two turkish german woman in the center of the critic of islam (Necia Kelek and Seyran Ate?); they have both been exposed to threats and violence because of their work.
As the article mentioned by John above, there are also groups of intellectuals who are against the harsh word from the islam critical groups, and warn that the critic is to generalized. But a moderate muslim voice is difficult to find, not at least as a group. It’s worth mentioning that one of the strong muslim group in Germany is Milli Görüs (a conservative islamic lay men association, with close connection to the turkish state).
Here are some links provided by the Islam critical site Achse des Guten,
http://www.achgut.com/dadgdx/index.php/dadgd/article/islam_debatte_2/
http://www.achgut.com/dadgdx/index.php/dadgd/article/die_islam_debatte/
February:05:2010 - 17:59
It might be 6% now at most, but I think that they are not thinking only in the present but in the long run 20 or 30 years from now. And I think they should think that way. Population grows exponentially and if the one is not producing enough and the other is producing much more then that balance will shift sometime in the future and with it the voting power, culture and all that comes with that. I think anyone that doesn’t think in the long term is foolish.
February:06:2010 - 03:47
Apparently there is a great deal of controversy about predicted growth rates. They usually don’t factor in declining birth rates among immigrants after settling in Europe, decreased immigration, high birth rates among certain groups of Europeans, and are considered generally to be overestimates of Muslim populations. They also don’t have any meaning except racio-religiously ie they don’t describe degree of religiosity prior to coming to Europe, degree of acculturation and declining religiosity after settling, conversion/reversion by the local population, etc.
The highest estimates are a European Muslim population up from the current total 5.2% to 20% by 2050 and 25% by 2100. Again unreliable figures that crudely assume designated birth religion corresponds to practice or certain types of practice.
Excellent fear mongering for some though.
February:06:2010 - 04:39
Fear mongering happens on both sides of the fence, and I find it more threatening in the lesser tolerant areas which happen to be the Islamic States by and far.
February:06:2010 - 14:48
chaira…
Those numbers certainly are not extreme. Can you link me to your data so I can read it. Thanks
February:06:2010 - 18:23
Oby–Wiki provides good overviews and graphics, as well as the references. The numbers they reference and which I used are the same or similar to ones I have read elsewhere, including in an individual country’s news reporting.
Wiki article on Muslim population by country
Map of % of Muslims by country World Wide
Map of % of Muslims by country Europe
Discussion of Projections
Pew Center for Research Study Oct 2009
Mapping the Global Muslim Population: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Muslim Population
On the myths of Muslim fertility rates
On Eurabia as a political formulation
I hope these help.
February:06:2010 - 18:28
I do think that having reliable statistics helps to reduce misconceptions. The ones cited here are from well respected independent sources, ie as objective as one can hope for in a human endeavour. Inflated statistics, and misreading or misusing them (eg assuming Islam is coded on the genes right next to the terrorism locus) lead to inappropriate fear and inappropriate political and military decisions.
February:06:2010 - 18:29
Oby #11 cont’d
Pew Center for Research Study on Global Muslim Population Oct 2009
http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=450
On Eurabia as a political formulation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurabia
February:06:2010 - 23:05
Does being a minority somehow prove a point in regards to this subject? I am just trying to see how it fits in.
Regarding minarets, there was a restaurant in Riyadh on Taleeya Street that visually too much resembled a phallus, so they were forced to change it. My point again is this type of intolerance.
February:07:2010 - 01:13
It proves that <6% of a population being statistically Muslim is not a threat to a civilization as the Islamophobics claim. That is, the Muslim population isn't an invading horde, nor a replicating freak of nature, so that even if one does believe that Islam and terrorism are a shared gene, there still is no threat. If one recognizes that even high birth rates would result in marked minority status over time, or more realistically that dropping birth rates and assimilation would keep the practicing Muslim population very low, even a believer in the genetic predisposition to Muslim terrorism would feel calmer. Someone interested in a reality check might even recognize that Muslims are now a very small minority, might grow into a larger small minority, but do not for that reason alone represent a serious threat to the culture or existence of Europe or Europeans.
February:07:2010 - 04:39
Thank you for the breakdown Chiara.
I, in particular, do not look upon Islam as being any kind of threat to civilization. With that said, the way certain Muslims practice Islam is a threat to civilization especially the ones in Islamic States.
The Westrophobics tend to think the Western (I prefer modern) way of living is a threat to their existance while in general our precepts are built upon freedom of religion and expression so I don’t understand their argument at all.
February:07:2010 - 09:09
I don’t think that’s the whole answer. While some may worry about an Islam-Terrorism link, others (and I believe the majority of the complainants) are concerned about the gradual but inexorable imposition of ‘Islamic values’. Things like polygamy, Shariah law and punishments, alien views on morality, etc. Fear of terrorism is still there. Fear of future bombings of public transport is not crazy, but may be over-amplified.
These fears are not helped by loud mouthed clerics, dissidents, activists, et al. who call for just those things. The media, of course, is happy to provide the loudspeaker for these people because, well, it’s a story that will sell their media. Fear-mongering only works when there’s something behind the fear in the first place, though. No one is particularly worried about an invasion of purple people-eaters from Zog; they are worried about people who won’t show their faces in public, about those who scream rage behind beards.
February:07:2010 - 12:21
I’d have to agree with John, although the “invading horde” argument is valuable to keep fears stoked. In all that I have read about the issues with Europe(and probably America but let’s stick to Europe because that is the point of the Minarets and Eurabia)it isn’t about major fears of terrorism although they are certainly in the mix. It is about a very different and alien(and we must recognize it is very different from the European norm)lifestyle slowly changing the face of the culture there. It isn’t about Islamaphobia, IMO. If Islam were privately practiced that, I don’t think, would scare people much and they would be only too happy to let them practice their faith. But it isn’t about just religion. It is about a lifestyle that includes polygamy, Sharia law, excessive covering(to western eyes) and different ideas about modesty, separation not only of the sexes but of the religions as well. It is an all encompassing thing that will affect the culture of the host country and cause friction between the non Muslims and the Muslims. A culture that has been fairly cohesive will start to have issues and problems due to the very big differences.
What makes it worse is that the movement is only in one direction…in other words the Islamic countries get to keep their culture relatively intact and yet the non Islamic countries are expected to give way on theirs.
Is it Islamophobic to want to retain your lifestyle the way you like it and are used to? I don’t think so. Are the Islamic countries wrong to want to keep their countries culture intact? I don’t think so.
As I said, if they worshiped privately, did not eat up the social services and assimilated to the culture smoothly without trying to apply their culture that would be a whole other story. I don’t think people would exclude Muslims from worshiping nor would they be afraid of them.
I am reading a book that I just started called the “Muslim next door.” It is a great “beginning” book to understand Islam and get an inside picture of it. (John Esposito gave it a thumbs up) The woman who wrote it is of Indian Muslim heritage and raised in California. I am only on the second chapter as I just started it, but she explains from a Muslim perspective how difficult it was for her growing up a Muslim in California. How different the “values” were from Muslim values. Ie: school dances. She couldn’t go and she wanted to. But she worked with it and found a middle ground. She is quite “americanized” in that she doesn’t wear Hijab although she is devout and prays 5 times per day, fasts at Ramadan,reads the Qur’an, etc. The thing that struck me is that she blends well because she doesn’t isolate herself from non Muslims, she doesn’t demand special dispensations due to her religion, she doesn’t try to bring the culture to the forefront and into every aspect of her life. She is able to be a devout Muslim privately because she has separated Islam from culture. She mixes with men at work and within the allowances of her religion participates in the Western lifestyle. If Muslims did that and blended the host culture with their religion I don’t think non Muslims would be afraid.
