Racism veiled as liberation

[Zafran]

Most of us in the west thought very little about islam (good or bad) prior to 9/11. It wasn't praised or scolded. It was seen as irrelevant to most of us. The hard truth is that 9/11 put Islam on the map for many of us. Islam suddenly became a major issue in our media. It was mostly ignored before and nobody I know really cared one way or the other about it. I certainly had no interest in it (no more than I have in Jainism or Confucionism today).

Today, after 9/11, and the US invasions of Iraq/Afghanistan and the ongoing Israel/Palestine issue (and reports of suicide bombers etc) constantly flooding the airways, everybody I know has an opinion about Islam, some are sympathetic to muslims being demonized, others are interested (some convert), others are concerned and feel threatened, and others (especially far right evangelical christians I know) demonize muslims to the point that its truly sickening. I saw none of that ten years ago. Like it or not, Islam's PR problem has grown tenfold in the past decade, and the bigotry and bans on veils etc are a symptoms of that.

maybe you didnt know about Islam before - but many people did, especially the people that were writing about Islam in the media - plaestine and Isreal has always been one sided - now its slowly changing - the salman Rushdie affair - The anti islamic hate has always been there - You just noticed it after 9/11.

Edward said is a great example of showing the bias aginst Islam before 9/11 in the media.

The right wing evangelicals have always been there - you must ahve heard about the moon God.

 

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Ok heres another example from The Winston Churchill, (for anybody who doesnt remember this person strongly approved the gassing of 'uncivilised tribes' in Iraq when Britain controlled it in the 1920s)

Winston Churchill On Islam

A quote from an 1899 book by Winston Churchill, "The River War", in which he describes Muslims he apparently observed during Kitchener's campaign in the Sudan

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.

Another fine example of Orientalism, this was the point Edward Said is trying to make. Regretably this type of thinking is quite common among certain westerners (the burka/Niqaab debate is a good example).

Right no more derails from me sorry!

 

[Pygoscelis]

Ok, so Islam has always had a PR problem in the west. You will have noticed it because you come from that direction and were aware of it. I only noticed it post 9/11 as things ramped up to mass hysteria. My point was that Islam suffers a PR problem in the west and its rampant and getting completely out of control with things like this ban on veils (and presumably only veils and not other head covers).

Perhaps Islam and the west are incompatible. If so then I don't understand why muslims would move to the west. And if not then I hope this image can be repaired.

 

[جوري]

perhaps since Muslims can and have been born in the west (and it is for all intents and purposes their home) as well many convert at a rate of 20,000 a year.
Islam will not acquiesce to the west least of which when the west alleges its principles are based on 'freedom of' and lastly.. it is something the west should have considered long ago when they decided to colonize the other half in their name.. when you have little colonies here and there and steal the wealth of other nations a funny thing happens.. those little colonies and their citizens become automatically citizens of the mother colonial settler state!

can't have it both ways!

 

[Pygoscelis]

Islam will not acquiesce to the west

Good for Islamic lands. I'm all for keeping your own culture and I'm all against the west's interference in foreign lands.

But if muslims will not "acquiesce" to the ways of the west, why do so many muslims continue to move to western nations? It isn't as if they are being forced over today. If you move to another land you are subjecting yourself to that culture. That sounds a lot like aquiescence to me.

 

[جوري]

Good for Islamic lands. I'm all for keeping your own culture and I'm all against the west's interference in foreign lands.

But if muslims will not "acquiesce" to the ways of the west, why do so many muslims continue to move to western nations? It isn't as if they are being forced over today. If you move to another land you are subjecting yourself to that culture. That sounds a lot like aquiescence to me.

I don't know what the immigration status is for Muslims moving in the west unless they are christian Arabs seeking refugee status, the U.S doesn't let anyone on its soil unless they have absolute brilliance to offer.. as such and according to govt. consensus, Muslims in the U.S are actually doing better than the natives.
If you want to look at who is coming in and going out, that would be interesting, but I am not going to work with a hypothetical!

all the best

 

[Hugo]

perhaps since Muslims can and have been born in the west (and it is for all intents and purposes their home) as well many convert at a rate of 20,000 a year. Islam will not acquiesce to the west least of which when the west alleges its principles are based on 'freedom of' and lastly.. it is something the west should have considered long ago when they decided to colonize the other half in their name.. when you have little colonies here and there and steal the wealth of other nations a funny thing happens.. those little colonies and their citizens become automatically citizens of the mother colonial settler state!

A question, when the Muslim armies invaded and conquered those around then did they become citizens. For example, can a Tunisian claim he was conquered my Muslim forces emanating from what is now Saudi Arabia and go there and claim full citizenship rights?

