Western Perceptions of Islam

[spittle]

Rape my wife and steel my hubcaps!!!!

Thats a perfect way of describing the paranoia of being a white minority. Which is an unusual situation for, I'm sure, most of us white guys/gals.

[Kosmo]

I felt bloody awkward while browsing through a homosexual novelty shop in Key West last spring. I also feel mildly embarrassed passing by Victoria's Secret. I guess that makes me a misogynistic homophobe.

 

Your a misogynistic homphobe racist, hence part of the majority

 

It's a difference beetwen feeling threatend because your surounded by strange Foreigners (like GO and G-Men talking) and fearing a real, but unlikely, danger (like wondering if someone you see parying at the mosque will blow your cosy Sharm e Shaik hotel). You can recognise that for some people your a target while realizing that your one of the many, so the danger it's statistically insignificant.

Strangeness can be dangerous like that english teacher found out in Sudan. When you have different conceptions and one it's agresive (like many muslims are today) this can lead to threats, real or percieved.

 

If the point of thread was to show that we have islam bashing I disagree. In the last decade many, if not most, muslims showed they endorse a view of islam that is dangerous to us. Remember the ambassadors of most muslim countries protesting the danish cartoons or the pope comments?

What the Coran says it's irrelevant and open to endless discussion, what it's relevant it's what muslims believe and while there are many interpretations and views it's obvious that many share views that are in conflict with our ideeas. The West should stop idealizing islam and see it as it is practiced today from Nigeria to Kosovo and Phillipines.

[Marcus Caelius]

On the subject of feeling out of place I am told by someone who studied psychology that under test conditions children as young as two have been known to identify people who are not members of their own community and/or do not operate under the 'normal' rules for their community.

 

QED

 

On a personal note myself and a group of friends on a visit to America some years back found ourselves in an area where there was definite resentment to our presence, which was only mitigated when the locals found out we really were foreign tourists so not a threat to them.

 

So, what was the setting? I'm guessing there was something physical that made you stand out, which seems to indicate you had wandered into an ethnic neighborhood.

[Marcus Caelius]

Rape my wife and steel my hubcaps!!!!

Thats a perfect way of describing the paranoia of being a white minority. Which is an unusual situation for, I'm sure, most of us white guys/gals.

 

Ah! Someone got it! Thank you!

[Gaius Octavius]

Once again, please forgive me as it was not the object of my earlier post to have this thread sent to the Arena. It was to make a point. Actually, I believe that threads should grow as the subject of a book grows.

 

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

 

"It's a difference beetwen feeling threatend because your surounded by strange Foreigners (like GO and G-Men talking) and fearing a real, but unlikely, danger...." Kosmo.

 

Speaking for GO, you have right on your side. He is Arcane, eclectic, esoteric, sarcastic, ironic, inscrutable, etc. He is definitely a danger, a WMD, to all mankind. He is like a disease that gnaws away at all the organs of ones body. The danger is Real And Present! Off to the Tower with him! Draw, quarter, cremate - make no mistakes! Take no chances!

 

Just kidding you, Kosmo, so don't have a parnacle.

 

Sir Basil

Edited December 4, 2007 by Gaius Octavius

[Melvadius]

On the subject of feeling out of place I am told by someone who studied psychology that under test conditions children as young as two have been known to identify people who are not members of their own community and/or do not operate under the 'normal' rules for their community.

 

QED

 

On a personal note myself and a group of friends on a visit to America some years back found ourselves in an area where there was definite resentment to our presence, which was only mitigated when the locals found out we really were foreign tourists so not a threat to them.

 

So, what was the setting? I'm guessing there was something physical that made you stand out, which seems to indicate you had wandered into an ethnic neighborhood.

 

QED - that our sense of what is right and wrong is develops at an early age and sits lurking in the hind brain irrespective of what cultural group we belong to.

 

As to the setting you have some of the truth about it but the point is still valid as above that you don't have to go to recent immigrant communities to feel out of place we didn't. The sense of non-welcome can prevade pretty much all stratas of every society - as some of the postings on this thread have already indicated.

 

However that doesn't mean that all or even many of a particular group is out to get anyone else - just that in our modern culture the press claim they are. While all too many miguided 'people' believe everything they read in the press or see on the latest news broadcast.

 

In this respect Rome probably had the right attitude asking that everyone of conform to a few basic rules applicable to everyone while allowing religious freedom and tolerance or we will smash anyone who starts trouble.

Edited December 4, 2007 by Melvadius

[G-Manicus]

It's a difference beetwen feeling threatend because your surounded by strange Foreigners (like GO and G-Men talking)

 

I know what you mean ... those guys scare me too.

[Marcus Caelius]

QED - that our sense of what is right and wrong is develops at an early age and sits lurking in the hind brain irrespective of what cultural group we belong to.