February:07:2010 - 21:10
The cultural differences are exaggerated by the “clash of civilizations” people, and the “invading hordes” “replicating masses” hypotheses underpin much of what is said in “Eurabia” discussions about changes to civilization as we know it. Things like polygamy are a very small minority of Muslim behaviour, as is adherence to Sharia Law, even in Muslim majority countries. Most use Sharia for family law only and don’t apply it in the most extreme fashion, eg most have minimum ages for marriage, are improving the ability for women to get a divorce, and improving the treatment of divorced women. Most family matters in any culture get resolved without recourse to the letter of the law.
The biggest numbers of Muslims in Europe are from the Maghreb, Turkey, and Albania–not extreme ie not Taliban etc.
Niqab is also a minority practice, and most are more Western in their dress than the media portrays. While not liking it those who prefer to wear hijab in France take it off at the entrance of the school. These things get resolved and everyone moves on.
I have never known Muslims to worship publicly in the sense of imposing their prayers in the public square. They want mosques. And this is a problem, how? Some want prayer spaces in universities. Most universities accommodate them easily in existing prayer spaces for all the other faiths on campus.
Does it stop anyone from eating a ham sandwich if a Muslim chooses egg salad? I really fail to see the massive imposition, and I have “lived among them” in Europe for years.
As for the extremists, determining the fate of all by the aberrations of the few would seem foolhardy. Or perhaps no one should attend the Winter Olympic Games in Vancouver, because it is in the same province as an FLDS community in Bountiful, BC. They dress very conservatively and 19th century, the men practice unlimited polygyny including marrying underage teens (religiously at least) and marry sets of sisters, or swapping wives with the FLDS community in the USA. They have high fertility and birth rates, and they all look the same: white, blond, blue-eyed and “hearty”. A lot of them are named Blackmore and Jeffs. They keep their women “sweet” ie silent and uneducated beyond basic arithmetic and reading taught in their own schools, and keep the young men similarly limited in education and occupied as tradesmen scamming the welfare system so the older ones have their pick of the pubertal girls. Their numbers are growing rapidly mostly due to cross border infiltration from the USA, and population explosion. They create fault lines in the Canadian social fabric by false claims to social services of being single mothers, and claiming on public television (CBC) that they are normal, at hours when teens might be watching. I would suggest one stay well clear of their like and watch the Olympics from home. They are of course Mormons, best to avoid them too. Mormons think they are Protestants, hmmm they would be out too. That leaves Catholics alone doing their best to outpopulate the earth in a neck and neck fertility/conversion contest with the Muslims. Hmmm it does always lead back this way doesn’t it.
Back to the Muslims with the different “values” to those in the US, conservative Christians also reject dancing and music,refuse that their children celebrate Halloween, sing national anthems, ask for special days off or dispensation from participation in certain work/school events.
I have never yet met a Muslim who refused to work in a mixed environment in Europe, North America, or North Africa. Most do participate fully in the Western lifestyle, although they may not drink, and may keep their dating more secret than a Westerner would. They come and tell me in my personal or professional capacity about their dating. I for one can’t tell superficially the difference between a Bosnian Muslim, and an Eastern European Christian, or a Christian and a Muslim Arab (eg based on appearance or behaviour, unless covered, or excusing themselves for prayer or wearing a religious symbol). Their values are more common across cultures and within the Abrahamic faiths than dissimilar.
So, it does seem to me that the invading hordes, replicating masses, ultra different, hypotheses are based in exaggerations of difference and in fear mongering.
February:07:2010 - 23:50
I guess I stand alone of this. I think all of you are misguided about the issue of Islamic immigration. It is far more dangerous than any of you believe.
1. Although their numbers are relatively small (in general but concentrated in certain areas), they are growing and it is obvious that in areas where Muslim dominate they tend to follow Islam cultural and religious norms.
2. Muslims everywhere demand respect while they respect nothing. They are working hard to end those freedoms that characterize Western civilization. Look at the Wilders trial.
3. There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim. Anybody that refuses to criticize the vile words in the Quran or accepts the evil deeds of Islam’s prophet does not quality as “moderate” in my book. Note that a single Muslim may have doubts as to these, but when in a group, he/she will maintain silence. Let me put this in another way: Why should I believe that Muslims in the West are any different from those in Muslim societies. When Muslims in Islamic societies change their actions, attitudes and laws, I will reconsider. Until then I see no reason to believe that Muslims in the West are honest about their convictions.
4. Lets stop talking about “misconceptions”. There is no misconception about associating Islam to violence and intolerance, unless you have been away from planet earth for the last decade or so. In the same line, let’s not talk about a “small minority” that misinterprets Islam. It is not a small number that hold Islamist views. Please spare us the chatter about Muslims condemn violence, because they do. Again and again and again (wink) they condemn violence in the name of Islam but the violence continues. Figure it out. I am not going to explain that to you. Note also that those who “misquote” and “misinterpret” seem to be saying exactly that the texts say and not distorting them in any way.
5. Lets talk about the media: there are two types: 1. those that fear-monger and stroke anti-Muslim sentiment, and 2. those that ignore every hateful word and evil deed by Muslims, in the name of multiculturalism and political correctness. In simple terms, they cover for a radical Muslim agenda and pretend everything is fine. This second group is certainly larger than the first and includes almost all of the Mainstream media, as well as academia, liberal religious groups and even government agencies.
6. Islamic populations in the West as becoming more and more radicalized, just as they are in Muslim societies. We will see more use of veils, niqab, hajib and more demands to accommodate Muslim practices.
7. It is Muslims that exaggerate cultural differences, much more than the non-Muslims. It is Muslims that ask for special benefits and exemptions, and refuse to integrate. As far as I know the FLDS are not a threat and are never seen calling for cartoonists to be killed.
8. As to the “Muslim next door” lady, she is typical of the type of Muslim considered to be peaceful and productive. Even so, from articles in Altmuslim.com, she has no problem going to mosques that preach hate. She is also on record as saying that “Demonizing the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, in the Danish cartoons is an example of attacking the very heart of Muslims and reinforcing the “differences” between non-Muslims and Muslims”. In simple terms, she doesn’t want us to criticize her dear prophet. In other words, she is dishonest about the Quran and ahadith and wants non-Muslims to be dishonest also. She has no moral bearings and therefore she cannot be trusted.
9. Rather than face their problems, Muslims always blame others. They call people that criticize them and their religion ‘racists’ and ‘Islamophobes’. Once agaion, it seems that Muslims have no standards for themselves, yet they demand tolerance and acceptance from others. They use our freedoms to end those same freedoms. They are blind to their own history and theology.
And so it is. I may be a minority here, but there are tens of millions of people in the US and Europe that see it as I do. This is not fear mongering; it is about being honest about a brutal ideology that teaches hate and violence. Of course not all Muslims are evil, but those good, nice Muslims are certainly in denial about Islam. They cannot be counted upon to stand up for our freedoms. My opinion.
k.
