The Koranic Code (tm)

growler

Please note: if you are a muslim please do not read this as you will no doubt be offended and I do not wish to offend you, what's written below is there just to illustrate a point.


I have an idea for a book and blockbuster movie, it's based on my theory that Mohammed had a number of illegitimate children with a young lady during his stay in Mecca. The decendants of these children are the true heirs of Islam (perhaps I'll make them Jewish) and are plotting to take over the world and create a global caliphate with themselves as the true rulers of the world by divine right. The leaders of Shiite, Shia, Sufis and Wahhabis are keen for this not to happen as it will threaten their power and traditional authority. There will obviously be more details involving car chases through the back streets of Damascus, Jerusalem, Marrakech and Istanbul (perhaps a love scene near the pyramids could be worked in, sun setting, veil lifting, cut to Syphinx etc.) , a good looking historian of the female persuasion , a sub plot involving 9/11 and perhaps a highly charged stand off with insurgents on the Iran / Iraq border, culminating in an epic fashion during a stampede during Hajj.

However I have a sneaking suspicion that such a work of pseudo literature and film making would never see the light of day*. Is it fair that my (admittedly hypothetical ) work of art is doomed to remain unpublished while Dan Brown grows rich challenging some of the tenets of another faith (in a poorly written book at that) ?

Does anyone here think for one second that if I were to seriously suggest this as a "novel" any publishing house would touch it with a barge pole? Perhaps i'm wrong, but I think that there is an implicit understanding (indeed an implicit threat of violence, as with the Danish cartoons saga or the Satanic Verses) that Islam is "off limits" for any kind of criticism, satire or challenge, while both Christianity and Judaism are held up for ridicule on a daily basis with numerous works of fiction. As an aetheist I believe all organised religions to be equally daft, what I object to is the lack of parity that exists and this special protection that is accorded to Islam for no apparent reason that I can fathom. Is there a double standard within the PC brigades or are we right to offer a special place to followers of Islam because they are somehow more worthy of it that the rathe laissez faire Christians of the West ?




* I am willing to accept a very large fee from a reputable publishing house to expand on this idea.

bonkey

Salman Rushdie - Satanic Verses

IT was published, it wasn't shunned, and the end result is the man had to hide for his life.

If you think its a reflection on publishing industry, writers or 'the PC brigade' that a legitimate fear of death makes them less than enthusiastic to pick a fight.....I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

The only "special place" that Islam has to hold it above mockery in comparison to Christianity is the proven willingness of some of its adherents to commit murder in retribution for such mockery.

Worthiness, it aint.

Zombrex

growler wrote:

Does anyone here think for one second that if I were to seriously suggest this as a "novel" any publishing house would touch it with a barge pole?

Probably, not considering Muhammad had a number of sons and daughters, so the fact probably wouldn't be all that shocking :eek:

growler wrote:

Is there a double standard within the PC brigades or are we right to offer a special place to followers of Islam because they are somehow more worthy of it that the rathe laissez faire Christians of the West ?

Who are the "PC Brigades", and how do they stop work that would be consider insulting to Islam from being published?

I know of a large range of books that some Muslims would consider highly insulting, from decribing homosexual Muslims, to histories of Muslim fanaticalism. Western media has for a long time portrait fictional Muslim characters in a rather insulting light, from being stupid and smelly (Indiana Jones, The Mummy) to being violent nutcases (Crash) to being terrorists and fanatics (every high-jacking movie cira 80)

Sorry, I'm not seeing a lot of evidence of this idea that a huge double standard or censorship exists in western media. In fact the Danish cartoon incident kinda proves their isn't, since European and American news outlets were prepared to publish cartoons that incensed fanatical Muslims.

Dades

Nobody can stop you writing a book. If the story is good enough it will be published.

Dan Brown for all his "failings" did something the US entertainment industry rarely knowingly do - offend the Christian Right. Kudos to him for writing a bestseller on the back of it.

Metacortex

Dan Brown wasn't challenging any part of the Christian faith.
He wrote a work of fiction. On the first page of the book (yes the first page), it states that although it uses factual elements the book itself is a work of fiction.
Anyone who gets offended by a work of fiction probably shouldn't be allowed to watch television unsupervised.

