Aspie Muslims?

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, I would say so. Perhaps not the most severe example, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be opposed on principle. There are some good practical reasons for why some types of clothes are required (hygiene in public places, for example), but on the whole, I don't see what business it is of the government to mandate a dress code, especially for such subjective reasons as "modesty" and "propriety." If a person wants to make a fool of him- or herself by wearing outrageous clothes, then he or she should have that right. Maybe there are social consequences, but there shouldn't be legal consequences.



Cultural norms are not legislated. They can be changed by grassroots action; laws cannot, especially in a nondemocratic society.



This borders on moral relativism, which I don't really accept. I have no problem saying that some cultural values are demonstrably better than others. For example, is slavery simply a cultural value, or an objective wrong? I vote for the latter. There should be a good practical reason, not simply a social one, for restrictive laws. Specifically, it shouldn't be a crime if there is no victim. And God doesn't count, since he can presumably take care of himself.



Creating an environment where children are coerced or pressured into participating in religious rituals (which invariably happens when religion is incorporated into the classroom, however discreetly) is inherently discriminatory to nonreligious children and their families. Children are too young to be expected to deal with the consequences of this kind of social choice, and they shouldn't be put into a position where they have to go along with something against their or their parents' wishes, or else face ostracization from their peers.



It's important for us to tolerate others' differences, but it's not important for them to do the same?

Jeremy

That's the thing, I wasn't looking for a new religion. I was perfectly happy being an agnostic/atheist. I was just reading the Qur'an for a class I'm taking when I was very surprised to find out that I agreed with it. I was kind of freaked out, really. It's weird to suddenly realize that you believe in God. There wasn't really any choice involved. Although I will admit I was never a big fan of post-St-Paul Christianity. Just too many inconsistancies and internal contridictions for my aspie brain. But I didn't set out to convert to Islam, it just happened while I was doing my homework for my Jews in the Islamic World class.

On the contrary, people should not be afraid to flaunt their differences. What I did find problematic about the French decision was that it played down diversity, rather than encouraging it. Is it oppression for a kid to wear a yarmulke or a cross to show signs of faith? Then why is it oppression for a woman to wear a hijab? Not all Muslim women wear them. I wear a cross myself because I am proud to be a Christian - no-one forces me to wear one and not all Christians I know wear them. This is not oppression IMHO. In cultures where women wear headscarves, it is as natural to them as speaking in Urdu or Arabic. Would you go to them and tell them they had to speak English as speaking Urdu was part of their oppression?

As for contradictions etc in religion, my aspie brain often lingers too long over these and sometimes I just have to tell it to accept life as inherently illogical and to understand that there are things I am just going to have to learn to live with. If I tried to make sense of everything I would be forever on the edge unwilling to join in anything. There are times when seeing details can be interesting and can lead to some startling discoveries, however in my case they have usually been in favour of religion and religious and cultural practices rather than against them.

That's because you're considerate. I'd act the same way, most likely. Partially to respect their customs, and partially because I don't want to get beaten up.

But true freedom necessarily entails having the right to piss people off if you want. I'd certainly like it if people behaved in a way that seems sensible to me, but I'm not prepared to say it should be a crime to do otherwise. I just won't like them as much, that's all.



That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that cultural choices should be just that: choices. They should not be mandated by law. If you choose to dress a certain way, or eat or act or speak a certain way, that's great! If you want to wear a burqa, terrific! If you want to wear a bikini, great! As long as you're doing it because you want to, not because you have to.

Wear anything you like, and I'll fully support your right to do so. Be any religion you want. Follow any diet you prefer. I'll be right behind you the whole way. Such an attitude would only increase diversity, not destroy it.



A lot of people liked owning slaves, too. That doesn't justify it.



I always thought it was the parents' job to teach ethics. As far as I'm concerned, the school should teach three things: physical discipline, academic discipline and facts.



...and which makes atheists, like myself, have to stand up and lie every day in order not to get beaten up by the other kids, who probably don't even know what an "atheist" is, just that he's not "one of us" and deserves what he gets.

You see the positives but don't seem aware of the negatives. Promoting religion in school is inherently decisive and cruel to the children. Plus it's simply none of the government's business anyway.

Jeremy

But that's exactly my point: we've all seen videos of the dancing Palestinians, but we haven't been shown, for example, any of the fatwas that have been issued against suicide bombing and the injuring of civilians. Or the Council on American-Islamic Relations's "Not in the name of Islam" campaign. Or my friend Meryam describing what she would do if she ever got her hands on Osama bin Laden. The extremists are admittedly much better organized than the moderates, and much better at organizing public demonstrations and film clips that look good on the news. Moderates don't tend to take to the streets, and so I'll admit it's harder to see that they're there. Until someone does a worldwide opinion poll on issues like terrorism, all anyone knows is what they see on television, and people just don't run around in the streets chanting "can't we all just sit down and talk this out rationally?"

