A perspective on the news that Islamophobia on the rise in Ireland

Zombrex

Wibbs wrote:

Why not? The protestants don't have an issue with it and the chances of kiddie fiddling might be less.

I think the point was that if you judge a religous person just by the dogma of their religion then Christians are well on par with Muslims in the oppression stakes.

Women are not anymore "equal" in Christian dogma than they are in Islamic dogma. So why do we live in a largely free society for women in 21st Century Ireland? Because of secular reform. There is no reason to believe that Muslims cannot survive in this form of society any more than to believe Christians can't.

The idea that a Muslim living in Ireland must take the repressive nature of their religion much more seriously than a Christian living in Ireland is a rather weak argument. I know plenty of Catholics who Jackie would consider oppresive, most of my parents generation. People who would disown their daughters if they found out they were lilving "in sin" with a fella, or went out with a black man. To me it is bizzare to know a girl my own age (26) who is terrified of telling her parents from a small town in Galway that she is living with her boyfriend in a flat in Dublin, but obviously this still happens.

The important thing in Ireland is that secular reform continues. I'm not quite sure why people view Islam to be such a huge threat over Christianity. So far I've seen very little evidence at all to support the idea that our civil rights are under threat from Muslims influence in Ireland. TBH it seems more like mis-informed anti-Islamic scaremongering and ranting.

Wibbs

Wicknight wrote:

How did you come up with that one?

Agreed. I would say that it's far more important to distinguish between the vast majority of Muslims and the Islamic faith itself. There are differences. After all few Christians follow the mad guff in the old testament.

Who is allowing "inequality to be institutionalised"?

Places like Saudi Arabia, but we're a long way from that and highly unlikely to go down that particular boreen. We've had that kinda thing not so long ago in the early years of this country. I can't see us embracing that religious loopyness anytime soon tbh.

Wearing of a veil is not an act of sexist repression unless the woman is forced to wear the veil against her will. There is no law in Ireland requiring women to wear a Muslim veil and there certainly should be no law in Ireland requiring that a woman shouldn't be allowed wear a veil.

Thankfully agreed for the Irish situation. Personally I would ban all religious symbols in schools for example, but in practical terms that's difficult. The French heavyhanded example springs readily. All it did in many ways was force greater division between the ordinary french on both sides of the argument and give the right wing loopers on both sides the oxygen of publicity.

Wibbs

Wicknight wrote:

Women are not anymore "equal" in Christian dogma than they are in Islamic dogma.

Actually they're more so. Muslims often point out correctly that Islam originally gave women better rights in society. That was certainly the case all those years ago in many areas of society. That does not hold true anymore. Times change.

So why do we live in a largely free society for women in 21st Century Ireland? Because of secular reform. There is no reason to believe that Muslims cannot survive in this form of society any more than to believe Christians can't.

Exactly. Secular reform. Reform that has many parents. The reformation, the enlightenment and most importantly the inbuilt separation of church and state in Christianity. While many "christian" nations existed in the past, the principle is not contained in the scripture itself. Indeed the line "my kingdom is not of this earth" suggests the polar opposite. This is in stark contrast to the Islamic scripture, wherein church, law and state are clearly one and an aim to be striven for by the devout. The devout have a nasty tendency to drag the less so in their wake, given enough numbers. You can see this in the number of Islamic nations that have become more religiously based not less in the last century.

The idea that a Muslim living in Ireland must take the repressive nature of their religion much more seriously than a Christian living in Ireland is a rather weak argument.

Get your point. In fact away from some of the repressive regimes many come from, it would be hoped that they become less religiously dogmatic. It can go both ways for any religion though.

The important thing in Ireland is that secular reform continues. I'm not quite sure why people view Islam to be such a huge threat over Christianity.

Because among other things of the secular/church issue outlined above.

So far I've seen very little evidence at all to support the idea that our civil rights are under threat from Muslims influence in Ireland.

I agree with you on this one. Ireland is pretty safe from that kind of thing.

TBH it seems more like mis-informed anti-Islamic scaremongering and ranting.

True, but both sides are guilty of misinformed opinion. Especially the types who consider Islam like a differnt from of Christianity. Sure aren't we all the same kinda thing. People are generally the same, but the religions differ in many important ways.

Zombrex

Wibbs wrote:

That does not hold true anymore. Times change.

But dogma doesn't. Islam still gives women better status and rights than Christianity or Judaism.

Wibbs wrote:

The reformation, the enlightenment and most importantly the inbuilt separation of church and state in Christianity. While many "christian" nations existed in the past, the principle is not contained in the scripture itself.

Thats not the reason they don't exist now in western cultures, so the point is largely irrelievent (and not very convincing to begin with). No one said "hang on, Christianity is supposed to be seperate from the state."

In fact quite the oppose is true in the past and Christian morality reflected in state law is sought by a large number of Christians in the present.

Wibbs wrote:

This is in stark contrast to the Islamic scripture, wherein church, law and state are clearly one and an aim to be striven for by the devout.

Define "devout". Are all Muslims devout? Are a large majority devout?

My original point is that naturally know that despite a huge majority of the population being Catholic in Ireland the "devout" are relatively small in number, yet when it comes to Islam we seem to believe, for some strange reason, that the Muslim population is a wash with devout fundamentalist Muslims. Why?

The argument that to be a good Muslim you must be devout and therefore Muslims are going to be by definition devout, is rather weak. To be a good Christian you must be devout, but that doesn't stop the vast majority of Irish people not being devout while still considering themselves Christians, even good Christian. You still get the seriously devout Catholics, like my friends mother, but these people don't influence civil and legal law much anymore (though look at the divorce referendum), so I'm not sure why people fear devout Muslims over devout Christians?

Wibbs wrote:

You can see this in the number of Islamic nations that have become more religiously based not less in the last century.