Zombrex

Metacortex wrote:

Dan Brown wasn't challenging any part of the Christian faith.
He wrote a work of fiction. On the first page of the book (yes the first page), it states that although it uses factual elements the book itself is a work of fiction.
Anyone who gets offended by a work of fiction probably shouldn't be allowed to watch television unsupervised.

Yes, but it is the "factual elements" that are the cause of the contriversy. Brown is pretty much saying that the basis of his story revolves around is true, while his actual characters and story etc are fictional.

Its like a Tom Clancy book, the characters and story are fictional, but there is a US Navy and they do have blahblah class submarines, and they do follow this particular procedure when launching missles etc etc

bonkey

Wicknight wrote:

Yes, but it is the "factual elements" that are the cause of the contriversy.

I'd say its the lack of clarity as to which elements are factual and which aren't thats the main source of controversy.

The Catholic Church, Opus Dei, the Vatican, the Louvre...these all exist. This is enough to claim (at a stretch) that there are "factual elements" to the story, even if the rest of it is complete hokum.

Brown is pretty much saying that the basis of his story revolves around is true, while his actual characters and story etc are fictional.

I don't have his disclaimer to hand, but I'm pretty sure that Brown has never made such a claim. People have read his statements and understood them to mean that and he's done little to correct them, but its not quite the same thing.

Its like a Tom Clancy book, the characters and story are fictional, but there is a US Navy and they do have blahblah class submarines, and they do follow this particular procedure when launching missles etc etc

Indeed. Clancy also had his silent-propulsion Red October. Do we believe the details on that one too, just cause we know that much (but not all) of his descriptions of what US subs do is real?

Clancy has never (to my knowledge) come out and said "this is true, that is fiction", other than admitting to having altered details on how to build a nuclear bomb....but we don't even know for sure if what he altered the details from was originally correct or not.

The Atheist wrote:

Dan Brown for all his "failings" did something the US entertainment industry rarely knowingly do - offend the Christian Right.

You're joknig, aren't you? You don't really think the entertainment industry rarely knowingly offend the Christian Right????

You think they were surprised when the CR didn't really dig, say, a movie centred on gay cowboys? Bolt out of the blue, you reckon?

jc

humanji

bonkey wrote:

You think they were surprised when the CR didn't really dig, say, a movie centred on gay cowboys? Bolt out of the blue, you reckon?

Well in fairness, Brokeback Mountain was never expected to be a runaway success.Even though it had a big name director and stars, it was thought of as a small indy movie. Where as the DaVinci Code, which few people gave a sh1t about when the book came out first, was built up to be a blockbuster hollywood movie that everyone was going to see. Andit all just seemed to be a huge publicity stunt anyway that worked wonders for a very bad film.

Dades

bonkey wrote:

You're joknig, aren't you? You don't really think the entertainment industry rarely knowingly offend the Christian Right????

You think they were surprised when the CR didn't really dig, say, a movie centred on gay cowboys? Bolt out of the blue, you reckon?
jc

BB Mountain was really an Indie movie - only $14M to make - not exactly high risk.

Take the "His Dark Materials" adaptations. They're going to cost hundreds of millions to make - hence they're toning down the anti-church message so they don't exclude a big demograph.

The Hill Billy

[QUOTE=growlerPerhaps i'm wrong, but I think that there is an implicit understanding (indeed an implicit threat of violence, as with the Danish cartoons saga or the Satanic Verses) that Islam is "off limits" for any kind of criticism, satire or challenge, while both Christianity and Judaism are held up for ridicule on a daily basis with numerous works of fiction. [/QUOTE]

This may sound somewhat flippant, but here goes...

Christianity & Judaism are fair game because both Christians & Jews are culturally prepared to take the mick out of themselves. I can't be sure, but there are probably far more Christian & Jewish comedians out there than there are Muslim ones. They don't see the funny side of religion/life in the same way. Christians/Jews are just not as touchy when their religions are messed with by the media.

growler

bonkey wrote:

Salman Rushdie - Satanic Verses

IT was published, it wasn't shunned, and the end result is the man had to hide for his life.

