Demonization of Islam: Sources, Reaction & Future

Society Religion & Philosophy
1

Apologies for the length of the post - hope you have the patience to read…

“Since men almost always walk on paths beaten by others and proceed in their actions by imitation, unable either to stay on the paths of others altogether or to attain the virtue of those whom they imitate, a prudent man should always enter upon the paths beaten by great men, and imitate those who have been most excellent, so that if his own virtue does not reach that far, it is at least in the odor of it.” (Niccolo Machiavelli - The Prince)

For Muslims this quality of greatness emanates itself through the practices of the Prophets, their wives and companions and most especially from the last messenger Prophet Muhammad, his wives, family and his dearest companions. The adoration and love for these individuals is insurmountable and inevitably becomes the building block for Islamic culture, values and ideas. His way of life becomes tied to the Qur’anic revelation itself. Not only is he a Prophet but also the ultimate role model for all Muslims to follow. For Muslims it is impossible to find a person with all the virtues that are combined in him. It is not easy for a person, spontaneously, to develop a personality like his. He is one of those men who are difficult to match and virtually impossible to surpass. The example of men like him contributes to the appearance of men of the same caliber. The Prophets life accompanied by the Holy Quran are the basis for Islam and in the eyes of Muslims, formulates the righteous path for humanity.

Yet Muhammad is probably the most scrutinized and misunderstood Prophet. This is perhaps due to the large amount of literature compiled by Islamic historians themselves, which provided the impedance for further study. Similar critiques of the lives of Jesus and Moses are sparse. We owe many of these misconceptions to the vast breed of orientalists who wrote extensive volumes of books dissecting Islam and its origins in an attempt to distort history and cast doubt on Islamic beliefs. Christian Europe was intolerable and unable to bear the rapid growth of a religion which it strongly believed was a heresy under the rule of an impostor claiming to be a chosen Prophet. The information they required was easy to find in the literature of early Muslims and collections of the Hadith. In the complex scientific process of collecting Hadith there were two main activities, one being the actual collection and the other being the authentication of the collection. Some opportunist orientalists used the collections rather than the authenticated volumes to create the basis for their writings and thought. They thus concocted a number of false traditions and habits which they attributed to Prophet Muhammad. These can be found in any university library under the heading of Islam. Early orientalists avoided direct critiques of the Quran, they rather based their attacks on the life of Muhammad. Muhammad’s relationships with his “wives” become the most hotly contested area of “pre-judgement”. The Hadith literature was mined by European writers and controversial and “culturally relative” traditions were plucked out and utilized to draw doubts on the validity of the messenger and indirectly the message Muslims believed was the product of The Divine. Other writers used their imagination to discredit Muhammad:

  1. Alvaro a Spanish writer believed the Prophet died in the year 666, the year of the beast in the Book of Revelation - a time where a ruler would rule the world, a ruler who would encompass the epitome of evil.

  2. In Dante’s The Divine Comedy, he writes of Muhammad suffering a particularly disgusting punishment in the Eighth Circle of Hell, in it he writes: “No cask stove in by cant or middle ever so gaped as one I saw there, from the chin down to the fart-hole split as by a cleaver. His tripes hung by his heels; the pluck and spleen showed with the liver and the sordid sack that turns to dung the food it swallows in.” Dante’s placed the Prophet’s companion in other levels of hell. (Dante Alighieri, Cantica I: Hell, trans. Dorothy L. Sayers, London 1949, Canto XXVIII,page 246.)

  3. Thomas Carlyle, who praised the Prophet Muhammad, yet had this to say about the Koran: ‘it is a wearisome confused jumble, crude, incondite; endless iterations, long-windedness, entanglement; most crude, incondite; - insupportable stupidity, in short!’

What the early orientalist writers failed to see was the tolerance and love in the life and teachings of the Prophet and in the revelation given to him. Rather they approached their research in such a way as to cast doubt on Islam and create holes in the fabric which held Islam up.