 

[جوري]

A question, when the Muslim armies invaded and conquered those around then did they become citizens. For example, can a Tunisian claim he was conquered my Muslim forces emanating from what is now Saudi Arabia and go there and claim full citizenship rights?

Muslims have only Islam as their identity silly troll, or have you not come across that from your orientalist education?

all the best

 

[Pygoscelis]

the U.S doesn't let anyone on its soil unless they have absolute brilliance to offer.. as such and according to govt. consensus, Muslims in the U.S are actually doing better than the natives.

Can we please not equate the west with the USA? Immigration in the USA is its own special problem (these people want to build giant fences to keep mexicans out lol)

 

[جوري]

Can we please not equate the west with the USA? Immigration in the USA is its own special problem (these people want to build giant fences to keep mexicans out lol)

Well Europe from my understanding is even less welcoming.. do see my comment otherwise on the consequences of colonialism!

all the best!

 

[Karl]

Good for Islamic lands. I'm all for keeping your own culture and I'm all against the west's interference in foreign lands.

But if muslims will not "acquiesce" to the ways of the west, why do so many muslims continue to move to western nations? It isn't as if they are being forced over today. If you move to another land you are subjecting yourself to that culture. That sounds a lot like aquiescence to me.

Maybe the Muslims traveling to the West are trying to compete with the Jews that have dug in, in the past for political power. As the Christian kings the defenders of the faith have all gone and democracy and secularism now exist in the West. It's a numbers game now. When you have enough Muslims in the West then it will be ruled by them. Christianity was not the original religion of the Western nations so turning to Islam is no big deal.
Or maybe a lot of those Muslims going West are just chasing the dollar. And as for Western converts who knows?

 

[Pygoscelis]

But the west, with some exceptions (notably the southern US) holds separation of church and state and secularism as a key value. That undercuts any religious group, be it Christian, Jew, or Muslim from ruling. Theocracy is the antithesis of democracy and the west seeks to transcend religious tribalism (and fall into other sorts of tribalisms but that is another thread).

 

[Muhammad]

Let's be clear: the niqab and burqa are extreme interpretations of the Islamic requirement for modest dress; few Islamic scholars advocate their use, and many – including Tariq Ramadan – have urged women not to use them. They are as alien to many Muslim cultures as they are to the west.

This bit isn't true at all.

 

[Karl]

But the west, with some exceptions (notably the southern US) holds separation of church and state and secularism as a key value. That undercuts any religious group, be it Christian, Jew, or Muslim from ruling. Theocracy is the antithesis of democracy and the west seeks to transcend religious tribalism (and fall into other sorts of tribalisms but that is another thread).

Systems come in waves, we have had the powerful secular forces of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and other collectivist crazys fighting for supremecy. Now it seems to be Zionism and Global hegemony of the Plutocrats, disguised as democracy and "freedom". We have a Godless global collective growing and it is kicking and scratching at the religious and playing very dirty, hiding under catch cries and slandering the faithful and the Prophets.
How can you have the separation of Church and State? If I was a Christian how can I support Anti Christian laws and government, sounds crazy to me.
Just as crazy as Muslims putting up with Anti Islamic law and government in majority Muslim areas.
The Jews have a Jewish State, so why don't the Christians want Christian States and the Muslims want Islamic States.
The Jews may be obnoxious and zealous and diabolical at times, but I admire them for their guts and dedication to their cause.
Btw banning the Muslim clothing is provocative and pathetic.

 

[Lynx]

We have a Godless global collective growing and it is kicking and scratching at the religious and playing very dirty, hiding under catch cries and slandering the faithful and the Prophets.

there's more to the decline of religion than this.

How can you have the separation of Church and State? If I was a Christian how can I support Anti Christian laws and government, sounds crazy to me.
Just as crazy as Muslims putting up with Anti Islamic law and government in majority Muslim areas.
The Jews have a Jewish State, so why don't the Christians want Christian States and the Muslims want Islamic States.

Because the only time laws are anti-christian are when Christians are stopped from practicing certain things. Other than that people are free to worship however and whatever they want. A society where people believe in different things cannot last if religion is used to make laws. Everyone who chooses to live in a Western country has to accept this unless they want to live in Israel where a group of people can kick out another group of people from their homes cause their Bible says so. Secular laws that help everyone indiscriminately should always come before religious rulings.

Btw banning the Muslim clothing is provocative and pathetic.

It's also very idiotic.

 

[Karl]

there's more to the decline of religion than this.