If you think its a reflection on publishing industry, writers or 'the PC brigade' that a legitimate fear of death makes them less than enthusiastic to pick a fight.....I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

The only "special place" that Islam has to hold it above mockery in comparison to Christianity is the proven willingness of some of its adherents to commit murder in retribution for such mockery.

Worthiness, it aint.

i agree with you, and iirc Rushdie's book was the first to provoke such a militant reaction from islam. If the Christian Right were to bomb cinemas showing the Da Vinci code, or assassinate Dan Brown, if a Jewish organisation assassinated / threatened to murder Mel Gibson for the Passion, would we see the same unwilingness of the arts to deal with subject matter that may offend Christians / Jews ? Given the hornets nest that has been stirred up by such books / films, I wouldn't surprised if the CR were to adopt such tactics in defence of their faith.

BUT, i don't think that the arts / media world would back down from such intimidation coming from the CR. Offending christians in a largely christian country such as the US would seem to be far more risky than offending islam in a country where muslims are a small minority. I can fully understand a Saudi newspaper not wishing to serialise my work of fiction though.



Atheist: "If the story is good enough it will be published"
I don't think that that is true in the given example. But whats more I think its a very dangerous precedent to set, allowing the immplicit threat of violence to limit what subjects are open for criticism , derision and ridicule in the arts.

bonkey

The Atheist wrote:

BB Mountain was really an Indie movie - only $14M to make - not exactly high risk.

I don't recall you saying the entertainment industry don't knowingly offend the Christian right except on small-budget productions.

Maybe I mis-read your original comment.

The Atheist wrote:

Take the "His Dark Materials" adaptations. They're going to cost hundreds of millions to make - hence they're toning down the anti-church message so they don't exclude a big demograph.

Toning down, eh? So they're not removing it entirely? They're not refusing to make it because its still going to be offensive?

This would seem then to be a prime case where they've tried to make it so they anger fewer people and said people are less angered. This suggests that they know full well some still will be offended.

This is the point I'm making. They make allowances, but they haven't been cowed to the point where offence only happens because they weer cught off guard bya reaction. THey know full well when they're going to be offensive, and make a calculated decision as to just how offensive they choose (or can afford) to be.

Kevin Smith gives an excellent commentary (possibly about Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back) where he talks about the fines he had resign himself to pay in order to get some of his jokes in because he refused to pander to whatever interest-group who was going to be offended. This is how it works.

Or take a look at Harry Potter. Various so-called Christian groups want it banned because of the magic (ooooo Satanic influences) and whatnot in there. Walmart considered giving in to them (which is why it didn't stock Magic:The Gathering at some point...dunno if thats still the case). The movie and book-publishing industry on the other hand gave them the equivalent of two fingers and turned the thing into an even bigger phenomenon than it was.

InFront

I just had to read past the 'if youre a Muslim please dont read this'. Youseem to have a distorted opinion of what offends Muslims.

Sorry to tell you that, despite what you seem to think, you wouldnt be the first to write a work (fiction or otherwise) questioning the origins and the prophets of Islam. neither was that Browne fellow the first to do it with Christianity.

Anyway, with regards to humour about Islam, Ive heard Muslim jokes in everyday conversation and on RTE TV. That said I think downright satire about Islam is to be avoided for the moment as it is a very sensitive time. Actually Im a firm believer in only the Irish making Paddy jokes, the Jews making Jewish Jokes, etc...

Schuhart

Irish guy goes to the doctor and says
"Doctor, I've ten kids. I can't cope with any more. What should I do?"

The doctor looks at him like he has two heads and says,
"Use you head, for feck's sake."

A few months later the guy is back with the doctor.
"I did what you said, and the wife's not pregnant, but me ears are in bits."

Next.

growler

InFront wrote:

I just had to read past the 'if youre a Muslim please dont read this'. Youseem to have a distorted opinion of what offends Muslims.