The chief area of focus for many writers was the role of “women” in Islam. Women were portrayed as passive, submissive beings, void of any value other than the role of “pleasuring” their husbands. These fictitious myths were spread through both the work of orientalists and the stories arising from European travelers who interacted, on a minimal scale, with Middle Eastern societies. Stories of harems filled with virgin beauties filtered into the art work of Paris museums and postcards in European bazaars, solidifying the myths. These depictions of subjugated and exploited women encouraged and helped legitimize the foreign occupation and colonization of the Muslim world. Europeans seen themselves as the liberators of these women, hypocritically subjugating their own women back home, while in the same breath chastising what they believed to be universal “Islamically” sanctioned oppression (not to say oppression of women wasn’t present in Muslim society, quite on the contrary it was, but was savagely exaggerated by the racist rhetoric of certain European writers).

Along with the foreign occupation of Muslim land arose practices among Muslims aimed at preserving their “threatened” (threatened through psychological torment and physical violence) “cultural authenticity” and protecting the sacred from foreign “pollution.” In the process of “self-defense”, mechanisms for preserving culture, amidst tremendous pressure exerted by colonials to “Hellenize” the natives, initiated both the invention of cultural norms and unnecessary attention paid to “cultural” and “historically” specific traditions. In a sense, in order to preserve a threatened culture, Muslims created a defensary mechanism, which evolved into a distinct culture in itself. Every institution attacked by outside sources and perceived by the foreigner to be associated with “inferiority” and “backwardness” became thresholds of defense and battlefields for the preservers of culture. The primary battlefield was the “family”. With every segment of society polluted with western institutions, economic, political, social, cultural and even religious - the family was the last line of defense. An area where the oppressive forces would not be permitted to enter. Women were central to this “preservation” of family and family values.

Western intellectuals failed to see the process of change within which Islam was growing and interacting - the dynamic nature of Islam - (many Muslim scholars failed to see the environment in which Islam was evolving also) they rather identified Islam as a “homogenous, unalterable, unchanging” body of religious beliefs. They defined what “Islam” is and what a “Muslim” was and critiqued Islam on the basis of “their” definitions. Definitions aimed to at legitimizing the occupation and subjugation of Muslims - because oppressors always require a legitimizing force, their violence has to be justified in their minds. Only recently has this process of evaluating “Islam” and Muslim societies been challenged - through the works of modern writers, the likes of Edward Said, whose now classic “Orientalism” shook the foundations of understanding the Middle East and provided a doorway for new rejuvenated analysis.

The task for both Western and Muslim intellectuals now is to decode and recode the history of Muslim peoples. To re-examine the lives of strong Muslim women and record their narratives (traditionally many Muslim societies transmitted knowledge through oral narratives, with the move towards “literacy”, forced through by colonial and neo-imperial pressures, this form of communicating knowledge was lost and in the process valuable narratives regarding the lives of important Muslim women lost as well). Islamists must stop seeing “Islam” as an answer to all problems and look at the solutions offered by western intellectuals; while western intellectuals must stop addressing issues related to Muslim societies in the “interests” of their governments and start communicating with Muslims in a language acceptable to them and become sensitive to the Muslim’s sensibilities. The fact that the role of “ijtehad” is even being debated in halls of universities and Islamic journals demonstrates that change is inevitable.

You can label those who look at “Islam” and see a beautiful religion which gives its adherents the opportunity to struggle for “spiritual” peace and those who can see behind the layers of myths and inventions attributed to Muhammad and the message of God which he dutifully disseminated to humanity - rationalists, pseudo-Islamists, escapists or whatever label you choose. I give them praise for having the courage to strive in the path of Greatness. In the end for the Muslims, who hold the shahada firmly in their hearts - it is Allah’s message in which they find peace. Muhammad was one of the messengers (indistinguishable from the other messengers in his duty to disseminate the message). Muslims do not worship the messenger, they worship Allah and follow the guidelines stipulated in His message as stated in the Quran. Those who falsely attack the messenger have missed the point; the concept central to and underpinning every aspect of Islam - that concept being tawhid (the unity and Oneness of God).