As for Muslims being the majority of terrorists, there's no denying that there is a growing extremist movement in the Muslim world. But it's a relatively recent phenomenon. If you went back to, say, the 1960s, it was Irish Catholics or Spanish Basques who made up the majority of terrorists. Terrorist movements have shown up in a number of different ethnic and religious groups, and you can't take a 1400-year-old religion and say that just because there are more terrorists distorting it right now than any of the other ones it's somehow more violent than the other ones. I will not deny that there are a lot of seriously screwed up groups out there calling themselves Islamic. I just deny that they are.

I was thinking about this the other day in the context of the US constitution. The First Amendment has two freedom of religion clauses: 1) The government cannot actively or passively support one religion over another and 2) the government cannot actively interfere with an individual's right to practice their religion.

I think that for true religious freedom, you really do need both of those clauses. One of these days I'm going to write an essay about that, but right now I'm already about 5 replies behind on this thread so I'm just going to leave this tangent as food for thought

I think we both have a point here. The "outrage" should not be downplayed, but neither should the jubilation. You used Timothy McVeigh as an analogy earlier...was there anybody dancing in the streets when he bombed the federal building? I don't remember seeing any. He was universally regarded as a madman and a murderer. I'm sure most Muslims view Osama bin Laden the same way, but there also seem to be a fair number -- normal, average people, from the look of it -- who don't.

For whatever reason, terrorism and violence seems to have wider acceptance among the mainstream Muslim population, or at least the Arab Muslim population, than in other religions.



This is a good point, but what do you think is the explanation? Is it social? Political? There must be some reason for the (current) correlation between Islam and terrorism. It can't be something as simple as imperialism or oppression, because there have been many worse examples of that in other regions without any similar results.



Well, I'm willing to bet they'd say the same about you. I'm less concerned with the legitimacy of various sects of a religion than I am with the effects of the entire religion as a social force.

Jeremy

Todd - I agree with most of your points now you've clarified some of them.

As an atheist, I'm sure you would agree that you've thought hard about your faith. (I would call it a faith as I would call those who are just apathetic non-faith.) I am not going to beat you up for that - diversity! But I have issues with people who try and come in and impose change on other cultures; I wouldn't like it if a French person during the debate on the hijab had come along and tried to get British schools to go non-uniform. That's as much a product of culture as the secularisation of French schools and the assembly system in our own. Plus if you have thought about ethics and culture enough to describe yourself as an atheist, then paradoxically I would say you have a "faith" (in the loosest sense).

My father read the whole of St Paul before declaring himself an atheist. Personally I don't see that if you believe in God then what someone wrote two thousand years ago on philosophy or moral teachings thus proves that God doesn't exist, but as a rejection of Christianity it is fair enough. However even the "Bible-believing Christians" I knew at university - obnoxious as some of them were - didn't try and enact some of the stricter punishments laid down in the bible, so faiths do move with the times and accept modern values. I went to an evangelical service at the weekend and for the first time felt comfortable with the charismatic/fundamentalist Christian circles - they were a bit too energetic for me and the dogma got a bit wearing, but at least they were having fun and you could feel the sincerity of it, and for me that's the important bit of any religion.

Salman Rushdie was right when he said that Islam needed its own Martin Luther, though, if only to serve a warning on some of the illiberal regimes which have appropriated Islam for their own ends and corrupted it, just as the Crusaders corrupted Christianity.

antieuclid has thought a lot about her faith and I like that. What I can't go along with is "trendy" religious people who change at the drop of a hat, which is why I asked her why she changed. Just like me and Judaism, I suppose, though I chose to work harder at my own rather than seek pastures new. But good luck with your Muslim groups though, anti.

I've heard this comment applied to atheists in several ways; some of them I can agree with and others I don't. Can you clarify? For the record, being an atheist doesn't mean I insist there is no God, it just means I haven't seen a good reason to take the idea seriously.



That's an interesting choice of words: "impose change." Does pushing for freedom constitute "imposing change?" Whether I agree with you or not depends on the answer to that question. I think increasing freedom is always, always a good thing, as long as the fundamental rights of the people are preserved along the way. To me, "imposing change" means reducing freedom -- i.e., forcing the people to live a way they don't want to.



And I could see something like that happening. I just wonder what circumstances allowed the "illiberal regimes" to hijack Islam in the first place, and why they seem to have stronger public support than I would've anticipated. It seems a unique situation in the modern world, and I'm curious about the causes and effects.