February:08:2010 - 08:59
I agree with John that more than about terrorism, it’s about the eroding of the values of the modern Western society that brings the antipathy towards the Muslims in the West.
J Kactuz,
I am not sure that those Muslims in the West, who are integrated into the Western culture, will give a silent approval to the eroding of the Western values and the growing influence of orthodox Islamic life. After all, this means that their freedom will also be curtailed. If they are leading a lifestyle that is integrated into the Western ethos, obviously they wouldn’t want to lose their freedom just to support the more orthodox sections of their Umma.
Of course such Muslims do not follow Islam to the letter, but that’s true for all religions – not every follower in any religion follows the religion to the letter.
You are right that conceding ground to their every demand in the name of political correctness is not right as it erodes the democratic values in the long run. But the West has to find the ground to negotiate this divide between the Islamic life and Western values without eroding their own values for the Muslim society and at the same time, accommodating them.
I feel if there are such Muslims who are integrated into the Western values, they should be encouraged to come out and speak out their mind against Islamic orthodoxy. This builds an opinion in the society that negates the growing influence of orthodoxy.
Perhaps they don’t speak because they don’t know if the non-Muslims will support them if they are countered by the orthodox section. This bridge has to be built between them and the non-Muslims so that they can speak against orthodoxy with the conviction that they will be supported by the non-Muslims in case of a counter-attack.
In India, Muslims who support ideas of modernity and democracy do speak against Islamic orthodoxy and this helps the democratic process. I am not saying that everything is right about the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims in India, but there is a bridge between the more progressive Muslims and the non-Muslims here. It is for each Western country to decide how this bridge can be built between the non-Muslims and the progressive Muslims there.
February:08:2010 - 09:42
On the power or lack thereof of minorities within minorities:
Shafiq of the excellent blog The Student View gives the official French reports on the number of Muslim women wearing the burqa: up to 1900. ie <1% of the Muslim women in France (all Muslims total 6% of the French population), or more precisely 0.076%.
Muslims in other countries do speak up against the excesses within their community in myriad ways: in Canada the fight against Sharia Family Law as an option for Muslims in Ontario was successfully led by Muslim women who had immigrated from other countries, ie New Canadians, especially in Iran; Tarek Ramadan’s whole intellectual enterprise; Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s political career in the Netherlands (though mainly against cultural Somali practices she likes to confuse with Islam); parents interfering in what mosques their sons go to; collaborative efforts with other faith groups in the community, university, and public spheres etc.
Islam is as much a religion of peace and tolerance as Judeism or Christianity is. It depends for either religion on what its adherents and critics highlight, and what defensive actions it is forced into taking (genuinely defensive, not offense disguised as defense).
February:08:2010 - 09:55
Oops just noticed my #12 wasn’t cancelled by me when I realized that the #10 had gone through and had posted the same in 2 separated posts.
Sparky #15–you are welcome. Excellent points about the danger of extremist to their own faiths, and to perceptions of another, as well as to benefiting from the positive aspects of the modern world.
February:08:2010 - 11:26
John this is long and I apologize in advance…
I guess on this issue there will always be disagreement as we see here so many opinions of various hues…
“I have never known Muslims to worship publicly in the sense of imposing their prayers in the public square. They want mosques. And this is a problem, how? Some want prayer spaces in universities. Most universities accommodate them easily in existing prayer spaces for all the other faiths on campus.”
Understand that when I say publically I am not speaking about praying out in a public square. Of course they should have the right to worship in a mosque. I do think that they should have prayer spaces in universities that are clean and respectful much like there would be chapels for Christians. I think they should have a right to have their holidays off to celebrate Eid (both of them) although from what I have read it is based on the full moon that must be seen with the naked eye before anyone can declare it officially Eid (or at least that is what the book I am reading says. Might make it hard to celebrate it if it is clear in my area and raining in another if it must be seen by the naked eye…but that is the way they want it I am sure they will make accommodations.) I also think it would be interesting to know some of their holidays. Maybe even be invited over. So in terms of religion I don’t think they should be treated with disrespect and marginalized in that way. However, cultural practices are an issue. Perhaps some people are willing to give it more space than others. I would have an issue with someone, for example, slaughtering animals publically for Eid (sorry I forget which one) although I like the idea of giving to the poor. And here I have experience because across the street from us when I was a kid the people living in the apartments (in a nice, quiet neighborhood) used to slaughter small animals (mostly chickens) on the front steps of the apartment until someone called the health department and put a stop to it. Pretty gross to a western way of looking at things. You want to do that on a farm or in a barn or what have you, have at it…but not in an area where a lot of other people have to be exposed to it. And, no, I am not saying that they are running around slaughtering animals left and right. It is an example of which I have personal knowledge/experience.
Even if polygamy is a minority behavior it is an illegal behavior and should not be practiced. Even if it is allowed by Islam it is not allowed by secular law and in my opinion should not be practiced in that case. You want to live in the West or any other place that does not allow it…you have to make a sacrifice, plain and simple. As for the FLDS they are worse than the Muslims in this regard. At least Muslims limit it to 4 wives and it is supposed to be equal treatment of the four. It is awful to read what is going on with them and all the inbreeding. This month’s National Geographic has a big article on them. I venture to say if they tried to live among non FLDS with their polygamy they would be shunned probably much worse than Muslims…which is why they probably don’t live in heavily populated areas generally. The way they look physically makes no difference. Just as the way a Muslim would look physically (which would be an enormous variety) is not important. Not sure the point of that statement. Not only do they keep the young men limited in education they have a habit of throwing the young men out of the group for minor infractions. It is believed that they do that to reduce competition for the females…really creepy stuff going on, some of which you mentioned. Conservatively speaking, they are not different in their degree of orthodoxy than Orthodox Muslims, although I am fairly sure they are not calling for the death of those unlike them.(and yes I know not all orthodox Muslims do that either.) Yes they do use the social services and scam the heck out of not only your system ours as well. I would hope Canada would be able to take action to try to put a stop to it. Deport them if necessary. I am not sure if America can or does. I do know that they arrest them for underage sex and other such infractions. If they create fault lines in the social fabric of Canada, which would not be a big leap for me to imagine, then you can certainly understand the argument about very different values and cultural practices of orthodox Islam and how it does cause a rift in the social fabric when applied in non Islamic countries just as the FLDS practices are out of the norm for Canadian culture and cause problems. Should Canada make dispensations for the FLDS because they are to be culturally sensitive to their religion? That is Canada’s choice but I would argue no. they are breaking the law. As for attending or not attending the Olympics because of them that would be a choice to consider if they were right there in town and imposing themselves on the attendees and attendees had a problem with it. On the other hand a lot of the attendees can go home after the Olympics and will not have to deal with the Lifestyle once they leave…not an option for the ones that live near them.
As far as Catholics and Muslims neck in neck populating the earth…well I think there was a time when Catholics might have edged out the Muslims but now I just don’t think they really care that much…that would be your fundamentalist or conservative Christians doing the job or one of the movements called “the Quiverfull” movement. It’s not a Catholic thing.