Sorry to tell you that, despite what you seem to think, you wouldnt be the first to write a work (fiction or otherwise) questioning the origins and the prophets of Islam. neither was that Browne fellow the first to do it with Christianity.
...

so you don't think such a book would offend muslims ?

and (b) I know, they are mentioned in my post.

InFront

growler wrote:

so you don't think such a book would offend muslims ?
QUOTE]

Oh no it would offend some Muslims, alright, just like all the others did. But I dont think it would get their attention in the way that you imagine. Its quite believable I suppose... Muhammad did father children, maybe some were not accounted for, but why they wouldnt realize that til now or how theyd find out all of a sudden... well its your book. Knock yourself out.

growler

InFront wrote:

growler wrote:

so you don't think such a book would offend muslims ?
QUOTE]

Oh no it would offend some Muslims, alright, just like all the others did. .

so how m i supposed to distinguish between those who would be and those who would not be offended exactly? and how is my view distorted then if as you say some would ? Is some most, a few, not a lot ..what ?

InFront

growler wrote:

Please note: if you are a muslim please do not read this as you will no doubt be offended


I have an idea for a book and blockbuster movie...

This is how I mean your view is distorted. Some people would be offended by what youve written, but many would not care enough to make it halfway through your post, some woould buy the book etc. Sorry I cant give you actual numbers:rolleyes:

InFront

growler wrote:

so how m i supposed to distinguish between those who would be and those who would not be offended exactly?

Youre not! Who knows!? Write the book if you want!

growler

the point I originally was making was that I feel that western media is afraid to confront islamic beliefs in the same way as they would those of traditional western faiths. While I agree with you that many normal muslims wouldn't be bothered by my hypotethical novel, the evidence of the Satanic Verses and the Mohammed cartoons suggest that a fair few do. This creates an artificial imbalance in the media, where the implicit threat of violent protest, prevents western media taking a balanced view of all religions and their respective influences on society. Worse still, western media can now easily provoke an islamic backlash by deliberately courting controversy, yet the extremists continue to take the bait and get on TV getting all fired up with righteous indignation (appearing to represent the muslim faith) while 90% of the audience watching just think "nutters". It creates a largely, artificial divide.

The fact that I felt i had to post a warning on the original post is indicative of this and not something that would cross my mind if addressing a non muslim audience. I think Islam is being given special treatment because if it were treated the same way too many muslims would be offended, or rather enough extremists woud take the opportunity to publicise their depth of feeling on the issue.

I would much rather a scenario where islam was integrated into western society than see westen society integrated into islam, without integration there isn't much chance for harmony. I think the leaders of the muslim communities in the UK are not helping or seeking integration by demanding or receiving (sometimes without any demand) that society adapt to their world view. A failure to integrate islam in the western world and the UK in particular has led indirectly to things like the 7/7 tube bombings.

For some, and it seems they are often the most vocal, it would seem that islam and western secularity are diametrically (sp?) opposed, but 90% of the muslims I know don't feel that way at all.

I think its very easy for white europeans to see strict followers of islam as being the antithesis of westernism: dress, behaviour and socialisation are enormously different to what westerns consider the norm (just as orthodox jews are in many parts of the world). Moderate islam seems voiceless and seems willing to let the extremists dictate the tone. Perhaps thats just the media printing whats more controversial, but since 9/11 and 7/7 "average" muslims need to find a voice or a nasty clash of cultures seems possible.

InFront

growler wrote:

the extremists continue to take the bait and get on TV getting all fired up with righteous indignation (appearing to represent the muslim faith) while 90% of the audience watching just think "nutters". It creates a largely, artificial divide.

For some, and it seems they are often the most vocal, it would seem that islam and western secularity are diametrically (sp?) opposed, but 90% of the muslims I know don't feel that way at all.

Moderate islam seems voiceless and seems willing to let the extremists dictate the tone.

I agree with you on most of the above points. I felt the repeated printing of the drawings of Muhammad were disgraceful, but I still felt that the rioters were nutters. You might say this makes me a 'moderate Muslim'. Whatever the jargon is, I am entirely Muslim to my core, just not an extremist.