Jeremy

It seems to me-and please feel free anyone to step up and correct me or expand this as it is based largely on observation and historical facts and I'm just making conjectures based on these-that the problems of fundamentalism, extremism and terrorism as well as a higher than expected acceptance or silence on those subjects isn't really inherent in Islam-or any other religion for that matter- but has more to do with the social conditions surrounding it-I've noticed that given certain conditions, such as power vacuums, poverty, civil unrest, isolation, reactions against contemporary political, social, or religious movements or culture, and lack of a good or neutral education, certain religions, as well as philosophies and political ideologies, are particularily vulnerable to misuse and extremism, and that is most likely what happened in this case, as I think many of these factors were involved. During the middle ages, science, mathematics, astronomy, architecture and art flourished in the Islamic world; during the Umayyad dynasty in Spain, Christianity and Judaism were tolerated. Meanwhile in Europe, the fall of the Roman empire had created a power vacuum and the masses were highly uneducated, and the Christian religion was misused locally (through creating in the people a fear of hell, for instance) and regionally to take authority over the people. When a certain religion is the ultimate authority, and the masses are relatively uneducated, that religion can be manipulated to instill a sense of fear and zeal in the people and basically lead them to do just about anything, including committing acts of violence, so long as it can be backed up using some principle of the religion (which is why I think-and I'm not saying there is anything at all wrong with these religions-religions which use a written text are particularily vulnerable), hence the Crusades. So in a way, something of the opposite situation to today's existed. Flash forward a few centuries to the 18th. In Saudi Arabia, which was at the time-and still is-a nation which, with it's desert environment among other things, was isolated compared to other parts of the Islamic world, and not exposed to non-Muslims or large metropolitan areas. It was here in the late 18th century that the fundamentalist sect of Islam known as Wahhabism was formed as a reaction against innovation from sects of Sunni Muslims; it seeked to reclaim what it believed was orthodox Islam, and was generally unaccepting of non-Muslims, possibly due in part to isolation. Flash forward a few more centuries to the 20th; by this time, three of it's major empires had been destroyed or weakened by the West which was by now exerting great influence over the region; in some parts of the Islamic world things had been on the decline for a few centuries. Religious fundamentalism often arises, in addition to other conditions, as a reaction against modernization and secularization (two attributes of Western culture) and it is possible that additional fundamentalist movements arose as a reaction against Western presence and influence during this time as well as the power vacuums after the fall of the three major empires and again after colonial rule. More recently the movements have taken advantage of certain contentious issues, such as the formation of Israel, to recruit and motivate people. The Christian fundamentalist movement in the U.S, although it exists on a much smaller scale, has some parallels to the fundamentalist movements of other religions. It can probably happen anywhere, anytime when certain conditions are met (in the U.S I think these conditions include a reaction against contemporary culture, lack of a good or neutral education, and poverty) and as long as it can be backed up by religious principles or text (which are often taken out of context or otherwise manipulated) anything can happen and people can be manipulated and taken advantage of to support it, and when a person grows up surrounded by that, they'll probably believe these things too because it's hard to get out of. Islam also parallels Christianity in that there are a number of different movements and schools of thought in place right now, some historical, some recent, and everything from fundamental to liberal, much like Christianity. One more thing I should mention is that I once saw a documentary female suicide bombers in Palestine and the situation there is quite shocking-suicide bombers are like celebrities there, and the atmosphere is somewhat fanatical; when you grow up in a culture like that, it's hard to escape and shake out of those attitudes. I think the fanaticism in Palestine is somewhat unique and not necessarily representative of other predominantly Muslim nations as a whole. It's also important to note that less than half of all Muslims worldwide live in the Middle East. Hope that helps, although I know it is really oversimplified (the history of Islam is a complex one) and all this is probably old news to most people anyway

am reading this thread with growing fascination and delight, at how civilised and thoughtful (and intelligent) it is.

i agree that choice is limited depending on the surrounding conditions. i also agree with the sentiment that schools where there is a strong sense of a moral/spiritual ethos produce a more structured environment, within which kids learn and achieve more successfully - i've worked in enough schools to notice the difference. here, i believe it's the strong structure which achieves this, though, not necessarily the religious or moral nature of that structure - any structure which includes discipline (not in the brutal sense) provides a better framework for people to know where they stand, and thereby, a better base from which to grow.

the sad thing is that most people will take images of extreme behaviour by extremists as "gospel" - what else do they have to go on? personally, i believe that we have the responsibility to question what we're told, and to find out the facts (if not the truth, which is difficult) behind what's presented to me in the media. most people don't do this. yet again, it's all about education.