Just as I don’t want to have Sharia law or to have to make dispensations for women who don’t want to swim with men (to use an old example) I also don’t want to live under the conservative Christian banner as well. They also live too conservative a life and it is not IMO compatible with the mainstream of the USA.
I think the Danes for example have a legitimate gripe. Muslims there are 5% of the population and consume more than 40% of the social services. Why shouldn’t the Danes complain? The Danish people have very high taxes and work hard for a living, like everyone. They have allowed Muslim immigration and what have they gotten as a thanks? The wonderful honor of supporting these immigrants with their tax dollars. No thanks! I wondered why Europe was having such an issue…I found the following chart from the PEW report. It compares America with several countries n Europe. The link is here:
http://people-press.org/report/329/
VERY eyeopening…
in England +22 Muslims are low income, France +18,Germany +18, Spain +23, while in the USA it is +2. (maybe the Europeans have a legitimate gripe)
A FULL 81% of British Muslims think of themselves as Muslim first, not British…I think it would be a fair conclusion to say that they have an allegiance to their religion first and NOT their country. So in a pinch guess who wins?
Why aren’t the British having clashes with other religions?
And the battle continues…
Am I running down the street tearing my hair out over the “invading hoards”? No. But neither am I standing next to the open immigration gate with my eyes closed hoping it will all turn out well. I am watching and listening and seeing how things are going…how orthodox is it getting? How many demands are being made? Is it because the English are utterly racist? If so, why do we not hear about problems with all the other religions and races there? Is it just that Muslims are the whipping post of choice OR could it be a combination of things and the Muslims have their part to play in the problems in Europe?
February:08:2010 - 11:28
Jay…
Please link me to the article in Altmsulim that you are referring to. I plugged in her name and came up with absolutely nothing except one article. I appreciate it.
February:08:2010 - 12:10
I think it’s clearly a combination of things: fear, jealousy, anger, ignorance, racism, and probably a dozen other things. It seems people aren’t very good at sitting down and trying to trim away the superfluous information when trying to make decisions. They can get buried (or distracted) by the details and lose sight of the bigger picture.
February:08:2010 - 15:41
John…
“I think it’s clearly a combination of things: fear, jealousy, anger, ignorance, racism, and probably a dozen other things.”
On whose side? and do you think that it unfair that people be concerned about the possible loss/dilution of their culture?
Very few things grow in a vacuum. The thing I keep coming back to in my mind is that there are many good Muslims out there and from what I can understand(in my limited understanding)is if you strip away all the cultural practice that masquerades as Islam, ignore all the hate in the Qur’an as the Christians have learned to do with their Bible and embrace the good stuff, it is a very nice religion or so it seems to me and in that regard it doesn’t feel as if Islam in it’s tenets is that far away from Christianity in it’s ideals. They both strive for the same thing more or less. That is why I cannot simply dismiss Islam outright. What I do have an issue with is all the cultural stuff that is called “Islam”. You can’t separate Islam from government in many ways because they are so intricately intertwined and believed to be necessary for piety and in that way interfere with the host society. I look at it in the reverse…what if I were to move to somehwere in the M.E. and part of my religion said the bigger the crucifix I wear the more pious I am and to cover what God created completely is a sin and should not be done. It is an insult to His creation of beauty of the human form.(not that I am beautiful but you get my meaning) So here I come with my exposed arms and short skirt uncovered head etc wearing a mega crucifix. And there are many like me right behind me all wanting to live in X place which CLEARLY is uncomfortable with my expression of faith…oh yes, and I want to bring the Christian law of the Middle Ages with me as that is the one law I can respect most…God’s law. It won’t apply to anyone other than the Christians but I don’t respect any law other than God’s. I don’t think that is going to fly too well even if I and those like me are minorities. I think the host country is going to start feeling a bit tense. It is human nature because it is so foreign and alien to them and not only that it is downright wrong from their point of view.
You don’t want to drink, eat pork, gamble, you want to pray 5 times/day, have an arranged marriage, cover the inside of your home with Qur’anic verses, go to a Mosque, celebrate your holidays, etc. Great! Please do…and I will argue on your behalf that you have the right to do that. It doesn’t interfere with society. But if you want to clear a pool so you can swim privately, won’t lift a veil to identify yourself to vote, want to have a parallel law called Sharia that may/may not mete out punishment, have honor killings not be punished and rather dealt with via Sharia,live off the dole and have lots of kids (wrong for anyone-doesn’t apply only to Muslims)for which people’s taxes pay, cry about how “wicked” the West is, not mix with anyone other than Muslims etc. These are things that affect society and cause fear and prejudice. And in my view it is on both sides. Muslims come across as aloof and holier than thou and the Brits, for example, come across as intolerant because they don’t want some of the cultural things in their midst.
My final thought that I keep coming back to is this: People move to the West for a better way of life…so they realize that Islam and it’s interpretations of it in their home countries are not working for them. In whatever way they are seeking a betterment of their situation. Why do they come to the West and fight all the “unislamic” influences? Why not stay in your home country and change things there to be better? There is no fighting the evil influences and everyone around you is like minded. Isn’t that a better way to live for all involved instead of being conflicted in a foreign land? Why not tackle the corruption instead of fleeing it? If Islam is so great( and I am not saying it isn’t) and sharia is so great why are so many countries that use it in the majority in such poor shape? My contention is that it might not be Islam per se but the unending CULTURAL influences that have been layered on top of it that people believe are Islam that are holding the societies back…which I argue are the same influences the West is uncomfortable with.
February:08:2010 - 16:50
#Chiara
I Scandinavia ( and in Denmark, which I know best) there not few examples of muslim women, who are not allowed to work with men, or be at a meeting with men.
Just in these days we have had i discussion about this, because of an all women meeting at a school in Copenhagen. One of the reasons for this meeting ( which I think is okay) is that some of the women aren’t allowed to attend the meeting (alone I guess) if there are men present.
We have somali women who could’t be bus drivers, because they sometimes had to wait at end stations with men; We have young muslim who aren’t allowed to participate in education external and away from home. And so on.
The main group offenders here are turkish and iraq kurds, from the from the anatolian country side, some pakistanis, iraq arabs and palestinians. It’s very difficult to assess why it’s a mixing of traditional way of life and islam; another group which isn’t big, but which is growing is salafist inspired young muslims; they have this point of view by choice.
Many of the so called honor conflicts has their base in this way of life. And it’s not looking like these problems will diminish soon.
Of course this isn’t a big problem. What’s a big problem is that muslims and not least women isn’t part of the civil society; one can wonder why, but of course the lack of a civil society in immigrants country of origins is a very important parameter.
February:08:2010 - 18:25
oby: I didn’t say those things were justified. Sometimes they are, often they are not. Too often, they’re simply exaggerated.
I thoroughly agree with you about people’s leaving one thing (a bad situation) and expecting to find the new place exactly the same, except without the bad stuff. What are they thinking? I can understand, too, their discomfort and unhappiness in being made to change things. I can hear them saying, “Jeepers! I’ve already given up my friends, family, and native surroundings. What else am I going to have to abandon? My religion, too?”
That’s not exactly what’s happening, but it’s how some are perceiving it.
February:08:2010 - 22:11
John,
But if they think that way they should stay in their own country. It is unfair if they go abroad and want to replicate their way of life that they are used to.