Well the reasons for that are long and many, and not a whole lot to do with the dogma of the religon per-say. Secular, or liberal, democracies were springing up all over the middle east after the fall of the Ottomun Empire, yet as the region slid into the distable region it is now the fundamentalists took control, as happens in any distable region. Dogma is always a strong weapon to take use in times of uncertainty and repression, there is nothing unique in Islam with this. Christian dogma has been used many times in the past for the same reason.

Wibbs wrote:

Get your point. In fact away from some of the repressive regimes many come from, it would be hoped that they become less religiously dogmatic.

I would hope that as well. My main objection to Jackies attitude towards new Muslims in this country is that it is only going to insult them, and reaffirm their pre-concieved idea that western "freedom" is nothing more than an insult to their religion and even an attempt to destory it. And as such it will be considered incompatable with Islam, which isn't true at all, but is something preached by the fundamentalists elements in the religion.

Wibbs wrote:

It can go both ways for any religion though.

It can, which is why this situation needs to be handled carefully. A lot of Muslims see the west as hypocrates for exactly the reason above. We talk of justice and freedom yet we seek to destroy their religion and have spent the last 50 years de-stablising their homelands. We should be demonstrating we are not hypocrates, in Ireland at least, rather than proving we are.

Wibbs wrote:

Sure aren't we all the same kinda thing. People are generally the same, but the religions differ in many important ways.

They do, but it is largely a myth that the "good" elements of Christianity rise it above the standard of religious like Islam, since what you and like mind people believe the teachings of Christianity are (peace, love etc) are largely ignored by people who want to do harm yet justifiy it by Christianity, which is exactly what happens in Islam as well.

There is nothing in the Christian religion that will stop religious oppression in the name of Christianity, as nearly 1500 of European history has taught us. Belief to the contrary is increable naieve.

Muslims know this, and the constant preaching to them that Christianity is the religous of love while Islam is the religon of war is seen as yet another western hypocracy, especially with the deeply religous USA and its deeply religous Presidents spending the last 20 years bombing the crap out of the Middle East.

Hobbes

My point earlier is that people go on about how "We live in a free western society".

Freedom is very subjective. Certainly some of the posts on AH for example shows people consider themselves oppressed because they smoke.

Likewise with regards to drugs. We are a very oppresive regime compared to say Holland when it comes to drug usage.

Abortion is another where we are in a somewhat restrictive regime in this regards.

Just because you don't see it as a restriction on *your* freedom doesn't mean it is not oppresive in some way or another.

Wibbs

Wicknight wrote:

But dogma doesn't. Islam still gives women better status and rights than Christianity or Judaism.

The point is that those rights or lack of them have little importance now as we've evolved to be now largely secular.

Thats not the reason they don't exist now in western cultures, so the point is largely irrelievent (and not very convincing to begin with). No one said "hang on, Christianity is supposed to be seperate from the state."

Actually many did. The reformation alone wrested many of the grips from the church on the state. The fact that there's no mechanism present for creating government in christian belief when compared to Islam is an obvious one. It is relevant to compare the two.

Define "devout". Are all Muslims devout? Are a large majority devout?

How does one quantify such a thing? Answer is you can't. The problem comes when the "devout" gain a large voice the normal adherants generally follow them.

My original point is that naturally know that despite a huge majority of the population being Catholic in Ireland the "devout" are relatively small in number, yet when it comes to Islam we seem to believe, for some strange reason, that the Muslim population is a wash with devout fundamentalist Muslims. Why?

Go back 40yrs and look at Ireland and the grip the devout had on the place and this is after centuries of change in the christian faith. After reformations, enlightments, revolutions et al. Little of which happened in the Muslim world.

Well the reasons for that are long and many, and not a whole lot to do with the dogma of the religon per-say. Secular, or liberal, democracies were springing up all over the middle east after the fall of the Ottomun Empire, yet as the region slid into the distable region it is now the fundamentalists took control, as happens in any distable region.

Not really. Look at many of the revolutions in Europe and elswhere under unstable circumstances. They mostly went the secular republic route with smatterings of christianity thrown in. It doesn't seem to follow the same route as the Islamic nations. It would be like France becoming dogmatically catholic after the french revolution. Didn't happen. In fact off the top of my head the only place I can think of where a "christian" countries revolution gave birth to a quasi religious state is in Ireland. Go figure. I for one don't want to repeat that mistake anywhere.

Dogma is always a strong weapon to take use in times of uncertainty and repression, there is nothing unique in Islam with this. Christian dogma has been used many times in the past for the same reason.

Correct and the important words are "in the past". In many areas of Islam this is happening today. I'd be more than uneasy at 15th century christian thinking influencing policy as much as Islamic thinking.

I would hope that as well. My main objection to Jackies attitude towards new Muslims in this country is that it is only going to insult them, and reaffirm their pre-concieved idea that western "freedom" is nothing more than an insult to their religion and even an attempt to destory it. And as such it will be considered incompatable with Islam, which isn't true at all, but is something preached by the fundamentalists elements in the religion.

True. The western side may react in the same way as well. Difficult balance.

It can, which is why this situation needs to be handled carefully. A lot of Muslims see the west as hypocrates for exactly the reason above. We talk of justice and freedom yet we seek to destroy their religion and have spent the last 50 years de-stablising their homelands. We should be demonstrating we are not hypocrates, in Ireland at least, rather than proving we are.

Well I don't know about seeking to destroy their religion per se, but I agree with you generally with regard to the rest.

They do, but it is largely a myth that the "good" elements of Christianity rise it above the standard of religious like Islam, since what you and like mind people believe the teachings of Christianity are (peace, love etc) are largely ignored by people who want to do harm yet justifiy it by Christianity, which is exactly what happens in Islam as well.

Not quite. While I do agree that both sides have blood on their hands, if you compare the founders of the respective faiths and their lives there is far more of a deviation from the peace love bit on the Muslim side, especially in Mohammeds later campaigns. Some would contend chalk and cheese.

There is nothing in the Christian religion that will stop religious oppression in the name of Christianity, as nearly 1500 of European history has taught us. Belief to the contrary is increable naieve.