Western society is at odds with Islam in some respects, and we cannot expect total integration. I am slightly more liberal with my views (young male under 21... go figure!) but my parents favour the idea of female modesty. How can that be integrated with Playboy and Western values? It cant. Total integration is impossible without complete breakdown of one side.

Modern Islam is not voiceless, it just isnt being listened to. Nobody in the BBC or SKY cares if your typical Muslim grumbles about the extremists... thats not news. Its much more interesting to listen to the extremist,

I agree that Muslims are given special status in some aspects of the media. Sometimes that is for good reason i.e. not to appease, but just to have some consideration at a time where even us (hate the word) 'moderate' muslims feel under attack from a society we are trying to live with. The Danish cartoons for example, were continually reprinted just so as to get one over on the extremists. But what about those of us who dont care about extremists and just disliked the idea of the Prophed Muhammad being depcted as a terrorist? What do you think that suggests to us about Western perceptions of Muslims if that is what they think we believe in?

Of course trying to find a balance between not insulting normal Muslims and not giving in to extremists is not something I would pretend is an easy task for anyone. But normal Muslims should be considered because 'normal Islam' is undergoing such stark changes from within and currently facing up to some very painful realities like US invasions and trying to come to terms with that 'Westernism'

eye_is_james

peace

on the original suggested storyline idea of Muhammad(pbuh)'s descendants plotting global totalitarian religious dominion, let me say that i personally know a number of them and their lives are as open to scrutiny as yours, unlike the elites of alternative Abraham(ohbp)ic faiths

in contrast to Judaism, Islam remains open to all, and there is nothing in the Muslim Territories with which parallels to freemasonry can be drawn

amp

Schuhart wrote:

Irish guy goes to the doctor and says
"Doctor, I've ten kids. I can't cope with any more. What should I do?"

The doctor looks at him like he has two heads and says,
"Use you head, for feck's sake."

A few months later the guy is back with the doctor.
"I did what you said, and the wife's not pregnant, but me ears are in bits."

Next.

This is not the Humour forum. If you want tell jokes, do it there. If you want to stay here, read the charter.

Wibbs

InFront wrote:

I agree with you on most of the above points. I felt the repeated printing of the drawings of Muhammad were disgraceful, but I still felt that the rioters were nutters. You might say this makes me a 'moderate Muslim'. Whatever the jargon is, I am entirely Muslim to my core, just not an extremist.

Funny enough, even as a non muslim I'd have to agree with you there on the cartoon business. While I fully supported the right of the original cartoonists to draw and publish the work, the subsequent reprinting was taking the p1ss and no mistake.

Western society is at odds with Islam in some respects, and we cannot expect total integration. I am slightly more liberal with my views (young male under 21... go figure!) but my parents favour the idea of female modesty. How can that be integrated with Playboy and Western values? It cant. Total integration is impossible without complete breakdown of one side.

Agreed, and sadly those kind if issues may well be where the fault lines occur. I tell I would not be best pleased to end up defending "western" values using playboy as a rallying call(then again....).

Modern Islam is not voiceless, it just isnt being listened to. Nobody in the BBC or SKY cares if your typical Muslim grumbles about the extremists... thats not news. Its much more interesting to listen to the extremist,

Very true. Nutters make for better news. The problem may get worse, because of this bias. If "typical" Muslims don't get a voice, the support, tacit or not will grow for the extremists, because sadly they seem to be listened to.

I agree that Muslims are given special status in some aspects of the media. Sometimes that is for good reason i.e. not to appease, but just to have some consideration at a time where even us (hate the word) 'moderate' muslims.../...What do you think that suggests to us about Western perceptions of Muslims if that is what they think we believe in?

Agreed again.