 

I would disagree with this. Our sense of right and wrong, or "conscience," doesn't develop on its own, it is instilled by others. We have to be taught right from wrong. A fairly universal example would be slavery: to paraphrase Carl Sagan talking about the Great Library, so far as is known no author of the ancient world protested the institution. That slavery is on its face wrong is a fairly modern idea, and there are still plenty of people in the world who think it is (or should be) part of the natural human order.

 

Yes, we recognize outsiders fairly easily, but merely because something about them is unfamiliar.

 

As to the setting you have some of the truth about it but the point is still valid as above that you don't have to go to recent immigrant communities to feel out of place we didn't. The sense of non-welcome can prevade pretty much all stratas of every society...

 

Again, I disagree. Virtually all societies welcome (friendly) visitors, and virtually all have mechanisms for acquiring members from outside. There are individual exceptions, of course, but I believe that any perception of hostility, unwelcome or strangeness is mostly false and more akin to paranoia and bias (however innocent) on the part of the visitor.

[Melvadius]

QED - that our sense of what is right and wrong is develops at an early age and sits lurking in the hind brain irrespective of what cultural group we belong to.

 

I would disagree with this. Our sense of right and wrong, or "conscience," doesn't develop on its own, it is instilled by others. We have to be taught right from wrong. A fairly universal example would be slavery: to paraphrase Carl Sagan talking about the Great Library, so far as is known no author of the ancient world protested the institution. That slavery is on its face wrong is a fairly modern idea, and there are still plenty of people in the world who think it is (or should be) part of the natural human order.

 

Yes, we recognize outsiders fairly easily, but merely because something about them is unfamiliar. ...

 

I didn't say that our perception was not due to what we absorbed from our surroundings/ learnt from those around us only that it occurs at a much earlier age than most people realize.

 

As to the setting you have some of the truth about it but the point is still valid as above that you don't have to go to recent immigrant communities to feel out of place we didn't. The sense of non-welcome can prevade pretty much all stratas of every society...

 

Again, I disagree. Virtually all societies welcome (friendly) visitors, and virtually all have mechanisms for acquiring members from outside. There are individual exceptions, of course, but I believe that any perception of hostility, unwelcome or strangeness is mostly false and more akin to paranoia and bias (however innocent) on the part of the visitor.

 

Possibly most societies do perceive visitors as generally non-threatening but I can assure you that on our trip to North America, until we spoke, we were perceived as something totally different to what we were. How else do you explain hotel staff ignoring polite requests for accomodation in a language they spoke and in other cases hotel guests either trying to hide in the corners of lifts or else leave them as soon as we got in after they had?

 

Until the relatively recent US and media led attacks on all things Islamic I have never had a similar experience with immigrant &/or Muslim communities in Britain. Even now I find that if you treat them fairly and respect their rights to freedom of speech and religion they will respond in kind.

Edited December 6, 2007 by Melvadius

[Kosmo]

I would disagree with this. Our sense of right and wrong, or "conscience," doesn't develop on its own, it is instilled by others. We have to be taught right from wrong. A fairly universal example would be slavery: to paraphrase Carl Sagan talking about the Great Library, so far as is known no author of the ancient world protested the institution. That slavery is on its face wrong is a fairly modern idea, and there are still plenty of people in the world who think it is (or should be) part of the natural human order.

 

 

There are no naturally right and wrong, but any society works with common conceptions of right and wrong. If one does not respect that then he cames under pressure from the other to get in line.

 

Again, I disagree. Virtually all societies welcome (friendly) visitors, and virtually all have mechanisms for acquiring members from outside. There are individual exceptions, of course, but I believe that any perception of hostility, unwelcome or strangeness is mostly false and more akin to paranoia and bias (however innocent) on the part of the visitor.

 

In the same time all societies have means to deal with people that broke the generally accepted rules and also have mechanisms for exclusion.

Edited December 6, 2007 by Kosmo

[Marcus Caelius]

Possibly most societies do perceive visitors as generally non-threatening but I can assure you that on our trip to North America, until we spoke, we were perceived as something totally different to what we were. How else do you explain hotel staff ignoring polite requests for accommodation in a language they spoke and in other cases hotel guests either trying to hide in the corners of lifts or else leave them as soon as we got in after they had?

 

In the two posts you've mentioned this, you've given absolutely no specifics, nor even the general context, just the assertion. Assuming your claim is accurate, one possible cause that you've said nothing to rule out, but that could explain everything, could be your personal hygiene. Unless you're more forthcoming, I see no reason to inquire further.

 

Until the relatively recent US and media led attacks on all things Islamic I have never had a similar experience with immigrant &/or Muslim communities in Britain. Even now I find that if you treat them fairly and respect their rights to freedom of speech and religion they will respond in kind.

