Muhammad the Bear

Remove all ads!

I don't know if I agree with that, because there are many forward-looking Muslims who are eager for reform - they reside in the rational, 21th Century, while the old authorities are reacting to the "modern challenge" with open hostility. The picture that is painted here, is that the modern world and religion cannot reside in the same house, so to speak.

Yet, I think that many know that they can, while surely at a point of some accomandation. For instance, many Christians are not the raving nut cases who want to stop stem-cell research. Or go around blowing up abortion clinics. Or substitute the Bible for a High School sceince text book. Yet, they remain committed to practicing their religion. Many Americans would rather not mix religion and politics, as have many in the religious right movement. As you point out, many Christians have seen that mixing politics and religion can often lead to unforseen and dangerous results. I think the same problems exist in Islam. Most Muslims are not like the Taliban, wanting to take their countries back to the 8th Century.

Because they lack the political tools to accomplish the reforms. The government is openly hostile towards progressives. It's called tyranny.

 

After that, Would you want to stay?

 

Chandos

That's what they tell on the talk show conduit, and probably that's also what they themselves think. We have a lot of them here, too, who tell how wonderful, tolerant and mystic Sufi Islam is for example. That's beside the point. While Fundamentalism does necessarily not represent the mainstream, it is probably no accident you meet such friendly, well educated and articulate folks in Berlin, Paris, London or Washington and such.

There also is a reason why Salman Rushie, another friendly, well articulate and well educated fellow is now hiding in Britain. It is not all political, and that Islam is exploited by ruthless politicos. That is a mistake to think. You underestimate the conservatism in the Islamic world.

PS: Here America again offers a striking example: The American Christian Right is also profoundly about religion, with a political muscle. They are enrolled with GOP atm, yes, and politically activist, yes, and habve probably been suckered by Rove, yes, but that doesn't mean their drive and motives aren't religious.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/11/30/sudan.bears/index.html

15 days in jail! It's death we want! according to 600 demonstraters

I can hear them from here "15 days!?! rabble rabble rabble!!"

I guess mohammed can't defend himself from a 50 year old woman armed with a teddybear :sigh:

I cannot believe there are still laws that involve religion. We probably have them as well in the Netherlands then. That's just sad.

 

It's an ideology and it's in both their religious views and their politics. And they are not the mainstream here, although they like to pass themselves off as such.

We should spend a minute on Rushdie though. Who was it that ordered him to be killed? The Ayatolla of Iran. What a surprise - the prototypical despot of whom we are speaking. Rushdie is a challenge to that old authority of which the mullahs are so afraid. The well-educated people who read Rushdie are rational - that's what education does to a person, among other things.

The thing to keep in mind is that many of the people in these countries don't have the political and economic tools to feel empowered. Instead, they feel empowered by the emotion of their religion, despite being marginalized in other areas. To be sure they feel resentment and rage because they feel helpless and threatened - the fear of being dragged from their famillies, lashed or imprisoned, beheaded or hanged is always present in their day-to-day lives. Give large segments of the population those political and economic tools and watch as the mullahs become marginalized themselves.

It's interesting that you bring up Muslims residing in the West. We have Muslim women here in the US who walk around with their heads covered with veils. I used to see them all the time on the college campus, especially. That's fine, I suppose it's a symbol of faith and I can admire that. But tell them they can't drive a car, or that they can't go to college, or tell them that they can't work at certain jobs, or that they can't vote, and then see how fast those veils come off. It's always the same - it's the old men who want to keep things as they are. Why? Because they are the most empowered by the old traditions.

Do the women, the poor, the marginalized buy into it? Of course. They are like mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed crap all the time. Bring them out into the light and see what happens. But that's the tricky part. Look at the opening of Hawthrone's novel, The Scarlet Letter: Who is attacking the protagonist, Hester? It is the women of the town. They buy into it, yes. Progressive reform is a very difficult thing to achieve.

 

Europeans and those of us of European descent seem to not realize that democracy was not a world wide thing. A lot of the British laws came from the people of Northern Europe who invaded Britain. The Greeks and Romans had democracy. Women in Northern Europe had a lot of rights. I'm not going to go into this depth because it would be very

There is nothing democratic about a Theocracy. You don't change a religious society by persecuting it; you only make it stronger.

 

Well, she did pollute those children's minds. Except for the whole thing about the children naming the bear... -.-

 

Chandos,
don't let your idealism get the better of you in this. You assume, falsely, that everybody wants to be like us. That is not so. You see that probably the children do want to be like you but are forced into scarfs to dwell in the dark and so forth. That view is a result of your upbringing. It is probably an error. Some children might. I know a couple of very westernised Muslims, but they're Alevites, and as such an aberration. Many conservative Muslims, certainly Islamists and especially Tafkiris, don't see them as Muslims at all. There are others who are very comfortable with the scarf. That is a result of their upbringing.