The problem really with the OP's point, is that militant Islam certainly seems far more likely to respond with violence to percieved "attacks" on the faith. There are far more examples of this in Islam than in any other faith since the christian reformation. To be percieved as a heretic by the Islamic world is a dangerous place to be. Forget about just mass media, even in academia, historical/lingual papers on the origins of the Quran are scant and always hidden behind pseudonyms for safety, as Muslim and non muslim researchers in the past have been threatened and even killed for such works. This would certainly not be the case with biblical or any other academic studies. The recent case of the gospel of judas would likely not have seen the light of day if a similar work on the Islamic faith were found. The moderates sadly appear to hold less sway in cases like this.

fly_agaric

InFront wrote:

Western society is at odds with Islam in some respects, and we cannot expect total integration. I am slightly more liberal with my views (young male under 21... go figure!) but my parents favour the idea of female modesty. How can that be integrated with Playboy and Western values? It cant. Total integration is impossible without complete breakdown of one side.

Modern Islam is not voiceless, it just isnt being listened to. Nobody in the BBC or SKY cares if your typical Muslim grumbles about the extremists... thats not news. Its much more interesting to listen to the extremist,

I agree that Muslims are given special status in some aspects of the media. Sometimes that is for good reason i.e. not to appease, but just to have some consideration at a time where even us (hate the word) 'moderate' muslims feel under attack from a society we are trying to live with. The Danish cartoons for example, were continually reprinted just so as to get one over on the extremists. But what about those of us who dont care about extremists and just disliked the idea of the Prophed Muhammad being depcted as a terrorist? What do you think that suggests to us about Western perceptions of Muslims if that is what they think we believe in?

Of course trying to find a balance between not insulting normal Muslims and not giving in to extremists is not something I would pretend is an easy task for anyone. But normal Muslims should be considered because 'normal Islam' is undergoing such stark changes from within and currently facing up to some very painful realities like US invasions and trying to come to terms with that 'Westernism'

Very interesting post.

Just one thing about "Playboy" and all the other even viler rubbish generated by Western capitalism and consumer culture. It's not a full and complete representation of Europe or the US and their people (the main enemies of Islamic extremists at present) any more than terrorists killing for God, raving preachers with big beards going on about the evils of the Jews, and mobs of young men looting and burning things because its good fun [or whatever bogus "Islamic" excuse you are having yourself] are a full and complete representation of "Islam"/Islamic countries and muslims.

Although you may get both impressions if you gather all your information from watching the gogglebox.

Nobody sensible will hold it against muslims for not wanting to have anything to do with alot of the trends and fashions in Western countries which are totally contrary to what they believe in.

The problem comes from how far will what proportion of muslims in Western countries be willing to go to try and ensure everyone else conforms to their mores.

growler

fly_agaric wrote:

The problem comes from how far will what proportion of muslims in Western countries be willing to go to try and ensure everyone else conforms to their mores.

I think there's more to than that, take the playboy example,now pornography probably doesn't add much value to society (be interesting to hear someone who could argue that it does) but the liberal west doesn't have a great problem with nudity, like the nude sun bathing case..many westerners would defend one's right to do what you want you want with your body. Islam has a very different view on "female modesty" though, the stricter female muslims are happy to (or have to due to tradition) wear the burka. The two are extremes yet if you walk down the street, women in full islamic dress are a more visible representation of islamic values than a top shelf magazine. In a sense it represents a challenge to western liberalism, to me it looks like oppression of a sex, yet as a liberal I should defend their right to wear what they want, bit of a quandry.

I've travelled a lot in the middle east, and western women in the ME conform to those societies by adapting their dress, I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a reciprocal response from muslims living / visiting in the west. Tolerance needs to be a two way street, but I don't see any islamic countries (perhaps UAE to some extent) encouraging western women to dress as they want.

Also, strict interpretation of islam by muslims living in the west , necessarily isolates the same muslims from the society they live in. One can't strike up a conversation with a burka wearing woman on the bus for example, nor will she ever work in society (I've never met a muslim woman in a burka in my professional life). This leads to a two tier society, an us and them, with zero communication between the two, coupled with islam's cries of victimisation, no wonder extremists come to the fore.

