Attacks on Muslims

I don't read the Standard, and didn't see the headline. But simply "minicab driver in arsehole shocker" isn't a headline you see very often. So it's only fair to assume that the way in which the story was filtered and promoted, when there are clearly other things more newsworthy in London every minute, along with every other paper having stories about muslims on the cover on the same day, shows a clear shift. Media bias isn't about the content of articles, it's about what articles get written/published and where they appear.

there was also an excellent Times front page yesterday that sounded like it was written by Mi5. it splashed on 'radioactive dirty bomb fears' or something and then proceeded to use the phrase dirty bomb over and over again in relation to trafficked low-level radioactive material "which is completley harmless, but would carry a 'fear factor'". You think? which traitorous rag is aiding the enemy by creating such unfounded fears i wonder?

This comment has been moved here.

I think the "them" refers to "some groups of".

Going to split the BNP discussion off since that deserves its own thread.

Can't agree with this. There's plenty in the US, creationism and other stuff. There's a lot of evangelical groups in London - some of which are endorsing stuff like excorsing toddlers by putting chilli in their eyes. Right near me the UCKG has been implicated in the death of a girl whilst at the same time buying up old cinemas and bingo halls. Established Christianity is on the wane and increasingly liberal yeah, and has been for a while, but there's plenty of fundamentalism to go 'round.

I don't know what the situation in Spain is like, but in the UK, muslims are primarily categorised as a social/ethnic group, with 'secular muslims' targeted as much by this kind of press as people who are actually religious.

Either rights are rights or they are not. No right is more important than any other right, or they would not have been a right in the first place.

This is assuming that "Islam" is a homogenous phenomenon, which it clearly isn't. There is the political divide in Islam between Sunnis and Shi'as, and in that split it is Shi'a that is more inclined towards theocracy (by virtue of actually having priests). In Sunni Islam alone there are four jurisprudent schools, each with very different interpretation of shari'a,though they all agree that the doors of ijtihad (rational interpretation of religious Quran and Hadith) are closed. You have violent Islamists and non-violent Islamists, you have poltical Islam and "social" Islam. Shi'a Islam's got their own "liberation theology". Islam has also got a very alive mystical traiditon, known as Sufism, which is very close to Buddhism. Heck, there are even Islamist Feminists!!!

My point is that you have to be clear about what it is that you want to fight. Misogyny and bigotry, rule by clerics, dichotomization of others etc. all of this should be fought. But IMO the "evils" of Islam (or for that matter almost any religion) is the continuing objectification of religion. Religion has become extremely legalistic, in fact fetishized, so that relgion is alien and worship is external to the worshipper. When religions are legalistic a few people purporting to have the truth can do a lot of harm (and not just religious ideologies).

Hence, while I do agree that certain forms of religion should be "fought" ideoogically, we have to be very clear that it is not people's belief in God, enlightenment or whatever we are attacking. Just stating that Islam is the problem is as empty as the Islamists slogan that "Islam is the solution".

Of course I agree with you on this, but my point is that the right to worship is as much as a right as having adequate housing and food in the belly.

The problem with the hijab is always interesting and there are several ways to interpret it.

The first one is connected to the objectification of religion and externalization of its imperatives; in this context one can be forced to wear the hijab because it is the law and this can be an affront to dignity. Historically, espececially after the Iranian Revolution, wearing the hijab became a sign of anti-imperialism, just like a lot of activists wear the Palestinian scarf (actually it worn all over the Arab world, but that's beside the point).

For quite a few Muslim women wearing the hijab is based on a normative interpretation of Islam; rather than being coerced into wearing it they adorn it because they actually want to as a sign of religius observance (this is a position of many Muslim femists that naturally see their feminism in Islamic terms). The same can be said here for why some Muslims find it very easy to fast during Ramadan, while others complain and complain and complain about how thirsty and hungry they are. It is about the normative character of religion which speaks to the individual's worship.

I also think it is a problem of cultural translation here. If we cover something in the West it is because we are ashamed of it, whereas in Islam (originally at least) you should cover your hair (not the face as you write, though the Wahhabi doctrine subscribes to this) because it is sacred (and for esoteric reason because one of the chakras are there. If you've noticed, a lot of muslim men also cover their head like religious Jews do).

And there are so many other points concering the hijab that I just do not have time to write. But I feel that knee-jerk negative reaction to the hijab and forcing people to not wear it is just as bad as forcing people to wear it.

Hmmm, writing on a libertarian board wouldn't you see this as something positive? And it is not like the Catholic Church is monolithic either, need I mention the liberation theologists?

You argue that many muslim women see their feminism in islamic terms. This is nothing new to christianity where women have argued repeatedly that their rightfull place is in the home, bearing children and taking care of the family. Womens rights have been fought for and achived by a relative minority, and this minority would argue otherwise.

In the 19th century Fernando de Moratin wrote an enlightened humanistic play "El si de las niñas" where an old mother endeavored to marry her young daughter to an old man in order to maintain their economic wealth, even though she too was married to old men who died and out of her 9 children only one survived. Moratin uses the play to show how women are the first to transmit oppresion from one generation to the next. At the end of the book the daughter marries the nephew of the old man, with whom she was really in love.