Because the only time laws are anti-christian are when Christians are stopped from practicing certain things. Other than that people are free to worship however and whatever they want. A society where people believe in different things cannot last if religion is used to make laws. Everyone who chooses to live in a Western country has to accept this unless they want to live in Israel where a group of people can kick out another group of people from their homes cause their Bible says so. Secular laws that help everyone indiscriminately should always come before religious rulings.






It's also very idiotic.

Ok, so under secular laws everyone can worship any God(s) but must live under atheist oppression. They cannot live by the tenets of their religion but are instead totaly controlled and subsumed by anti religous government. For example the banning of the veil. Even in the Christian established West there have been traditions that Christians have followed that have either been directly prescribed from the bible OR have not been condemned by it that the atheist oppressors have subsequently outlawed in contemporay times!
So at the end of the day a secular government only caters to the atheists and only left wing busybodys at that.

 

[Lynx]

Ok, so under secular laws everyone can worship any God(s)

Exactly.

but must live under atheist oppression.
They cannot live by the tenets of their religion but are instead totaly controlled and subsumed by anti religous government.

I am not sure where you live or what you're watching on T.V. but most western countries let people pray 5 times a day, whether they are at school or work or anyplace; people are allowed to build places of worship; people are allowed to follow the dress code of their particular religions and they are allowed to preach their religions. So when you say 'atheist' oppression I am not sure what you mean. Perhaps you missed the point of my earlier post; since many people of different faiths live under a secular country, the government can't create laws that just benefit one religious group. This would lead to society being fragmented and destroyed. Democracy works cause everyone is made happy. That's why secular law works: it creates a set of laws that are universal for all people trying to maximize happiness and utility.

For example the banning of the veil. Even in the Christian established West there have been traditions that Christians have followed that have either been directly prescribed from the bible OR have not been condemned by it that the atheist oppressors have subsequently outlawed in contemporay times!

Most western countries have not banned the veil so don't generalize unless you're trying to create strawmen. Yes, laws from the Bible should be removed if they don't promote overall good for the citizens. I don;t think you quite understand what you're recommending. If my religion says taht I should be able to kill anyone I want to, are you going to let me follow that practice?

So at the end of the day a secular government only caters to the atheists and only left wing busybodys at that.

this is plainly false and i dont know if you're trolling because i don't typically read your posts to see if this is the type of stuff you say but look around you and tell me if the law allowing freedom of religion caters to atheists. oh and tell me if a presidential candidate would be elected in USA if he said he was an atheist.

 

[جوري]

You don't have to ban something to perpetuate hatred by other means.. Not sure who suggested the idea of building a mosque where the twin towers where, but certainly the rabid news crew especially the good folks at fox are having a field day with it and have taken it to the streets.. =)
it is amazing to me what individuals get away with here when Muslims are the subject of the matter and what riots and civil wars would have been had it been any other minority...The west has been founded on racism and hatred for people it deems inferior.. the irony is how they reached their civility and how long they have held on to it, if at all!

 

[Pygoscelis]

So at the end of the day a secular government only caters to the atheists and only left wing busybodys at that.

Freedom of religion requires freedom from the other guy's religion. That is secularism. Secularism is the opposite of theocracy.

Secular government caters to anybody who doesn't share the same religion as the zealot making the laws. In a society where Christianity or Judaism (or Hinduism or what have you) is the majority religion, secular government benefits muslims as much as it does atheists. Secularism benefits you as much as it does me.

 

[سيف الله]

Salaam

My point was that Islam suffers a PR problem in the west and its rampant and getting completely out of control with things like this ban on veils (and presumably only veils and not other head covers).

PR problem is an odd term to use, its like saying Palestinians have a PR problem with Zionist colonisers (well yeah naturally)

But if muslims will not "acquiesce" to the ways of the west, why do so many muslims continue to move to western nations?

Well for money, what else? My grandparents came to Britian because they were invited to come, the economy was booming and somebody had to do the jobs that the native population werent willing to do.

Freedom of religion requires freedom from the other guy's religion. That is secularism. Secularism is the opposite of theocracy.

Secular government caters to anybody who doesn't share the same religion as the zealot making the laws. In a society where Christianity or Judaism (or Hinduism or what have you) is the majority religion, secular government benefits muslims as much as it does atheists. Secularism benefits you as much as it does me.

Nice theory, but in practice its can be quite different story altogether, Soviet Union and China had 'secular' governments (viruently so). Turkey and Iran were 'secular' as well, or should I say an 'enforced secularism' with 'westernisation' added in for good measure. If you read secular ideologues (dawkinites and what not) they are quite open about wanting to use the power of the state to secualrise society (France etc). In fact they have been doing this successfully for decades. You only have to observe the pitful state of Christianity in Europe.

So no the idea that the secular state is benign to the relgious believer is open to question.