Isnt God the only atheist?...who thinks noone created him and exist because he just does?
isnt that God...or by saying "im an atheist" u asume you are God?
hahahahaha nooo!

i.e. you have at least thought about your position and come up with an answer. "Dunno really" would be a comment I would expect from someone who wouldn't have looked into it enough to have decided there is a God or not. I assume you are one of the people who have looked into the spiritual side of life but found all the other alternatives to atheism lacking.

I don't blame you. It takes a real leap of the imagination to believe, and there have been many convincing arguments in defence of healthy scepticism. (such as Hume - he had a real logical and well-thought out theory about how the world worked and came up with empiricism - starting from a basis of what you could see and touch and sense - rather than starting from the basis that God exists. I like Voltaire's idea that "if God didn't exist, we'd have to invent him"...there is a kind of synchronicity in things, but it's rather obtuse and therefore not something to rely on.)

I see God as a mystical force, who is sometimes close, sometimes absent and sometimes reassuring. I see religion as utterly distinct from that, a set of moral teachings and some pretty amazing people who did some pretty amazing things even if only allegorically. It was hard for me to accept the Christian version of Christ, but easy for me to feel God's presence in things. Sometimes the two collide, but more often I pray to God rather than Christ.

As for "imposing change" - what was your position on Iraq? A lot of people who were pro-war seemed to argue that Western style democracy should be imposed from without rather than allowing Iraq a peaceful transition. The SH dictatorship might not have lasted beyond SH's death, just as I don't expect communism in Cuba to outlast Castro. Whatever you may think of Saddam Hussein, it was wrong of us to go in there on a flimsy pretext of regime change (although at least Bush was more up-front about this than Blair). We should have finished him off in 91 when he had done something concrete against Kuwait, not when he was a paper tiger with a lot of BS about having WMD (which have never been found and to be honest, SH was the kind of guy who wouldn't have flinched at using them if he had had them, in which case our bases in Cyprus would have been dust in 45min; and if anything SH reined in Islamic terrorism rather than funding it). If we were to raise the issue of going to war against Iran Blair would be history overnight and Bush/Republicans would be damaged goods. We have tried and failed to impose democracy on others.

Change in the Soviet bloc, Latin America and the European clerico-fascist dictatorships ultimately came from within when the situation became untenable. (Trust me, this was the subject in which I got my First at university). Internal contradictions spelled the end of the Soviet Union even though people feared what might happen when Stalin died. Partly this was because the system had enough of a supply of big-hitters (e.g. Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Gorbachev) to fuel another thirty-nine years. Regime change in Iraq would have happened after SH's death in a power vacuum, but the current democratic system is inherently unstable because there is little authority from an imposed government and the Americans and the looters who came in following the troops etc smashed up most of the infrastructure. That's hardly the way to establish a good government, and most governments founded on violence need to use violence to impose order (eg Russia/USSR after the civil war of 1917-20). This creates a vicious circle which has left Afghanistan in ruins and threatens to leave Iraq the same way.

In Latin America the benefits of military dictatorship were soon outwieghed by the disadvantages, e.g. Pinochet fell on his own sword in favour of an elected parliamentary system and Galtieri was ousted after failure in the Falklands War. Although it might have been some time before SH died or was murdered, Iraq might have had a better outlook in the long run because it might have escaped wholesale destruction of major cities (e.g. Fallujah) and found a more representative government. It might have fallen apart (eg Yugoslavia post-Tito) but these days we more often find small nation states within a larger regional or continental organisation rather than large multinational empires. In Europe only Belgium, us and the Swiss left have managed to keep a multinational state going, and countries like the Baltic States have begun to flourish as part of the EU rather than having been tethered into the USSR. So that's the reason I was (on balance) against the Iraq war. (Though I must admit to have been phoning home from Poland to check if mum and dad were OK on the night that we invaded, just to check if they were OK when Saddam dropped his WMD on them with 45 minutes notice).

Any more might turn into my PhD thesis, so I'll leave it there for now.

Which hotels? The ones in Jordan?
There seems to be less outrage from the Muslim community when Islamic terrorist attacks take place in non-Muslim countries.

Actually, antiecluid, Irish catholics and their decscendants recieved a lot of trouble over the IRA, in fact we got it a lot worse due to the troubled history between these nations. Mind you the bombings over here were political not religious in tone and were generally commited by Irish catholics from the north of Ireland (an area that is occupied by foreign troops), you dont see catholics fromSpain or Portugal or anywhere else in the world bombing London because catholics dont think they should defend catholics from different countries dont stick together the same way muslims do these days.

Eamonn, where've you been? We need you to liven things up, a bit.