Indeed it would be. It would also be incredibly naive to deny that Islam has more death to unbelievers/house of war/house of peace guff in it than christianity. A policy that the founder of the faith himself had little problem in following by his wars and empire building in the name of his religion. Slight diff right there. The crusades are a good example. The ordinary footsoldiers who fought on those crusade who thought they were doing gods work would have been a little confused had they been able to read their scriptures as there is no mention of defending the faith by a holy war. Certainly when compared to Islam where there most definitely is. And lots of it.

Muslims know this, and the constant preaching to them that Christianity is the religous of love while Islam is the religon of war is seen as yet another western hypocracy, especially with the deeply religous USA and its deeply religous Presidents spending the last 20 years bombing the crap out of the Middle East.

TBH I have just as much issue with christian muppets as I do with islamic ones.

Zombrex

Wibbs wrote:

The point is that those rights or lack of them have little importance now as we've evolved to be now largely secular.

Which is of course a good thing, my point was that Islam is starting off on an even better footing than Christianity or Judaism, so this belief held by many that Muslims are fundamentally opposed to such reform seems rather strange. The religon is no more fundamentally opposed than Christianity, and Western Christians (some at least) have made the transition.

Wibbs wrote:

Actually many did. The reformation alone wrested many of the grips from the church on the state. The fact that there's no mechanism present for creating government in christian belief when compared to Islam is an obvious one. It is relevant to compare the two.

I'm not aware of any major revolutionaries in Europe who argued that seperation of church and state was required by the Bible, or of any leaders of the church who went along with such thinking. I might be wrong, but the fact that I haven't at least demonstrates that they weren't well known.

Wibbs wrote:

How does one quantify such a thing? Answer is you can't. The problem comes when the "devout" gain a large voice the normal adherants generally follow them.

Well thats not really the "problem" as put forward by the arguments here.

The "problem" as many appear to see it is that Muslims are by definition devote, and as such fundamentally opposed to anything not described in the Quar'an or their religous teaching, and therefore they are opposed to "western" ideas such as equality between women.

Now I don't agree with that, we can see that the vast majority of Christians in Ireland are not "devout", so I find it a little hard to believe the vast majority of Muslims in Ireland are devout also.

Wibbs wrote:

Go back 40yrs and look at Ireland and the grip the devout had on the place and this is after centuries of change in the christian faith. After reformations, enlightments, revolutions et al. Little of which happened in the Muslim world.

The Muslim world had its fair share of "enlightments" (btw the "enlightment" in Europe lead to the bloodiest 400 years in Earth's history, so not quite sure it qualifies as an "enlightnment" per say, but thats off topic). Seperation of Church and State powers was taking place in the Ottomun Empire long before any such ideas trickled down to Europe.

But getting into a pissing contest over whos culture has gone through what enlightment stages is largely pointless. As you point out, despite 300 years of religous reform in Europe Ireland as steeped in Catholic power and control until 30 years ago. Religous fundamentalism is on a steep rise in the United States, the first country to really embrace sepeartion of church and state yet probably won't have a non-Christian president for at least 20 years. As I've tried to point out a number of times the democracy and religous reform was spreading throught the Middle East like wild fire 50 years ago, until it was crushed by meddling western interests.

Europes "enlightenment" is nothing to be particularly chuffed about. There aren't any ideas that have not long ago filtered into the Muslim world, and it certainly hasn't protected Christian countries from their fair share of oppression and fundamentalism.

Wibbs wrote:

Not really. Look at many of the revolutions in Europe and elswhere under unstable circumstances. They mostly went the secular republic route with smatterings of christianity thrown in.

Well

a) they didn't, and

b) the spread of Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East in the last 40 years is a specific set of circumstances. You can almost consider it one revolution. The revolutions before that, when the Muslim countries broke from the Ottomun empire, resulted in a number of liberal democracies. The idea that revolutions in Muslim countries always result in hardline Islamic states is not true. In fact it couldn't be further from the truth.

Wibbs wrote:

Not quite. While I do agree that both sides have blood on their hands, if you compare the founders of the respective faiths and their lives there is far more of a deviation from the peace love bit on the Muslim side, especially in Mohammeds later campaigns. Some would contend chalk and cheese.

Using a comparision of Mohammed to Jesus or Paul is largely pointless if you ignore everything that happened after.

Would that fact that Christianity, a religious that is supposed to have peace and love as its core beliefs, has been at the centre of countless war over the last 2000 years, and the destruction of entire peoples and continents, not tell you that there is nothing particualry "good" about the teachings of Christianity that will prevent these acts over the teaching of Islam?

Islam, a religon founded on conflict, has yet instead produced a relatively peaceful reigion when placed beside the Christian Empires. What does that tell one about Christianity and Islam?

Wibbs wrote:

Indeed it would be. It would also be incredibly naive to deny that Islam has more death to unbelievers/house of war/house of peace guff in it than christianity.

You can use Christianity or Islam to justify pretty much anything you like. Whether or not it has "more" reasons to justify anything you like is largely irrelevent, since if you want to kill people you only need one reason, be you Christian or Muslim. Have 100 reasons over 99 will make little difference.

Wibbs wrote:

The ordinary footsoldiers who fought on those crusade who thought they were doing gods work would have been a little confused had they been able to read their scriptures as there is no mention of defending the faith by a holy war.

Have you ever read the Old Testement? :-)

Besides do you think the Pope didn't read the teachings of Jesus? Did the Kings and Knights? They all did, and they all manged to find a way to justify it. And if they tell the foot soldiers that it is Gods work, who are the footsoldiers to argue.

The idea that if people just bothered to understand Christianity they wouldn't do these terrible things is rather nonsense, since it isn't actually true and even if it was it appears from history that people don't bother in the first place.

fly_agaric

Wicknight wrote:

My original point is that naturally know that despite a huge majority of the population being Catholic in Ireland the "devout" are relatively small in number, yet when it comes to Islam we seem to believe, for some strange reason, that the Muslim population is a wash with devout fundamentalist Muslims. Why?