 

And I would agree. OTOH, the Muslim threshold for disagreement seems rather low, and this religion of peace does seem to have a higher-than-normal percentage of adherents who want to meet every perceived insult or slight, no matter how innocuous or innocent, with violence. IOW, Islam seems to have a pretty big chip on its shoulder.

[Melvadius]

In the two posts you've mentioned this, you've given absolutely no specifics, nor even the general context, just the assertion. Assuming your claim is accurate, one possible cause that you've said nothing to rule out, but that could explain everything, could be your personal hygiene. Unless you're more forthcoming, I see no reason to inquire further.

 

OK as you no longer wish me to protect the sensibilities of that part of America let me draw in some more details.

 

Four youngish UK tourists, on a tight budget, travelling across America in a hire car with no maps, only a rough itinerary and a general idea of where they wished to go. Driving in towards New York they turn off and then parallel the interstate looking for somewhere cheap to stay. Finding nowhere at all obvious they eventually stop in a built up area looking for directions and are given two option - one a fairly expensive tourist/business hotel the other a cheap local motel.

 

With little cash they go for the cheap option and get met with obvious unease - not to mention a degree of hostility because they are 'wrong' for the area. From the tone and nature of some comments as far as the residents are concerned the only reason for their presence there is NOT that they are lost tourists.

 

We later on met American's form the area who went into appoplexy when they found out precisely where we stayed and the fact that we had got out in one piece. The whole point of the story is the fact that perceptions work both ways and as far as I know things may have changed in the years since we were there. However when we were there we were not dealing with a recent immigrant community but at the very least 3rd or 4th generation Americans.

 

Until the relatively recent US and media led attacks on all things Islamic I have never had a similar experience with immigrant &/or Muslim communities in Britain. Even now I find that if you treat them fairly and respect their rights to freedom of speech and religion they will respond in kind.

 

 

As to your comments on US perception of Muslim violence in all honesty this has only really been a major issue since Russia started to fall apart and needing something else to do with its time started actively interferring with the internal politics of Neutral Muslim countries.

 

Saying that a particular regime is repressive and doesn't meet your standards (even if it may be true) is not an excuse for invasion. Such attacks do hwever provide a strong reason for any similarly aligned countries or individuals to mistrust anything that you say or do from that point onwards which could conceivably relate to them.

[spittle]

The percentage of intolerant Muslims does seem high...but is this fact or media representation?

I live in an area with a huge community of Muslims and have never heard anyone advocate jihad, beheadings or anything fanatical (but, in fairness, I must add that 3,of the 4, 7/7 bombers were from my area, so maybe I just don't know what would be said if I wasn't there, but I doubt it).

 

But many other Religions have a percentage of followers that cross the line. The Westboro Baptist Church (picketing dead soldiers funerals with 'FAGGOT DIE' placards) springs to mind. To me its more scary that a huge swathe of the worlds only superpower believe the literal explanation of Genesis over Darwin. Ifeel lucky to live in a post-Christian country. Nice and secular.

[Kosmo]

A communist will want to create the worker paradise on Earth. A nazi to bring white rule, a kamikaze the glory of Japan, a shia muslim will wait for Mahdi/Messia.

All this have resons to preserve human life on Earth enen if for just some people. An islamic fundamentalist has none and wants none. Just 72 virigins once he is a martyr.

[Melvadius]

A communist will want to create the worker paradise on Earth. A nazi to bring white rule, a kamikaze the glory of Japan, a shia muslim will wait for Mahdi/Messia.

All this have resons to preserve human life on Earth enen if for just some people. An islamic fundamentalist has none and wants none. Just 72 virigins once he is a martyr.

 

In my view that is an overly simplistic definition of the beliefs of any one of those groups but in particular of Islamic fundamentalism, which has at least as broad a range of definitions as any grouping of Christian Fundamentalists let alone any other religion. Ira Lapidus has written extensively about Islam (c/f the earlier posting referring to books about Islamic beliefs) and Wikipedia quotes his definition of Islamic fundamentalism:

 

The Definition offered by American historian Ira Lapidus distinguishes between mainstream Islamists and Fundamentalists. Although a fundamentalist may also be an Islamist, a Fundamentalist is "a political individual" in search of a "more original Islam," while the Islamist is pursuing a political agenda. He notes that Islamic fundamentalism "is at best only an umbrella designation for a very wide variety of movements, some intolerant and exclusivist, some pluralistic; some favourable to science, some anti-scientific; some primarily devotional and some primarily political; some democratic, some authoritarian; some pacific, some violent.

 

I note that he makes no reference here to "72 virigins" being a required aspect of fundamentalist beliefs in the hereafter.

Edited December 9, 2007 by Melvadius