Interesting BBC article on similar lines: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4204820.stm

fly_agaric

growler wrote:

I think there's more to than that, take the playboy example,now pornography probably doesn't add much value to society (be interesting to hear someone who could argue that it does) but the liberal west doesn't have a great problem with nudity, like the nude sun bathing case..many westerners would defend one's right to do what you want you want with your body. Islam has a very different view on "female modesty" though, the stricter female muslims are happy to (or have to due to tradition) wear the burka. The two are extremes yet if you walk down the street, women in full islamic dress are a more visible representation of islamic values than a top shelf magazine. In a sense it represents a challenge to western liberalism, to me it looks like oppression of a sex, yet as a liberal I should defend their right to wear what they want, bit of a quandry.

These are the kind of issues I was getting at. A truly liberal person (IMO) should accept someone choosing to wear a headscarf or a veil or a thong riding above their jeans, or to drink alcohol or not, or to pray x times a day or not so long as it does not interfere with, broadly speaking, other peoples' rights really. For a specific example, veils vs photo-id's and security.

What no "liberal" should accept is people being coerced into doing something by holier-than-thou types trying to ram it down the throats of those who want nothing to do with it.

So the question occurs again, will most muslims accept that alot of people in Western countries will want no truck with their Islamic way of life, not really give too much of a monkeys about it. Will they accept that probably some of their own numbers will be "corrupted" by the society they live in. In fact, the nature of that society will make it very hard (as as you pointed out, very isolating) to practice an extremely conservative form of any religion, not just Islam. Will they be able to deal with this without trying to bend people to their personal/God-directed mores (and thus impinge on the rights of others) using either legal means or violence/intimidation?

As the % of muslims living in the West grows the question becomes more critical. At least we don't really have to worry about it yet here.

These kind of questions are really something that all very literally religious people living in Western countries or people whose cultures are caught in a timewarp and now being assimilated into the Global/(Western/US) culture taking over the planet are having to face at the moment but Islam sticks out because (1) there are lots of muslims (2) there are large flows of immigrants from "muslim" countries to the "West", (3) ongoing US/Western meddling over oil wealth and Israel in the ME (where colonialism never really ended in some ways, the US and Israel just took over the baton), and (4) the violence of Islam's fundamentalists and the way they seem to be able to use either Islam itself or appealing victimology (see the previous line about Israel, the US, and the ME) to justify their violence.

growler wrote:

I've travelled a lot in the middle east, and western women in the ME conform to those societies by adapting their dress, I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a reciprocal response from muslims living / visiting in the west. Tolerance needs to be a two way street, but I don't see any islamic countries (perhaps UAE to some extent) encouraging western women to dress as they want.

Can the ME really teach us anything worthwhile about tolerance and where to draw the line?

growler wrote:

Also, strict interpretation of islam by muslims living in the west , necessarily isolates the same muslims from the society they live in. One can't strike up a conversation with a burka wearing woman on the bus for example, nor will she ever work in society (I've never met a muslim woman in a burka in my professional life). This leads to a two tier society, an us and them, with zero communication between the two, coupled with islam's cries of victimisation, no wonder extremists come to the fore.

True, but you can't force people to conform or integrate. Thats illiberal again really. You can try and make them as comfortable as possible by fighting real discrimination and accomodating and being tolerant of their way of life as much as is practical (but going over the edge from tolerance into pandering will probably just encourage segregation and then extremism) but at the end of the day, if some want to be fanatically religious, segregate themselves, and become convinced that the world is against them, what can you do?

growler

I guess I should add that I can understand and wholly accept immigratants, refugees, political asylum seekers who come from islamic countries to continue in the way of life / dress / religion / etc. they are accustomed to. What I am less able to understand is why they feel that their way of life (which includes religion) needs to be passed on to children born in the country to which they choose to live, with no allowance for said offspring adapting to their "host" society. There has to be a middle ground, the west cherishes freedom of religion, but if the religion doesn't cherish other western freedoms, then there's a problem.

growler

fly_agaric wrote:

These are the kind of issues I was getting at. A truly liberal person (IMO) should accept someone choosing to wear a headscarf or a veil or a thong riding above their jeans, or to drink alcohol or not, or to pray x times a day or not so long as it does not interfere with, broadly speaking, other peoples' rights really.