It is not strange at all. The number of muslims in Ireland is pretty small. There are very few Irish-born muslims as of yet. Most of these would probably be converts (so devout I'd expect).

Most "Irish" muslims are immigrants from countries where the devout make up at least as big and important a constituency as they did in Holy Catholic Ireland once upon a time. Hardly a massive leap to say the muslims in Ireland are probably devout.

Wicknight wrote:

that doesn't stop the vast majority of Irish people not being devout while still considering themselves Christians, even good Christian.

There is actually a religion called Christianity (a class/group) and the objects can only be said to be/have been members of that class if they possess/posessed certain attributes (such as believing that Jesus is the son of God who rose from the dead on the 3rd day and then ascended into heaven etc etc [apologies for any scriptural errors;)]).

Hobbes knows all this very well since he has given the helpful hint to all us "Islamophobes" that technically, "Muslim" terrorists are not "Muslim" anymore because they broke The Spirit in the Sky's do not kill clause.

I wonder what proportion of Irish people actually believe that Jesus was the Son of God??

Hobbes wrote:

My point earlier is that people go on about how "We live in a free western society".

Freedom is very subjective. Certainly some of the posts on AH for example shows people consider themselves oppressed because they smoke.

Likewise with regards to drugs. We are a very oppresive regime compared to say Holland when it comes to drug usage.

Abortion is another where we are in a somewhat restrictive regime in this regards.

Just because you don't see it as a restriction on *your* freedom doesn't mean it is not oppresive in some way or another.

Yep. If we reset the prime meridian to Greenwich Village, New York, we'd be "Easterners". So there!

The Irish "Regime" makes it illegal for me to smoke a ciggie indoors in public places/at work, bang a prostitute, score some pot and round off a truly excellent evening by euthanising my brother and myself in a mutual suicide pact --> I'm oppressed!

You are debasing the word "oppressed"!

Seems you think it could mean anything from being mildly inconvenienced to being tortured by the secret police for saying the clergy/government/Dear Leader stinks.

Wibbs

Wicknight wrote:

Which is of course a good thing, my point was that Islam is starting off on an even better footing than Christianity or Judaism, so this belief held by many that Muslims are fundamentally opposed to such reform seems rather strange. The religon is no more fundamentally opposed than Christianity, and Western Christians (some at least) have made the transition.

The idea that Islam as a faith(and it's defintions of equality etc) needs any type of reform will get you into trouble with many muslims.

I'm not aware of any major revolutionaries in Europe who argued that seperation of church and state was required by the Bible, or of any leaders of the church who went along with such thinking. I might be wrong, but the fact that I haven't at least demonstrates that they weren't well known.

The fact remains that the seperation is there as a concept and isn't there in Islam. Quite the opposite.

The "problem" as many appear to see it is that Muslims are by definition devote, and as such fundamentally opposed to anything not described in the Quar'an or their religous teaching, and therefore they are opposed to "western" ideas such as equality between women.

Really? take a look any of the Muslim countries when anyone dares to stick their head above the parapet and suggest that something in the quran is not quite right.

Now I don't agree with that, we can see that the vast majority of Christians in Ireland are not "devout", so I find it a little hard to believe the vast majority of Muslims in Ireland are devout also.

I agree with that too. There does seem to be a more vocal group around though, which gets little disagreement from the mainstream.

Seperation of Church and State powers was taking place in the Ottomun Empire long before any such ideas trickled down to Europe.

Eh no it didn't. For a start the french and american revolutions and the ideologies that supported them were a bit before that you know.

Europes "enlightenment" is nothing to be particularly chuffed about.

You reckon?

There aren't any ideas that have not long ago filtered into the Muslim world, and it certainly hasn't protected Christian countries from their fair share of oppression and fundamentalism.

You could argue that it did. It may have been much worse without it.

a) they didn't,

Can you name a European country that didn't other than ireland?

b) the spread of Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East in the last 40 years is a specific set of circumstances. You can almost consider it one revolution. The revolutions before that, when the Muslim countries broke from the Ottomun empire, resulted in a number of liberal democracies. The idea that revolutions in Muslim countries always result in hardline Islamic states is not true. In fact it couldn't be further from the truth.

Not quite. After WW1 and the disolution of the ottaman empire and the caliphate many Muslims thought the new secularisation was a threat and a dilution of Islam. Many old time religious movements sprung up(or reinvigorated) around this time in response to this threat. That early pan Arabic left wing secular ideal was in the last 30yrs thrown out in favour of a far more islamist view of things.

Using a comparision of Mohammed to Jesus or Paul is largely pointless if you ignore everything that happened after.

Not really. If you take the first principle, however it's interpreted later it's easier to see how one would be more likely to foster aggressive tendencies.

Would that fact that Christianity, a religious that is supposed to have peace and love as its core beliefs, has been at the centre of countless war over the last 2000 years, and the destruction of entire peoples and continents, not tell you that there is nothing particualry "good" about the teachings of Christianity that will prevent these acts over the teaching of Islam?

You could say the same about buddism or any other faith, but it doesn't take away from the notion that Islam was violent at birth, had a tendency to grow violently(it pread at the point of a god backed sword) and it has that tendency built in more than others. The fact that mohammed carried a sword in battle and was directly responsible for many deaths on his conquests throws him into sharp relief with any of the other religious founders.

Islam, a religon founded on conflict, has yet instead produced a relatively peaceful reigion when placed beside the Christian Empires. What does that tell one about Christianity and Islam?

You are kidding aren't you. The Islamic empire had very bloody wars of invasion on the back of faith spreading and land grabbing every bit the equal of Europe at it's worst. Another example; in slave trading alone they make Europe a late flash in the pan by comparison. Islam was as peaceful as the roman empire on that basis. How do you think the Islamic empire got so big?