I can understand every other aspect but jealousy? Why would the Western society be jealous of them?
February:08:2010 - 22:19
Oby,
Please visit Carol’s blog.
February:08:2010 - 22:55
Here is a video about Saudi Arabia that perhaps people here would be interested in -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=db_rpEIijmE&feature=player_embedded
February:08:2010 - 23:23
You’ll find lots of videos like that coming from MEMRI. Yes, they are (usually) accurate clips. But MEMRI has a tendency to find clips that make Arabs and Muslims look extreme as they make Israel look less extreme.
There are idiotic Saudis, no question. But are they representative? Could be…
February:08:2010 - 23:54
Do watch these too –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F5aCUNE4Z8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riAkFEsZEqY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xmu4ItuUpU
February:09:2010 - 00:01
John,
Perhaps we both are approaching the same issue from different angles.
You are right, they are not representative and they make the Saudi system look oppressive.
When I saw this video, I thought this was an unheard voice of a Saudi woman, so different from the representative stereotype, which portrays them as not speaking, silently submissive. But it seems there are some women who do protest there. Only the world doesn’t get to know about them.
We both believe that this is not representative, but I feel this unheard Saudi voice is important too.
Of course, you focused more on the men in the video, while I focused more on the women!
PS – Watch the other 3 as well and give your comments.
February:09:2010 - 02:40
#Obey
It’s the money stupid.
The difference between what you can earn in the countries of origin, and what you can earn in the western societies is simply to great. And then most western societies is non corrupt, have a good infra structure, the housing is classes better; and not least it’s a lot less stressful to live in a society were people trust each other and where there’s rule of law.
Even if you live on social welfare you generally is better of.
And this is of course also the reason for the arranged/forced marriage. The family left behind want to have part of it.
In many cases you will se a clustering of immigrants, where half a village has moved to Denmark or Norway.The family unification rights which are build into the UN fugitives legislation do have some non intended consequences in this case.
February:09:2010 - 06:46
NielsC…
#Obey
It’s the money stupid.
#1. Why are you calling me stupid? I realize your English is not perfect, but let’s try to refrain from calling each other names, shall we?
#2. I know it is the money. They have corrupt countries that are not as highly organized as the countries they seek to join which are far surpassing them in many ways…education, social structure and organization, political structure and basic human rights to name a few.
February:09:2010 - 11:07
Oby #23 and #26–Most of the concerns you raise are ones that are exaggerated or easily resolved. Muslims are required by law to adhere to the law of the land they are living in. Most prefer to have a halal butcher slaughter the lamb for Eid al-Adha, and all can be made to understand a no-slaughtering city bylaw, just as the rest of us learn when moving city to city or apartment to apartment about the barbecuing on the balcony rules.
The FLDS mostly pass under the radar of the average Canadian but are challenging the Supreme Court of Canada using the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms about their religious right to polygyny. Canada foolishly jumped into this mess instead of following the advice and example of the USA and prosecuting for welfare fraud, tax evasion, and statutory rape (religious marriage to minors). Most polygynists in North America evade rather than challenge the law, by having one legal wife and other religiously married only wives. In that they seem little different than the non-Muslim or non-FLDS man supporting his wife and his mistress(es).
True the Catholics are falling down on the baby-making job, despite the Papal edicts on birth control and abortion, with even Italy falling below the replacement rate of 2. Protestant conservative evangelicals are making up for it,, a frightening thought to some.
The issue of who is on welfare roles is complex. In Canada for example new immigrants need assistance usually the first 2 years and then out earn Canadian born Canadians because of their work ethic, determination, original reason for coming to Canada, and the usual immigrant psychological phenomenon of having to justify to themselves and others why they gave up all they did by making it worthwhile in economic terms. Many don’t recover what they lost in transition; and many decide to stay only to give better educational and career opportunities to their children. They usually go on to become lifelong contributors to Canada’s well-being.
There seems to be to me no problem in thinking of oneself as Muslim first and anything else second. It depends on one’s definition of Islam, and how one lives it. It does not immediately follow that in a conflict Muslims would take arms against their European homeland.
Those actively fighting the Western laws and culture are a very vocal minority, who often have found this to be their only way of making a living in the West. The rest are going about their lives as students, employees, homemakers, citizens, etc.
You rightfully make a distinction between culture and religion (a confound that exists among the adherents of all religions), and admirably support freedom of religion. Demystifying Islam and Muslims through participation in community opportunities to do so, or reading of reliable sources, having a positive chat (ie an honest non-ideological one) with a Muslim, seems to me a good way to go about disarming extremists. They no longer have the power to terrorize the non-Muslims with false ideas, nor gain adherents among Muslims based on their own fears of the West. It sounds quaint maybe but it works, over time, and through mass media changing its discourse and offerings as well as real life local opportunities.
The hijabi next to me in the library asks for my help navigating the uni system because she wants to become a nurse, one with a BScN not just an RN or a NA, to continue her uni studies, and work for economic and emotional fulfilment. She has the full support of her husband, and her SIL is nearby taking care of her baby. She will go through all the co-ed studies and hospital rotations including learning how to bath bedridden men, treat their bed sores on the buttocks, and insert and remove a urinary catheter. She is to me more representative of the average Muslim in Canada or even the West. But then again she doesn’t make it to television by doing this either.
I really admire your efforts to learn about Islam and Muslims, but I sometimes worry that you are terrorizing yourself by reading or watching certain things out of context. However, I trust you to adopt the slow, cautious and intellectually rigorous approach you have shown since first participating in the Saudi blogosphere, and which is perfect for graduate studies (I am relentless with a good candidate! LOL
)
Oby # 36–I think NielsC’s “stupid” comment was a play on James Carville’s/ Paul Begala’s slogan and war room reminder for the first Clinton presidential campaign: “It’s the economy, stupid”. At least I am assuming so by his past commenting behaviour. I am sure he will enlighten us.
As I said above, in my experience immigrants start with high hopes for themselves and stay for the opportunities for their children. They often sacrifice their own generation to this end.
February:09:2010 - 11:27
NielsC #27-thanks for sharing this perspective and I trust you know infinitely more about the Danish experience than I do. I do think that acculturation is a 2 way process and takes time and good will on both sides. Some Muslim women, and their families, prefer they work in a female only environment, which is one reason they and their families have pediatrician and obgyn as goals for them, or prefer they teach in an all girl school etc. Usually this happens with making some accommodations automatically, but those don’t usually reach the newspapers or the media.eg as above my example of the Muslimah student nurse. Once she does the obligatory rotations she could minimize her duties cross-gender by becoming an obstetrics nurse or a pediatrics nurse etc.
You also address well the challenge of culture, Somali for example vs religion, and of people who arrive with little experience outside their small, isolated, conservative village and little education in any language or system. Some have the added trauma of being refugees. They would be out of place in their own capital city and now are functioning in a whole new world. This is true for other groups too. Most Portuguese in Canada have arrived in or since the 70′s from the Azores, very poor, very little education (often Grade 3ish ie stopped after age 8 to help on the farm). They get jobs in construction and have or had higher rates of injury and workman’s compensation because in realty they had little construction work experience and almost none with power tools. That is one of the reasons I mentioned above that one needs more information to understand the reasons that Muslim immigrants might be on the welfare rolls more than native born Europeans.