My sister is a teacher and she sais that her children who wear a headscarf often express to take pride in that, because it is an expression of their religion which is great. They do not have the feeling of dwelling in the dark at all. A good friend, also a teacher, had a major confrontation in school with Muslim parents. Likely the only reason they sent their daughter to school was because they are legally obliged to. They never ever showed up in school at all, didn't want to have anything to do with it at all. Until daughter was told to not wear a scarf in sports because school's insurance wouldn't cover costs in accidents due to the increased risk of injury from wearing a scarf (for similar considerations, piercings, earrings, watches and the like are not allowed as well). The first time they ever appeared in school, father was about as rabid and agitated as his wife. They weren't happy at all with the response that when living in Germany, they have to accept our laws and the way our country is. They didn't accept it, just bowed to the inevitable. It is a fairly safe bet to assume they feel unfairly treated and viewed it as proof that our schools scandalously encourage promiscuity and shamelessness.
Undeniably education can do a lot to improve the chances of Muslim children, but it cannot be counted on to influence what's happening in the nucleus of the family. Like the results or not, that sphere is constitutionally protected and not for us to meddle in except in narrowly defined instances of abuse - and that's in principle a good thing.

I knew a nice Muslim guy, almost a friend, who was at some point 'born again'. He was eventually approached by concerned relatives over his lifestyle (a liked to party and smoke weed). He ended up writing the commandments of Islam on an office flip chart before he was fired because everyone got scared of him, me included. Never heard of him since. I guess if you're caught between two cultures, or disoriented, Islam can be something that gives you 'safe anchor in stormy seas'. Religion generally does that. I see, never meet, plenty of Muslims who don't want to have any dealings with us at all. They are not interested in learning our language. They stick among themselves. Their self isolation is a conscious act, and can be both a result of their upbringing, or because of them 'being born again'.

I do not think this problems of identity and the resulting re-orientation to Islam is only because Europe is not as good in integrating foreigners as the renowned melting pot is. To think so is probably self flattery. It is in my understanding merely an extension of what's happening in the Islamic heartland already. Granted, coupled with poor integration abroad, this likely leads to an accelerated process in that direction. In times of a crisis of identity one natural reflex is to go back to the roots. I think that's also the simple thing about the emergence of the Christian Right. I too think the inherent literalism of Islam naturally expresses itself in conservatism. That conservatism extends well beyond religion per se and informs the way of life.

 

This is absurd imo. BTW, just how do you allow someone to name their teddy Mohammad? The only way this makes sense is if someone asked her whether they could, in which case I fail to see how she blasphemed herself.

 

She should be stoned. That'll teach her.

Seriously, what the [snip] is going on here. Really. We have eminent Muslims over here saying it's bollocks. Spot on fellas, it is. Utter bollocks. I'd quite like to see a headline screaming at me MUSLIMS SAY ITS BOLLOCKS. But I note the Standard have one screaming KILL HER and then a story about how Sudanese people were baying for a public execution.

So, what does that do for harmony. Yer average Joe Public thinks "Muslims, all mad." Others think "Muslims, all bad, lets kick one in".

As for Sudan. A [snip] poor human rights record so maybe we should be grateful they really didn't stone her or something. What can the UK Gvt do? They can remove aid and effect those that need it. They can introduce sanctions that have no effect. Or we can moan like pussies.

Pussies it is then.

 

That demonstration is yet another outrageously ridiculous element in this story. Judging from the number of demonstrators it's so obvious this is orchestrated by a small group of nutters. When witnesses say "close to 1000" you can be certain the number's been exaggerated twofold or threefold. But let's assume it really is 1000 people... then you have the BBC's coverage of the demonstration, talking about "thousands and thousands and THOUSANDS of demonstrators!!!!" Sudan has a population of 40 million. So the demonstrators amounted to about 0.002% of the population. If that's all the nutters they have that's not too bad.

Ah yes, of course. And I'm sure that every single person you met in the extensive list of muslim countries you've been to was howling for your blood as you walked by.

And while we're on this particular topic... friendly, well educated and articulate folks in Paris??? In London?????!!!! The rudest, most racist, xenophobic and agressive people I have ever met where in Paris and London (I have a hard time deciding which one is worse). Won't speak for either Berlin or Washington, as I've been to neither, but I'll add Brussels to the trio of "large civilised cities which I avoid as much as possible". Oh sure, not everyone in any of these cities was like that, but the worst I've seen was certainly there.

I believe I know enough about the islamic world, both on a political and religious scale, to distinguish between the two. Yes, there is a LOT of conservatism in both. As you have stated, islam does not have a monopoly on conservatism - that's something you find everywhere, be it in religion, politics, whatever. However, religious conservatism detached from politics is about some random guy deciding he's not going to eat ham or drink alcohol (or whatever). Conservatism backed by politics is when a government decides to punish a teacher because her student named a teddy bear Muhammad. I don't think the two cases are in any way comparable. One is about an individual's decision to live in a particular way that does no harm to him or anyone else (and as a result it's not your or my business to tell him whether he can do it or not), the other one is about a tyranny forcing a lifestyle and a belief system on everyone else. An individual detached from politics would not be able to do anything like the second case - and if he tried and got caught, he would pay heavily for it.