You can use Christianity or Islam to justify pretty much anything you like. Whether or not it has "more" reasons to justify anything you like is largely irrelevent, since if you want to kill people you only need one reason, be you Christian or Muslim. Have 100 reasons over 99 will make little difference.

True, but it's far easier to invoke islam to do it.

Have you ever read the Old Testement? :-)

Gore all over the place.

Besides do you think the Pope didn't read the teachings of Jesus? Did the Kings and Knights? They all did, and they all manged to find a way to justify it. And if they tell the foot soldiers that it is Gods work, who are the footsoldiers to argue.

Yes they did and some even had grave issues with it, but the land grab political ideals took over and the footsoldiers were fed bull to comply. As usual.

The idea that if people just bothered to understand Christianity they wouldn't do these terrible things is rather nonsense, since it isn't actually true and even if it was it appears from history that people don't bother in the first place.

No you're right they don't or ignore it. How much easier is it to do terrible things if it's seen in black and white as a religious duty for some?

Wibbs

We could go back and forth on this one TBH. The fact is that I don't think ireland is ever going down the road of the taliban. To think so at this point is daft. To think that many muslims would want it to is equally daft. It's far more likely in many of the countries they left. The fact that they left might indicate something. As for the two religions involved; I like many of the humanist teachings of Jesus, however I find many christians of a certain type to be a bit of a pain. Same goes for the Buddha. Conversely I dislike many of the teachings of Mohammed, but I find most muslims I've met to be cool. Muppets require little justification for stupidity. I've learnt to distinguish between the faith and the faithful. Maybe that's the trick to better understanding on both sides. I've far more faith in people than theistic constructs.

Jackie laughlin

The criticism of Islam rather Christianity here is because that's the subject.

I'd have no difficulty having a go at nationalist, Catholic Ireland. It needed to be be exposed, its power reduced and many of its tenets rejected. That project continues. However, many traits in Islam are similar and deserve the same treatment.

When Father Crilly kicked Bishop Brennan up the arse, he did a lot more for Irish freedom than our "patriot dead". Similarly an Imam Brennan needs to be kicked up the arse. However, Islam is approached differently because we have a deformed notion of "tolerance" when it comes to Islam. It's partly due to fear of repercussions.

There are at least two Islamic schools in Ireland in which little girls appear in veils. Our state should not abandon these Irish girls (and boys) to accepting this indoctrination in inequality at the end of which they will "freely choose" modesty.

Wearing the hijab in public is a statement. Those who disagree should reply - gently but firmly.

The freedom to be a Christian, a Muslim, A Jew, An Atheist etc in Ireland depends entirely on an open liberal society where values are challenged and made fun of. Of course I accept that many muslims can see this as well as I can.

It's become popular to dismiss the Enlightenment. I'm glad of it. I owe it my right to sit here and express myself.

Hobbes

fly_agaric wrote:

You are debasing the word "oppressed"!

Seems you think it could mean anything from being mildly inconvenienced to being tortured by the secret police for saying the clergy/government/Dear Leader stinks.

No. I am saying that oppression is subjective (defination btw " To keep down by severe and unjust use of force or authority" ).

I find for example arranged marriages oppressive, however I know a few people who have gone through this and don't think anything of it (and most of them I know aren't even muslim btw).

Or a better example is NAMBLA who geniuely think they are being oppressed, where as I think they should all be locked up if they even attempt anything on a child.

Zombrex

Jackie laughlin wrote:

When Father Crilly kicked Bishop Brennan up the arse, he did a lot more for Irish freedom than our "patriot dead". Similarly an Imam Brennan needs to be kicked up the arse. However, Islam is approached differently because we have a deformed notion of "tolerance" when it comes to Islam. It's partly due to fear of repercussions.

Its mostly because we aren't Muslims.

You, and me and probably most western Christians don't even understand Islam or the culture enought to criticise it in the way something like Father Ted satarised the Catholic Church.

Imagine if a Chinese comedy troup (such things do exist) took on Catholic church in Ireland. Do you think that would have been as clever as Father Ted? Do you think Irish people would have lapped it up or been quite offended that an external culture was laughing at our culture and history, a culture and history they didn't even properly understand?

Jackie laughlin wrote:

There are at least two Islamic schools in Ireland in which little girls appear in veils. Our state should not abandon these Irish girls (and boys) to accepting this indoctrination in inequality at the end of which they will "freely choose" modesty.

So instead the state should force the children to ignore the religous wishes of the parents? Does that hold for Catholic children wearing crosses as well?

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Wearing the hijab in public is a statement. Those who disagree should reply - gently but firmly.

Disagree with what? Islam? I'm not even sure you understand what that statement is.

Its funny that our society can lambast girls heading out in mini-skirts and low cut tops, yet equally lambast Muslim women covering up their hair and neck.

If a Muslim women feels that it is immodest to go out in public showing her hair, how is that any different than an Irish women thinking it is immodest to be seen out in public with her belly exposed, or in a low cut top with her breasts on show?

Surely people should be allowed wear what ever they wish. You talk about "freedom" all the time and yet criticies one of the most basic freedoms, that of expression of religion and expression of ones self.

fly_agaric

Hobbes wrote:

No. I am saying that oppression is subjective (defination btw " To keep down by severe and unjust use of force or authority" ).

There is subjectivity, but I'd argue it is not so great that we actually can't classify societies/countries along the lines free/not free, which seemed to be what you were saying when you criticised people for unqualified comments like "we live in a free society".

Hobbes wrote:

I find for example arranged marriages oppressive, however I know a few people who have gone through this and don't think anything of it (and most of them I know aren't even muslim btw).

If there is no compulsion involved - no oppression. Your def. says "severe and unjust use of force and authority".

Hobbes wrote:

Or a better example is NAMBLA who geniuely think they are being oppressed, where as I think they should all be locked up if they even attempt anything on a child.

Are they some paedophiles sexual rights:rolleyes: group or something?