NielsC #36–true, they recognize better lifestyles especially for their children and the UN policies facilitate this. However if you look at the records of ellisisland.org you will read that those who arrived by boat at the turn of the 20th century as Europeans looking for a better economic life, arrived in huge numbers from the same village to go to the same small mining town. In part this was because of active recruitment, in part because of having a friend or relative already there, in part the safety in travelling with a group of friends to find a job, a place to stay, and to send for the family or new bride–usually a year later. Post WWII emigration from Europe to North America followed a similar pattern, and national family unification immigration laws meant at different times: wife, children, parents, dependent siblings, etc.
February:09:2010 - 11:31
Daisy and John on MEMRI–yes at best MEMRI is unabashedly biased in what it chooses to show/report on of the Middle East; it also provides biased to the point of inaccurate while technically correct translations, selectively edits clips and editorializes them to bend them to a false but ideological message. Truly a poor source of information unless one wants that sort of thing for either research on MEMRI, or to make a specific point.
February:09:2010 - 11:37
I’m not a huge fan of MEMRI, but I do have to give them due credit. About six years ago, they started an ‘Arab Reform Bulletin’. This does highlight various reform efforts throughout the Arab world. Of course, this is something Israel (and MEMRI) want to encourage for their own reasons, but the fact is that they are noting it and transmitting it to important audiences. That is to be applauded, whatever the motivation.
February:09:2010 - 13:12
John #40–Yes, it, like other sites, does have value for what it documents even if it is on a single side of the “debate”.
Oby and all–if you wish to understand better how Arab and Muslim stereotypes became so entrenched in the American psyche even before 9/11, please do read my posts on Cinema, Reel Arabs and Saudis: How Real Are They? Part I–Western Cinema especially, which references and links the written and video documentation of this by Cinema Studies scholars and Anthropology, but also Part II–Arab Cinema(s) which extends that to the Arab view of themselves and their cinema efforts. Both are a pleasant, illustrated read, though long (especially Part II) at least according to the comments on and off the posts. You could also just read/view the original sources that are linked.
February:09:2010 - 13:16
Oby -
I didn’t want to call you stupid, I just quoted James Carville’s famous remark during Clintons
first presidential run.
February:09:2010 - 13:25
Daisy @ 33 I would have to learn to read lips for the first two clips. The videos show up with no voice. The MEMRI one worked. I have watched them before. The are very accurate.
February:09:2010 - 14:55
“Please do read my posts on Cinema, Reel Arabs and Saudis: How Real Are They? Part I–Western Cinema”
I am not certain that this phenomenon is as important and pervasive as you seem to feel it is. Old movies don’t capture much interest, and anti-Arab stuff can’t be important if it doesn’t strike a chord in the general population. One Jewish scriptwriter, Robert J. Avrech, laments that almost anything to do with portraying Arabs negatively in movies is a no-no nowadays.
I would guess that TV is more important. But I may be out of my league here: I don’t watch either TV or movies.
Have you done a similar study, “Cinema, Reel Jews, and Israelis” to examine anti-Jewish and anti-Israel prejudice created through the media in Arab lands?
February:09:2010 - 17:45
Actually if you read the post and the original source articles the anti-Jewish phenomenon is dealt with, as is the anti-every other minority group, and I repeated the information. The way those other groups moved out of total negative stereotyping was to get involved in creating their own Hollywood and other films, which is what Arab/Muslim Americans are encouraged to do, and why I have a Part II about Arab cinema(s), and a Part III coming about Saudi cinema.
Old films never die, they go to television. Also television in simpler forms repeats the paradigms, endlessly anew and in reruns, and right into the home.
The cinema creates the chords, in a vacuum as well as emphasizing certain phenomena, and perpetuates them. All dramas need a villain and the Arabs along with others at different times have served that role. The Arabs more consistently (ie few other roles) since the beginning of US cinema, with Edison, c.1895.
One doesn’t have to watch television or films, they create their own reality, which becomes part of the ambient ethos, along with the media, and the political actions.
All of this is addressed in the posts.
I haven’t done a similar study, but would be happy to read one if you have a reference. I have read a Jewish American colleague’s work on Jewish American cinema, both recent book and articles, and of course discussed with him. The representation seems less relentlessly one-sided, and of course there is a Jewish American cinema is to represent the Jewish American community as they choose.
Thanks for the interest you have shown.
February:09:2010 - 18:15
I had the pleasure of sponsoring Jack Shaheen in Dhahran, back in 1984. He was then talking about how Arabs are portrayed on TV, as he wrote in his then-new book The TV Arab.
He made many valid points about the stereotyping of Arabs in the media, as I’m sure he’s done with his later books. What he also did, though, was to go a bit too far into the realm of victimology, choosing to see something as intentional when it was actually more careless; as an attack, when in fact the writer hadn’t a clue that what he wrote was offensive. Much the way I view CAIR’s approach today, in fact. Things that were any shade of gray didn’t fit the victim narrative and so were either avoided or skimmed.
I’m not so sure that other ethnic groups in the US ‘created their own’ to counter bigoted media. An awful lot of ‘awareness building’ took place. There is, for example, no ‘Native American cinema’ outside of art houses. American Black cinema exists, but as a very minor player in the media universe.
February:09:2010 - 18:20
It’s simply a fact that dramatic stories need ‘bad guys’. There are no ethnic groups that can safely be stereotyped a evil now, so perhaps that’s why we have a lot of science fiction and alien invaders. Actually, that goes pretty well with seeing ‘Avatar’ as an example of self-hatred!
I, too, am not so sure of the utility of viewing old films, outside a history context. Nobody goes out to view antisemitic films of the 1920s and 30s for their entertainment value. The fact that it’s almost impossible to find the ‘Mr. Moto’ film series, even on DVD, suggests that there’s not a huge swell of interest in stereotypical Japanese characters. The ‘Charlie Chan’ series might argue otherwise, but there was considerable entertainment value in those.
February:09:2010 - 18:24
John–yes I should have mentioned his book TV Arabs, and indeed awareness building plays an important role. I didn’t read Shaheen’s work as implying it was deliberate so much as self perpetuating and built in a vacuum of what Americans knew of Arabs. The anthropologist Lawrence Michalak’s work is independent of Shaheen’s, though in a similar vein, and very interesting reading.
Arab-Canadian cinema professor Malek Khoury’s work is also interesting.
February:09:2010 - 18:29
NielsC…
I am sorry. the joke completely bypassed me. I was startled to “think” that you called me stupid because you have shown such politeness and knowledge when commenting. It seemsed so out of character for you. My mistake and you have my apologies.
February:09:2010 - 20:37
The films include contemporary ones, going past the date of Shaheen’s research. The point was that of all the films that referenced Arabs in the past 100 years only 9 presented them in however small a way in a neutral or positive light. That is a rather overwhelming majority of stereotyping in one direction.
One doesn’t need to go to old films to deliberately look for the stereotypes one can click on the television or go to the local cinema. Most are made in a rather mindless way, but some are deliberately funded and supported, even written by the American Armed forces.
The old films were viewed to show the building and internalization of what an Arab is.
Please feel free all to make comments on the posts in question, or keep commenting here.