I recomend that you watch Manderley, its a fantastic film whch dwelves on this idea of how the opresed perpetuate opresion.

I dont agree with you that this is a question of cultural translation, if only because until very recently it was traditional for women in spain to cover their hair too. I do not know the particular reasons for this but I am sure that it was voluntary, and that it is also voluntary that today this tradition has been lost, except when women wear traditional dresses, normally in festivities or in special ocasions. So I am totally conviced that in 50 years time very few women in Morocco will continue to cover their hair.

Besides covering the hair and covering the face are two very different things, I for one like to cover most of my body and dont go walking naked in the street

------------------------------------------------------

I do value the figure of the Pope in Catholicism as he is a spokesperson for 1000million people (or so they claim). Atleast you have someone to put the record stratight.

With regards to this being a libertarian board I still need to learn what you mean. I rather like to discuss different issues with intelligent people that can show me their viewpoints. I for one have more often than not been convinced and shapped by other peoples opinions and attitudes.

I have also discussed religion AT LENGTH with Jehova Witneses (stayed 2 months with a JW family in Germany), Catholics (my family and personal involvement with Opus Dai), Islam (best friend as a kid was palestinian, many university friends were muslim and my current flatmate is muslim). I have had other less lengthy discussions with Orthodox Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddist and some Evangelicals... And after all that talking I was not convinced of anything expect how futile it is to discuss religion with someone who is religious due to their well hidden intolerance.

I did not write many, but some. And I also put the normative voluntary adoption of the veil as a counterpart to the coercive imposition of the veil. Between those two standpoints there is a plethora of reasons for why you would wear the veil. In Egypt, where I am living currently there are prostitutes that wear the niqab (covers the face and mostly everythign) to cover up their identity.

Of course the oppressed can continue their oppression by transmitting values, but this does not mean that everyone that does this or that is doing it because they are forced to do so. It would be an insult to Muslim feminists to tell them that they are oppressed just because they are wearing the veil.

Personally I do not believe that the Pope represent all catholics not that he can set the record straight on behalf of all catholics. My argument is exactly against this type of officialdom. A truly secular society would leave religious matters to the individual, not to some aggregate semi-fascist institution.

I have also discussed religion at lenght with plenty of people (both before and after I myself became religous) and there were bigots and open minded people. Usually, the most brain dead arguments I had was actually with atheist of the scientific rationalist fundamentalist type.

As an atheist I feel that there are forms of oppression in all religions. Each has its own set of rules that you must follow. A Christian man born gay would automatically be oppressed by other followers of his religion, beccause the "rules" dictate homosexuality is wrong. Look at the way women are treated in Saudi Arabia. They are not even allowed to drive automobiles because Islam dictates that women are inferior. Catholicism is oppressive because you have no reproductive freedom. All religions have oppression. Some may be worse than others, but regardless, it exists in all of them.

I'm not going to dog anyone for following a religion if they WANT to, but I'm pretty sure if I was a Muslim woman who came from Saudi Arabia to the States or elsewhere, as soon as my feet touched that soil, I'd rip off the veil, look at the husband, say "Thanks for the ride! Bye!" and run like hell.

No, I referred to "some groups of muslims" as being reactionary, but then was talking about the racist right and the media's attack on all muslims - "them". They're not a monolithic mass, of course, but the press attack on them is pretty much a blanket attack on all muslims.

John, sorry for assuming, but it was a bit ambiguous. I am actually all for attacking fundie groups almost regardless, though doing it in the press would be the wrong method.

I do not consider myself to be better than anyone. I am a sufi (Naqshabendi) and we consider any path to God as a path to God (regardless of this being Jewish, Christian, Buddhist etc.). I feel better myself as a person, but not better than anyone else. As I've been trying to explain faith is very personal. As a sufi I believe that God (and the devil) resides in me and that I can actually touch divinity in this life.

But how dare you telling me that I am not a true muslim if I do not feel better than anyone else? What do you know about my faith? Your problem carlos is that you see religions as monolithic entities, which they are not. I have no problem with you being a rational scientific humanist at all, that is all your choice. Do you feel better than anyone else because of your belief in the enlightenment ideals?

Hmm, there are a few problems with you statment here. As we've found out on another thread you have a Bsc in Economics from LSE. I assume that you also did statistics - which probably taught you that you should not generalise from personal experience. Anyhoo, I was talking about Islamic FEMINISTS donning the veil because they want to. NOT EVERY SINGLE woman that is either Muslim, Arab or both. I also know of Islamic femistst that do not wear the veil because they don't actually have to in Islamic Law (this is down to interpretation of course, but I support the feminists' interpretation). Of course it is oppressive if your Palestinian friend really felt that it was oppressive to put on the veil, I am not arguing about that.

But conversly, would you agree then that forcing somone to not wear the veil is oppressive?

Nope, I only mentioned it to show that women wear the veil for different reasons. Prostitutes want to conceal their identity simple as that. Others wear it becaue they are forced to, others wear it because they want to (consciously or unconsciousy), some wear it out of habit and haven't though about it at all etc etc etc.

Prior to the Crusades, did Christians, Jews, and Muslims not live in peace? They were all very tolerant of each other. In fact, the "west" had to retranslate all the ancient Greek texts from Arabic because the "west" destroyed theirs during the crusades.