Your freedom and rights end where someone elses' begin.
If any group have total freedom, everyone else whose rights may intersect theirs will suffer from restrictions/limitations of their freedom which may be severe enough to be "oppression".

FEG - if smokers can puff away on a bus (they used to be able to smoke on the top deck AFAIK) or in the cinema or the pub to their hearts discontent, they subject the rest of us to their rotten poisonous fumes and damage our health. Especially those unfortunates who have to work there and can't escape to fresh air.

So smokers' rights to indulge themselves wherever they want cuts across the right of non-smokers to breath clean air and for workers not to have their health damaged on the job.

Jackie laughlin

People are free to wear what they like. People are free to argue that they should not dress this way. People are free to ridicule them.

If we had a Chinese theatre group who felt that they couldn't make fun of Irish traditions because we might react badly, our open society would be in danger.

Children should not be taught to accept inequality. Their parents do not own them and their futures. The state tries to liberate children from their parents ideas all the time. We try to inculcate a desire for education over parents' head etc, etc.

Islam is just another group in an open society. It should be treated as such.

Zombrex

Jackie laughlin wrote:

People are free to ridicule them.

They are, but I fail to see what you think that will achieve.

You talk about Muslim women being "oppressed", talk of Muslim children being "oppressed", because their religion expects a higher level of modest dressing than we are used to in western society.

Yet your answer to this seems to be insult and ridicule this style of dress because you disagree with it. Which seems rather a baffling way of "tackling the issue". I'm not even sure you even understand the issue (see above)

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Children should not be taught to accept inequality.

The issue isn't inequality, the issue is standards of modesty. Do you understand why Muslim women wear the head scarf?

If you want to start teaching Muslim children that they should not wear there head scarf, should we teach Christian girls that they can turn up to school in a bathing suit if they want too, or in a see through dress?

No school in the country would except a 12 year old turning up to class in a mini-skirt and low cut top. If they were stopped would this be a form of "inequality"?

Sesshoumaru

Crosses, veils, skullcaps whatever religous junk should be banned from schools. It ridiculous to be forcing religion onto kids at such a young age. We don't expect them to be voting for political partys when they are 6 years old but its ok to indoctrinate them into their parents whacky beliefs at that age?

Jackie laughlin

I didn't mean to suggest that ridicule be the only reaction when one disagrees. I simply wanted to mention it as acceptable and important, certainly permissible.

Muslim veils are not to do with "nice" standards of modesty. The veils are a statement: that women are inferior and that they are a temptation to men. The last time I heard this rubbish it was from a christian Brother! It should not have been allowed then; it should not be taught to children now.

My main point is that Islam in the west will have to accept that it is subject (Yes, I said "subject".) to western discourse. If they are in a minority, it is the open liberal society which guarantees that they can worship in peace.

Frank Grimes

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I didn't mean to suggest that ridicule be the only reaction when one disagrees. I simply wanted to mention it as acceptable and important, certainly permissible.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

If they are in a minority, it is the open liberal society which guarantees that they can worship in peace.

Do you not see a contradiction here?
Regardless of whether you like it or not, Muslim women who wear headscarves etc. see it as part of their worship. As you said yourself, they have a right to do it here. I don't think they're going to stop, nor should they be expected to, because some people have a grudge against the Catholic Church (or religion in general for that matter) and somehow think it's acceptable to take it out on Muslims (you seem to be mentioning the Catholic Church in your posts a lot, I can only assume this has something to do with the problem you have with Muslim women wearing scarves).
Ridiculing anyone over the clothes they wear, no matter what their reasoning for wearing them, is just childish. It's none of your or anyone else's business why people wear the clothes they do.

Zombrex

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Muslim veils are not to do with "nice" standards of modesty.

Thats actually exactly what they are about.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

The veils are a statement: that women are inferior and that they are a temptation to men.

You are right about the statement, but it is not that women are inferior. We can argue till we are black and blue if Islam proclaims women are inferior to men. Christianity and Judoism certainly do, so it wouldn;t be a surprise if Islam did also. But that is not the point of the veil.

The statement is firstly that the women is Muslim. Not so important these days, but very important back in the middle ages. There are standards of dress for men too, including growing a beard. Secondly the statement is of modesty because the woman is Muslim. This is exactly the same as Christian churches requiring men and women to cover their sholders and legs when they enter a church, which you get all the time in places like Italy and Greece.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

The last time I heard this rubbish it was from a christian Brother!

Ever occured to you that if people keep explaining you are mistaken maybe you are actually mistaken?

Jackie laughlin wrote:

It should not have been allowed then; it should not be taught to children now.

Modest dress codes are enforced in every single school in Ireland, so you have a bit of an up hill struggle to get to the point where every child can wear what ever they want without the permission of either the school or the parents.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

If they are in a minority, it is the open liberal society which guarantees that they can worship in peace.

And also guarantees that you can make sweeping statements about their religion based on lack of understanding and ignorance, which you seem to be doing quite a bit. Isn't democracy great!

Jackie laughlin

Wicknight,
Democracy and the open society are great. I really appreciate freedom.

Are you suggesting that I should have accepted the views of the Christian Brothers? They inhabited an authoritarian and frankly silly view of the world. Their views on women were patently daft. Even as a child I could see this. I had a mother, aunts, sisters and what I was hearing about their nature was at odds with reality. My point is that the Brothers' view is the Islamic view but a bit less extreme.

Christian nonsense cannot be used to justify Islamic nonsense. Anyway, most or many Christians seem to have embraced sexual equality without leaving their belief in God and Christ behind them.

There is a world of difference between dressing modestly and covering up lest you be "an occasion of sin" to men whose passions cannot be controlled. The latter is sexist nonsense used to subordinate women. Incidentally it also gives men license to behave badly towards women. Young boys and girls should hear this position and be told why it is wrong both practically and morally.