True, but you can't force people to conform or integrate. Thats illiberal again really. You can try and make them as comfortable as possible by fighting real discrimination and accomodating and being tolerant of their way of life as much as is practical (but going over the edge from tolerance into pandering will probably just encourage segregation and then extremism) but at the end of the day, if some want to be fanatically religious, segregate themselves, and become convinced that the world is against them, what can you do?

I wouldn't attempt to force anything on anyone, and as you rightly point out , you can't anyway, but as you say there is an edge between pandering and tolerance, right now in the UK I only see pandering and little reciprocation.

From the views expressed by InFront I can see some reciprocation of ideals and adapting to western life, yet others while appearing quite reasonable want no watering down of their chosen faith in order to live in "harmony" within a western society.

It's frustrating to see the freedom of a liberal society being used (dare i say , abused) to promote illeberal ideals.

InFront

growler wrote:

if you walk down the street, women in full islamic dress are a more visible representation of islamic values than a top shelf magazine. In a sense it represents a challenge to western liberalism, to me it looks like oppression of a sex, yet as a liberal I should defend their right to wear what they want, bit of a quandry.

And some people, not just Muslims, would see the girls outisde The Wez in Donnybrook as oppressed by the West. Here the burden of dress is placed on them by social cues, but the impetus is just as intense as the impetus on Islamic women in a Muslim state which enforces purdah (the hijab) through religion or, like in Pakistan, social tradition. Almost all of the women in my extended family be they in the West or the M. East wear what would be considered very moderate Islamic dress (pak-chadar)

I've travelled a lot in the middle east, and western women in the ME conform to those societies by adapting their dress

yes in Iran and Saudi Arabia probably, but often not elsewhere. In Pakistan foreign women often walk around in jeans and tshirts, getting no more than the odd dirty look. er literally, sometimes. :eek: Its not all one sided.

, I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a reciprocal response from muslims living / visiting in the west.

It wasnt long ago since Catholic nuns were isolated in convents with gowns far more restrictive than that which my mother has ever worn. And she lived in Pakistan in the 80s. Its fine for a non Muslim to wear the dupatta across her arm or neck when she visits the Middle East (Ive even seen it worn as a fashion accessory here!) But to ask a Muslim woman to forsake her religious dress, or worse to suggest that she should, is not the same thing, as it actually impinges on her religious worship. And anyway, the Western woman wearing a dupatta around her neck might actually benefit from the sun block!

Tolerance needs to be a two way street, but I don't see any islamic countries (perhaps UAE to some extent) encouraging western women to dress as they want.

I cant speak for all of the middle east but in Pakistan there is no requirement for a woman to observe any form of purdah. Its completely a socio-religious decision. I think Iran and Saudi Arabia are still compulsory?

Also, strict interpretation of islam by muslims living in the west , necessarily isolates the same muslims from the society they live in. One can't strike up a conversation with a burka wearing woman on the bus for example, nor will she ever work in society

I personally think the Burqa is an awful burden, I cant fathom it, and the women who do wear it, provided that they choose to, are heroic in their religious emthusiasm. Fair play to those that do choose it, their faith is made of rock. No Ive never spoken to a woman with a Burqa either, they always kind of frightened me.

InFront

growler wrote:

What I am less able to understand is why they feel that their way of life (which includes religion) needs to be passed on to children born in the country to which they choose to live, with no allowance for said offspring adapting to their "host" society.

Complete refusal to allow their children to adapt to the society would be absolutely impossible unless they were locked up in a box, and Ive never seen this happen, nor do I know or know of anyone who has refused to let their child integrate. Where would they learn/ go to school/ play???
Adapting to the host country always occurs, but not always to a great extent eg Muslim girls here are often instructed by their parents to maintain some form of Islamic dress,

But passing on religious tradition is important to all people of faith, as it is seen as the thing that a good parent does and is only ever dont with the child's interests at heart. If my parents didnt continue to immerse me in my Pakistani culture in the West Id probably be more interested and in love with it than I am today. and would no doubt resent them for it. You cant deny children access to their heritage or cloud it to 'fit in'.