And by the way, the particular example you gave (Salman Rushdie) actually proves my point. The fatwa against Rushdie was not issued by some random clergyman - it was issued by Khomeini, who incidentally happened to be the self-appointed supreme leader of Iran at the time. I really, really doubt this was a coincidence, especially since Rushdie is not from Iran, had no tie to Iran whatsoever, and that the theological "HQ" of islam is Al-Azhar in Egypt, not Khomeini's government in Iran. Can you see the political link (again)? And while we're on Rushdie, his mother lived in Pakistan for years after the fatwa was issued, and was never threatened in anyway. Rushdie himself has said a few times that the community in which she lived (all muslims, mind you) were very supportive of her and what her son was doing.

You have to admit the second headline makes for a much better story than the first one. If the media had a parade of muslims condemning Sudan that wouldn't bring as many viewers as having the "thousands and thousands!!!!" coverage I commented on earlier (I know, I singled out the BBC, but to be fair none of the others did any better). When some poor guy gets "kicked in" the media'll go all "this is so awful how could anyone DO this!!!" again. Typical really.

Well your listing in itself admits that none of the solutions will have the desired effect. You could I suppose add "invade them and install democracy", but I think we've all seen where THAT usually goes. Moaning may not do much, but none of the other options will either (and if it does something, we better be positively certain it's what we were looking for)

 

I guess even the jury knew this to be a ridicilous incident since they gave such a light punishment, but at the same time they solved it by expelling her from the country. Good thing too, because I can't think anyone who would want to stay there willingly.

Crazy romans...

 

I still don't believe the entire idiocy. The pieces I see don't even say she suggested the name Mohammad, so just how can she be corrupting the youth's mentality?

Most likely this only brings to light that a) Sudan has some restrictive and/or senseless laws and b) there are some (not necessarily many) conservative nuts there. Well, it's not like we didn't know that already...

 

Ziad,

You miss my point. I think I would get along well in the Muslim world, because I wouldn't address anything remotely religious with the proverbial ten foot pole unless I know the people really well. I certainly wouldn't tell them to change their way of life and be more tolerant and adopt western values.

I referred to the talk show setting where western Gutmenschen meet Muslim exiles who tell them: 'Oh, you know, those radicals are not real Muslims!', and that 'real Islam' is tolerant, peaceful and splendid. And then everybody nods majestically and feels good. Except that it's all bollocks. Said talk show Muslims may disagree with those radicals on nine out of ten issues, but that doesn't make either any less Muslim. You won't find anyone who sais that Osama Bin Laden is not a Muslim, despite his violence and extremism, and despite him representing only a tiny fraction of Islam. They may say he is extreme, but they won't say he is a heretic, because he isn't. As long as they agree on that there is no God except Allah, and that Mohammed is his prophet they're all Muslim (that includes accepting the Koran as Gods literal word). Beyond that there is plenty of room for variation. Being clergyless there is ample potential for sectarianism and variation in observance and traditions. I already said that Islam is a consensus driven religion, despite all it's literalism.

What my point was, specifically, is that a lot of those Muslims in Berlin, Paris and London or Washington are westernised, and that their comparatively liberal views don't necessarily represent the Muslim mainstream in the heartland, and not only because they tend to be to a large extent much better educated than the average.

 

You're again refering to a very nebulous "Muslim mainstream" that may or may not exist, may or may not be mainstream, and is shared by an unknown number between a few dozen people worldwide and one billion. This is my main issue with your argument, mainly because I get the distinct impression that it's based on an impression you got from reading or watching news in Germany (correct me if I'm wrong) without having actually seen what the "mainstream" is actually like. I don't know about the particular talk show you're referring to, but several of the ones I've seen over here were saying that people like Bin Laden and suicide bombers were bad publicity for islam because they made westerners think that this is a common attitude among muslims. Some of the things you said do seem to confirm that the publicity that extremism is given is affecting people's vision of what the mainstream is. People tend to forget that the loud minority always seems to be the vast majority, but that's not necessarily true.

 

them again? What do they think of next?

 

The so-called Sudanese adults don´t care jack about the fact that the kids named a teddybear Mohammed. It´s a lot more simple than that. They´re pissy because that heathen concubine of Satan had the nerve to teach those kids the meaning of voting. You know, free thought and all that jazz. I personally have always thought that we should leave those people alone, period! If they want to spend their days on this Earth living in a Dark Age-like religious psychosis, let´em. For goodness sake, it´s a free world. Let them live the way they want. I just feel sorry for the poor kids in Sudan who will likely grow up to be just as brainwashed.

 

My head is spinning and I'm getting very confused. What are we arguing about here?
1) Is a specific law unfair?
2) Is a teddy bear a prophet?
3) Is Islam a negative, repressive, evil religion?
4) Are Muslims terrorists simply because they are Muslims?
5) Does one nation have the right to tell another nation what they should do?
6) Is Democracy the best form of government and therefore all governments should be democratic?
7) Should children be taught to think or simply accept what some authority figure tells them?
8) Should I play Morrowind, Oblivion, Caesar IV or go back to Baldurs Gate? oops..sorry Ah, what is the topic?

 

You can always count on Nakia to be the voice of reason around here

I admit I'm largely responsible for deviating away from the main topic, so I'll suggest Ragusa and I take our discussion to PM. Or we could just agree to disagree