In society generally a woman appearing in public dressed to make this strong argument should be left in no doubt that while her views are tolerated, they will be challenged.

muesli_offire

I think we should accept, as we do with most other cultures that the reasons for dressing a particular way are quite overdetermined and not simply a direct reflection of some aspect of environment.

Why should islam suggest a more direct and easy causality than other religions? How can you reduce clothes that muslim women wear to dogma? Its not like "oh,the eskimo wears parka to protect self from cold, so similarly the muslim woman wears headscarve to protect from divine retribution" - thats just bad zoology. No religion, (ie. community/ies of worshippers) is a dogma - this is common sense, but what aint is to view a piece of cloth as an instrument of oppression.

Believe it or not all women who wear headscarves do not have a mullah barking commands over their shoulder, nor is it simply a matter of societally mediated or institutionalized oppression or ideology or whatever. I'm sorry to labour this point, but I really do not understand how any person (or State!) who believes in inter-faith dialogue can inflate trivia like this.

Zombrex

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Are you suggesting that I should have accepted the views of the Christian Brothers?

No, I'm suggesting you educate yourself a bit more as to why Muslim women wear a veil around their heads, and if Muslim women in Ireland feel oppressed or disciminated against by Muslim men because of this requirement in their religion.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Christian nonsense cannot be used to justify Islamic nonsense.

Its not, its used to put Islamic "oppression" in Ireland into perspective.

How many Irish women today who consider themselves Catholic feel oppressed by the Catholic law stating sexual intercourse outside of marriage is a sinful act? How many take seriously the laws stated in the Old Testement with reguard to marriage and ownership of women?

Irish women are free to follow this or not to follow it. Do you feel the need to criticise women who choose to wait till they are married on religoius grounds? Are these women making a statement of religous oppression?

Jackie laughlin wrote:

There is a world of difference between dressing modestly and covering up lest you be "an occasion of sin" to men whose passions cannot be controlled.

Is that not the reason you dress modestly? Why would Irish society disapprove if a woman (or man) went to work naked?

The only difference here is the standards of what is considered "modest" dress code.

Muslim religion teaches that it is immodest for a woman to reveil her hair to a man other than her husband, since a womans hair is considered an expression of sexuality, and sexuality should be only shown between a married couple, a view shared by both Christianity and Judaism. Some Muslims women also take the descriptions in the Quar'an to mean the face as well, though this is less common.

Non-Muslim Western society has a whole range of similar concepts, everything from showing the belly button, to showing the upper leg and tighs, to showing breasts or genitelia, that depend on situation and circumstance. The only different is the area of disclosure and the degree of disclosure. Have you never heard a parent say "You are not going out dressed like that!"?

Now personally I think a lot of that is very silly. I've posted a number of posts in Humanities about children wearing dress that are considred "too sexy" by adults, something I've no problem with, since I don't believe that a child for example is aware of the sexual "message" given off by such clothes. But a lot of Irish society does.

So the over all point is Irish Muslim society is no different that Irish Catholic society, each has their own views about what is acceptable modesty and what isn't. And in Ireland each are free (to a large extent) to follow the rules of modesty they agree with.

At the end of the day people should be free to make up their own mind at what they view as modest dress code. I would be first in line to defend an Irish girl if she is being criticised by Catholics, Jews or Muslims for how she dresses, and equally I will be first in line to defend a Muslim woman if she is being criticised by people here over how she dresses.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

The latter is sexist nonsense used to subordinate women.

Is it sexist nonsense to say a woman should not show her bare breasts in public, or that a man should cover his penis at all times?

What about a woman wearing a mini-skirt to a funeral? Or a person wearing a bathing suit into work?

You are bound to say "thats different" yet so far you have put forward no argument why apart from that is our concept of modesty, and the veil is the Muslims concept.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

In society generally a woman appearing in public dressed to make this strong argument should be left in no doubt that while her views are tolerated, they will be challenged.

Yeah good luck with that.... :rolleyes:

Can I start challanging "oppressed" women who cover up their breasts?

Let my women free!!

Jackie laughlin

Why do you assume that someone with a view contrary to yours has made no effort to understand? I have put quite a lot of effort into looking at Islam. I've come across Muslim writers who think as I do. There's a very popular book by a muslim woman in all the shops right now but the title escapes me at the minute and it takes this approach.

(Of course, this is not the world's most important issue but it is the issue being discussed her.)

Everyone in our society is allowed to argue as they will and if you feel that Irish women should be criticised for covering any part of themselves, then do so. My point throughout is that the term "tolerance" has been misused to suggest that Islam should be spared criticism and ridicule.

Apart from dissenting muslims, everything I've read and heard argues that women are indeed inferior.

Zombrex

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Why do you assume that someone with a view contrary to yours has made no effort to understand?

I don't. I assume someone who puts forward a claim of understanding that is wrong has made little effort to understand.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I have put quite a lot of effort into looking at Islam.

Then you should know the purpose of the veil.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Everyone in our society is allowed to argue as they will and if you feel that Irish women should be criticised for covering any part of themselves, then do so.

I don't.

I don't feel anyone, woman or man, should be criticised if they wish to cover parts of their body they feel are immodest, self-conscious about or simply believe is not for public show. I don't think an Irish women on a beach should be "challanged" for wishing to wear a modest bathing suit rather than a bikini, nor is this a sign the woman is being oppressed by society. Nor should a man be attacked for wishing to wear boxer shorts rather than a speedo.

By the same token I think it is ridiculious that a Muslim woman should "challanged" (what ever that actually means) for wishing to cover their hair when in public. They are prefectly within their right to do so.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

My point throughout is that the term "tolerance" has been misused to suggest that Islam should be spared criticism and ridicule.

You are, and always have been, perfectly entitled to ridicule a Muslim woman wearing a head scarf. I think such an attack is pointless, and will have the opposite effect you wish for, but no one is stopping you.

But don't expect that people will just go "oh she is so right". Your arguments of why a Muslim woman should be ridiculed, or challanged, for wearing a head scarf are very weak, particularly when you constantly drone on about freedom and western values.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

everything I've read and heard argues that women are indeed inferior.