February:09:2010 - 20:46
Sparky,
All the 4 clips open fine here, with sound. I don’t know why the sound is not coming there. I do believe you, but can’t figure out the reason.
It’s unfortunate, because those two videos are especially interesting.
Thanks for attesting the validity of the MEMRI video. It shows Saudi women can show their disagreement too.
February:11:2010 - 11:19
Oh My Gosh! Snow days and kids off from school can really throw a monkey wrench into the best laid plans. LOL…but I digress.
Chiara…
“The FLDS mostly pass under the radar of the average Canadian but are challenging the Supreme Court of Canada using the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms about their religious right to polygyny. Canada foolishly jumped into this mess instead of following the advice and example of the USA and prosecuting for welfare fraud, tax evasion, and statutory rape (religious marriage to minors). Most polygynists in North America evade rather than challenge the law, by having one legal wife and other religiously married only wives.”
I was NOT happy to hear that Canada was willing to even entertain this. My concern is if they succeed, our FLDS problem might become yours due to the freedom to “worship” freely there. Since blogging I have come to realize that Canada might be a more tolerant and open minded society than America. Maybe it is the way you describe it or a reflection of your personal style, but I would have always thought that America was more open minded since we have SO MANY different nationalities…but I think Canada wins the prize here.
“. In that they seem little different than the non-Muslim or non-FLDS man supporting his wife and his mistress(es).”
Gotta disagree slightly here. Unless he is Super stud he won’t have the kind of women an FLDS man or even a Muslim man with ONLY 4 women would have…probably not all at the same time anyway. Unfortunately, the Non Muslim or Non FLDS guy can’t sanctify it through marriage or religion and is considered a louse who will lose everything in a divorce. How much better to justify it through religion and make it neat and tidy and all holy like. In my opinion they are all doing the same thing wrong, only two of them have figured out how to make it “acceptable” not only to them and their wives but to God too! What a deal!
I am a huge advocate of Welfare. I feel very firmly it is our duty as a society to help those who are at a disadvantage to try to help them get ahead. When I was a kid, for a time (perhaps six months or a year) due to some hardships our family had to go on welfare. My parents worked like dogs to better our situation and ultimately we got off of it. It did its job which was to give us a hand up. What I am NOT Ok with is people coming to a country and making welfare a career. If one is going to stay on for two years and then get off and start being a productive citizen you will not have a stronger advocate than me as I lived through it for a time. Of course when we were on it it was still considered embarrassing and no self respecting person would stay on it long term. The goal was to get off of it as quickly as possible. Perhaps Canada and America for that matter could put into place some vo-tech training for immigrants whose skills say as a basket maker or potter or some other thing might not have a market in the new country. Conversely, my heart goes out to those professionals who come to these other countries and due to limitations in language or professional training required are underemployed. I know that they often work in jobs for which they are over qualified…so I do realize it runs the spectrum. My concern is that no one make welfare a career. Help them up, help them out but don’t support them forever and GOD FORBID don’t make it generational…a problem we have here in the USA with many undereducated and poor. It is a sad legacy.
“Those actively fighting the Western laws and culture are a very vocal minority, who often have found this to be their only way of making a living in the West. The rest are going about their lives as students, employees, homemakers, citizens, etc.”
Personally I wish they would shut the hell up because they are scarring a lot of people and NOT helping their religion. They are putting a lot of non Muslims in a position of intolerance/suspicion and Muslims in a position of being viewed unfairly.
Like you, I have long thought that it would be a “low-tech” way of doing things, but there is hardly a substitute for getting to know the “other” next door. When you shake a person’s hand, realize your kids go to the same school and that you both are concerned about the neighborhood all of a sudden they are a real entity to you. Because very few people will take the step I have and try to learn in various ways I think Muslims should put on a more active campaign to educate people. In this case I think the onus is on Muslims fairly or unfairly because the media is not going to kill the golden goose and that is: Fear sells. If Muslims could find a way to reach out it might open the gates to better understanding. And people who have better knowledge will have to be proactive to share it with others. The problem is that those very vocal and violent ones can undue everything with a well placed bomb or even the threat of a bomb. People (non Muslims) are not willing to take the time to separate the wheat from the chaffe and will just reject it outright to protect themselves. (not all) On the other hand, I think Muslims thank that non Muslims have a hate for them far more than non Muslims actually do. I think the people I know would be pretty indicative of most folks and a lot of people, surprisingly, don’t give Islam the short shrift that Muslims assume they do. For example, next year my daughter will be required to do a project touching on the major faiths of the world and Islam is first at bat. I rarely hear people talk in the negative about Muslims…it doesn’t seem to be foremost in their minds. In fact, I don’t hear them talk about Muslims at all…then again they don’t much talk about Jews or Hindus or anyone else’s religion. That might change if there is another 9/11 but right now they aren’t out there grinding axes against Muslims at least no one I know.
Part of the learning process is to take in info and try to decide ultimately where you stand. Toward that end, in this process I try very hard to avoid any ultra pro Islam stuff AND any ultra anti Islam stuff. Both have an agenda and I don’t think I will find the truth in either milieu. I try to aim for more middle of the road info that can be honest and self critical while not avoiding the good things…in other words balance. Part of that process requires that I don’t reject anyone’s voice (not until I find my own settling spot) and listen to all sides while at the same time trying to gather pieces of important info and sift out the “opinion” part. I try to be open-minded and if an idea I hold is not right, I will often change directions to be fair to the religion. I know it seems wishy washy sometimes, and without question I do tend to back track sometimes, but I have nothing to gain by being married to a wrong notion and it is still a work in progress. On the other hand, I do have my own opinions that I try to modulate and be fair to the religion AND myself. This whole thing has helped because what I saw back in late August that propelled me here caused me to not be able to sleep well for about two weeks. Rather than run and hide or condemn Islam outright I chose to tackle it head on. And I am so glad that I did. AND who knows where that may lead one day.
Thanks for the compliment about the “intellectually rigorous approach”. That is what I am striving for.
February:12:2010 - 11:46
Oby #52-Sorry for the delayed reply, I was busy posting on my own blog.
I agree that the Canadians blundered big time in choosing the charge that they did, ie against polygamy. There is now a risk it will become legal. This is the type of “Charter challenge” that GLBTQ activists used to get gay weddings legal in some provinces of Canada (marriage is under provincial jurisdiction, much as it is under state jurisdiction in the US).
William Blackmore became head of a branch of the FLDS that split from the main group in the US when Warren Jeffs took over and started unmarrying couples and forcing the partners into new marriages, often to himself. They moved north to Bountiful, BC, and were living happily, giving too many interviews to the CBC during the Jeffs media blitz in the US, which ultimately resulted in closer investigations, and charges.
I do think that since only 2-12% of Saudi men have more than one wife, and 90% of them have only a second wife, and 90% of the remainder have a 3rd wife, the analogy to the Westerner with the long term mistress, or series of mistresses holds. Each has found a way within their own system to have more that one “wife”.
I think that there needs to be a multi-faceted approach to increasing understanding between cultures: neighbour to neighbour, PTA member to PTA member, educational courses at all levels of the curriculum, and major changes in media reporting including further exposure to the arts, which is why I have done the posts on cinema.