As does the Bible. Actually as does pretty much anything written before the 18th century.

The question isn't if Islam teaches the women are inferror. Lots of things, including the Bible, teach women are inferror to men. The question is if that is a reason to criticies Muslims for wearing a symbol of their faith? Or is there anymore reason to criticise Muslim women for wearing a symbol of their faith as opposed to a Jewish or Christian woman? The other question is what you hope to achieve by this criticism. Do you want Islam done away with?

Jackie laughlin

I knew that I had been reading about this recently but couldn't recall where. I 've been tidying papers and come across the piece. I's a Q and A with Tariq Ramadan in the current issue of Prospect. It will be available for free on the Prospect website as soon as the new edition appears. That'll be about July 23rd.

Referring to the Koran, he says that the verses literally prescribe that women cover their hair but in most Islamic-majority countries "this interpretation is contributing to the seclusion and segregation of women. So, I agree, that modesty need to be protected. That's fine. But some scholars of Islam go on to conclude that women do not have the right to work. For me this wrong and is against women's rights. The problem is literalist reading ..."

I find Muslims like this man agreeable and, if listened to, they will ensure that Islam setlles into an honoured place in Western diversity. However, they are in a minority and their lives are often threatened. Men like this want to criticise Islam and want others in the west to support them in this.

I wouldn't dream of upsetting a quiet, veiled Islamic woman on the bus and I think you know this. However, I would engage when Muslims talk. I have challenged Muslim women and men once our conversation has made it appropriate.

It would be better if Ireland did not have faith schools but they are now a tradition. Catholic schools are almost in name only and they seldom these days frighten children or - more to the point here - teach falsities about the nature of women. If Islamic schools were similar, I would not worry about our young Islamic citizens.

Multiculturalism has been reduced in Ireland, as it was in Britain, to a doctrine. We do not see reasoned criticism of Islam in the media or indeed in casual conversation. Rather we tend to see total acceptance - calling itself tolerance - faced by crazy stuff about all Muslims being the same and all dangerous.

Islam didn't experience the Western Enlightenment. It is now in the West and many muslims like these freedoms. They feel that the religion can pass through a late Enlightenment and take its place in our free society.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Wicknight wrote:

Thats actually exactly what they are about.

I read in a pamphlet a guy gave me about Islam on Grafton street that because sexual desire without the intention of procreation is seen as somewhat wrong veils are used to tame sexual tension\attraction* Women wear them because they are reguared as the prettier sex.

I wish people woul stop caring about hijabs so much - my mother actually gets annoyed at women having to wear them in Islamic countries - it just won't occur to her that the women actually want to wear them. Why do non-Muslims care so much? They're not being forced to wear them!

I hung out with a Muslim in college. She worre a hijab, I would of asked her how she felt about it but it JUST DIDNT FU*CKING MATTER


*That was only a minor issue, the rest of the pamphlet was spent demonising Jews

Zombrex

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I find Muslims like this man agreeable and, if listened to, they will ensure that Islam setlles into an honoured place in Western diversity.

He isn't criticising the wearing of a veil, he is criticising the oppression of women, and even states that this is being carried out by those who do not understand the purpose of the veil, which is modesty.

So why, if you agree with him, are you focusing on the wearing of the veil? The wearing of the veil isn't the problem.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

However, I would engage when Muslims talk. I have challenged Muslim women and men once our conversation has made it appropriate.

Good for you. Did the woman not to wear a veil?

Jackie laughlin wrote:

If Islamic schools were similar, I would not worry about our young Islamic citizens.

Please list 5 Islamic schools in Ireland

Jackie laughlin wrote:

We do not see reasoned criticism of Islam in the media or indeed in casual conversation.

Post 9/11 that seems to be ALL we see in the media. Islam, Muslim immigration, and Muslim fundamentalism is the most discussed topic in the western world today. Count how many threads about Islam are on this site in the last month alone.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Islam didn't experience the Western Enlightenment.

Niether did Christianity. Or Judaism. The Christian world experienced the age of enlightenment, and so did the Muslim world.

Jackie laughlin

Re Bottle of Smoke. I think you should bring the pamphlet to the attention of An Garda.


No, progressive Muslims realise fully the significance and importance of the veil. The extent to which it is worn is used as a rough indication of the power of orthodox teaching on inequality.

I'm aware of just 2 Islamic schools but I think I recall mention of a third in the West of Ireland. Wnen it comes to little citizens the numbers are beside the point. In any event the numbers are sure to grow.

The response of Muslim women to whom I've spoken and the husband of one of them is fascinating. It reminded me of why I got married. They wore the veil because not to do so would cause more trouble than it was worth!

Yes, you are right. The demonising of Islam and concentration on terrorism has meant that even progressive thinkers have felt obliged to defend their Islamic neighbours. This has strengthened the immunity of Islam itself to criticism.

I'm not aware of an Islamic or Christian scholar who would disagree with my point about the Enlightenment. I grant you that I may have made the point badly, inviting a terminological quibble.

I don't mean to be rude or abrupt but I don't think I've anything more to contribute to this thread. I'd prefer to stop.

athena 2000

Jackie laughlin wrote:

The response of Muslim women to whom I've spoken and the husband of one of them is fascinating. It reminded me of why I got married. They wore the veil because not to do so would cause more trouble than it was worth!
<snip>
I don't mean to be rude or abrupt but I don't think I've anything more to contribute to this thread. I'd prefer to stop.

JackieL, try to hang on for one more comment. I have some questions...

• What were the specific responses of the Muslim women you spoke with?

• What was fascinating beyond the response that not wearing the veil was more trouble than it was worth?

I have been under the impression that within some of the semitic cultures of the Middle East, the custom of wearing the veil was even OLDER than Islam itself, and has a variety of meanings and inferences apart from Islam and its view on the role and place of women.