Muslims, at least in Canada, and on campus in the USA, do reach out in a variety of ways. Again, just by being good neighbours, sales people, teachers, doctors, etc, but also through “open doors” days at mosques, participating in interfaith fora, and through the outreach programs of the Muslim Students Associations/Unions on campus.
I do think people self terrorize as a friend did until she heeded my advice to stop watching so much CNN, and started reading Edward Said’s more political books instead.
You have taken an excellent approach, and have the patience of Ayoub…or a scholar! LOL
February:12:2010 - 23:07
Chiara…
That would be amazing if it became legal. It seems to go against the whole ethos of what the western legal system adheres to. I really worry for Canada. Don’t Canadians have the right to vote on something like this? Gay marriage in the USA can be a very contentious issue. there have been cases where it was approved and then it was overturned…I find that a bit weird. What would the people who got married legally under the law then do once it is overturned? Their marriages are annulled or invalid?
I actually have less issues with gay marriage than I do with polygamy. Although I know it goes against most religions’ tenets, the reason is that I believe that most gay people don’t “choose” to be gay. I believe that they are born that way and as a result even if they don’t act on it they are still biologically gay. It seems unfair to me that people who were born a certain way should be denied rights due to something that they have no control over(not the acting on it part, but the brain biology part)Polygamy on the other hand, is not something you are born with. You can chose to be polygamous or not. Therefore in a culture like KSA where it is sanctioned by law (whether or not men act on it) it is OK legally , although I still think it is bad for women. In the Western and other non polygamous societies where it is illegal it is not OK and one should refrain from it. They can have one wife and experience children and are not denied marriage and can have full rights as a married couple under the law, just not more than one.
” Each has found a way within their own system to have more that one “wife”.”
While true in terms of the action…multiple women…the non FLDS and NON muslim guy is unable to justify it through religion. For these guys whether they do it or not is a choice, but their choice is not religiously wrong. It is OK morally within the boundaries of their religion and they would suffer no negative repercussions from God for it. Whereas the NON muslim Non FLDS guy is breaking the law of God-assuming his religion is a non polygamous one. In that way, if he has a conscience he will suffer for it. But I guess one could always take the position that if he had a conscience he wouldn’t do it in the first place. So to look at it from that perspective, perhaps he is the most wrong of the three since he knows it is against the law of God.
As for self terrorizing…I don’t watch the news anymore for exactly that reason. But I stopped that long before I got interested in Islam. I just thought, “is life really that miserable? Where are all the good stories? If people are that horrible, why is the world still here?” Actually, it coincided with my having my daughter. If you have children you know, once you have a kid the world becomes an infinitely more scary place just for the sheer fact that you now have to protect that little soul. I didn’t need any help being terrorized. My imagination about the one million and one things that could happen to her were enough fear for me! LOL!
That book I am reading “the Muslim Next Door” has done a very admirable job of explaining Islam in such an interesting and sort of mundane way that it really demystifies some things that on first blush seem kind of odd, but when you hear the reason behind it, you think “hey, that makes sense.”
February:13:2010 - 01:06
I find that many of the arguments that have been made to justify same-sex marriage are dangerous. I actually don’t care either way about same-sex marriage, so I’m not railing against it, just the arguments.
If one says ‘It’s inborn, therefore nothing can be done about it,’ you open the door to a counter argument. People are born with diseases and defects and a huge portion of the the medical industry as well as charitable organizations are devoted precisely to ‘fixing’ the inborn defect. If most people view being gay as somehow ‘not normal’, then what’s to stop a government from declaring a ‘war on the defect/disease’? That is a road best left untraveled, I believe.
If one claims that there is an absolute human right to ‘privacy in the bedroom’–used to justify both gay sex and same-sex marriages–then where do you draw the line? That argument does nothing to preclude three or more in the bedroom. In fact, it doesn’t preclude sex with children, animals, whatever. This is another slippery slope that is not easily avoided, if one bothers to think about it.
I realize that the slippery slope argument gets short shrift in some quarters, but I think it has some validity. If one is to be logically consistent, then you have to acknowledge that there is no permissible limit.
I think here, though, one can simply say, as did Ralph Waldo Emerson, ‘Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.’ A legal universe in which all moral values are relativistic is not a sound one. I like logic and think it one of the more useful tools in the human toolbox. But sometimes, lines have to be drawn by other than the weight of logic. And if that leads to contradictions, then I’ll go with Walt Whitman: ‘Very well then, I contradict myself.’
February:13:2010 - 11:24
I get what you are saying John…but we are talking about Canada POSSIBLY passing a law that states polygamy for the sake of religion is OK. That certainly is a slippery slope.
The gay community claims exactly what I said…that they are born that way. I am sure that there are those that choose the lifestyle but most say they are born that way. I will try to find studies to cite here. I’ve read them…jsut don’t have them at my fingertips. Perhaps Chiara can better enlighten us.
While I understand your slippery slope argument and I think it has validity and generally I think in that way too, I am sure that those who were against interracial marriage 30 years or so ago said the same thing. I do agree. A line has to be drawn somewhere. However, if gays were allowed the same rights that married people were allowed the issue of gay marriage might not be such a contentious issue. As it stands in some cases, one partner is not able to pass property along to another even if it is a longstanding relationship if a will is not left in place. The parents or family can leave the partner with nothing. I’ve heard of cases where the family denied the healthy partner a last goodbye because they weren’t “family” and they didn’t like the fact that their loved one was gay. Sad! In this case, it is incumbent on the partners to leave a will, but that doesn’t always happen. I had a gay teacher once. I asked him if he was OK with being gay. He said to me “if I had the choice, I would not be gay. Why would I choose something for which I am discriminated against, I have no rights in relationships like a married couple, my family and society has rejected me, religions have demonized me. It would be FAR easier to be straight.” That stood out for me. It seemed to say that although he would WISH to be one way, he had to make peace with who he actually was.
I am not sure what you mean by declaring a “war” on gayness. Is it that you mean it like we have a “war” against breast cancer to try to eradicate it?
February:13:2010 - 12:12
Basically, I’m saying that society, in order to function, often has to put limits on the use of logic and consistency in developing law and rules.
My point was that if one uses rigorous rules of logic in assessing various claims–such as being born gay–then there are logical consequences. It is logical (if one cares to follow that thread) that being gay is a genetic defect. As you quoted from your teacher, it can lead to a life less than satisfactory. Societies declare ‘war’ on all sorts of ‘problems’, including things like genetic defects. So, simply arguing that being gay is genetic is not, IMO, a wise path to follow. More is needed to make an argument that does not open the door to unwanted results.
Unintended consequences are a problem of all laws, of course. Laws against child pornography were not intended to make a 15-y/o’s ‘sexting’ into something that put one on a sexual offenders list for life, or in jail for a few years. But that’s the necessarily logical conclusion of the laws as written.
I’m arguing that both compassion and common sense have to be taken into consideration when making laws about social situations. Attempts to be all-encompassing in laws can lead to paradoxes like the ones that a) permit a religion to be defined as just about anything a person wants and b) saying that privacy in the bedroom is paramount, leaves no logical defense against polygamy or bestiality. All you’re left with is the ‘eww factor’, a subjective judgment (not unlike those of the religious police) which are not grounded in logic, only personal (or societal) preference.
In other words: a mess.
February:13:2010 - 15:02
John…
Point well taken.