Achtung :wink:

You may right me down in history/ With your bitter twisted lies/ You may trod me down in the very dirt/ And still like the dust I’ll rise…So you may shoot me with your words/ You may cut me with your eyes/ And I’ll rise…Out of the shacks of history’s shame/ Up from a past rooted in pain/ I’ll rise/ I’ll rise

Maya Angelou - From the Poem - “And Still I Rise”

2

Dear Achtung,

Give me a day (to read the whole posting, give me a month!!! only kidding) .. I would like to discuss.

Talk to you soon

3

I read your message.It was very well written. You made some excellent points with excellent factual examples from history.

The examples you give often help to legitimize your perspective in the mind of the reader.

There can be no doubt that some European writers reacted to Islam with the sole intention of Deception.

It is heroic and exciting to hold the west responsible for the colonial affects on our people. But I do think that you have taken this too far.

You have suggested that the sad position of women in our Islamic world is due to a reaction to the western onslaught.
I do not agree with that notion though it is tempting to swallow (considering tommorow is Friday afterall).
The inferior position of women in the middle East has roots in Islam.The Arabs who are known for literal translations take the Secondary position of women in the Quran very seriously.
My examples of secondary position is :

Half Witness in the Court of Law.
"Men are a degree higher than women"
Hadith recounting the Prophet calling women inferior in Intelligence and Relegion.

Now I would like to explain why I disagree with your notion that the poor position of women was caused by an Eastern Islamic Reaction to western colonial aggression.

The position of Middle class women in Pakistan and specialy those in Karachi is almost ideal as far as perspective is concerned. The women are not seen as icompetent or unable to perform in a profesional environment. The situation in the Arab world however is completely different. Women are not allowed to drive ect.. Middle class perceptions of women remain primitive and discouraging.

Even though the Indians were more directly colonised by the west there seems to be no reaction that has lead to the supression of muslim women.

Hence the theory that women are suffering due to a reaction does not impress me.

Stud

4

I can put enough ISLAMIC sources which would give equally demonizing opinion of Islam.

Spiritual part of Islam, well that is the catch. Islam, as far as my information goes, rules every sphere of life including you can eat goat but not pig. It is difficult to separate spiritual part, whicjh will be esentially trying to make it secular.

You said "Islamists must stop now seeing "Islam" as solution of all problems and look at the solutions affered by western intellectuals....." Wow! Kiya baat hain! Exactly what secularists are arguing.

More later. Right now busy.

5

Stud wrote: "The inferior position of women in the middle East has roots in Islam.The Arabs who are known for literal translations take the Secondary position of women in the Quran very seriously."

There are two distinct points made in your post:

1) Islam cannot be exonerated for gender inequality as it now stands in Muslim societies.
2) Cultural differences among Muslims themselves, accounts for a degree of gender discrimination.

I agree with both points. With the first point I would be careful not to label "Islam" as the root of gender inequality, but rather the interpretation of Islam by medieval jurists, as a major obstacle to uncovering and eliminating gender bias in Muslim societies. The mis-interpretation of the Qur'an and Hadith literature, has no doubt contributed to the undermining of women's position. The Islamic Shariah is derived from interpretations, made by men. Men who were not infallible, men who invariably made mistakes. A re-interpretation of the Shariah is paramount.

In terms of the second point, I agree with you again. Cultural differences among Muslims themselves (as you've pointed out between Pakistanis and Arabs) denote similar differences in their treatment of women. The Arabization of newly converted Muslim societies brought with it a "cultural imperialism" similar to the "imperialism" during the European occupation. The remnants of similar cultural pollution (within which gender inequality is sanctioned and embedded) is present in all Muslim societies.

The belief that there is an inherent natural difference between men and women, which makes men superior both physically and intellectually to women, is derived from Christian influences (as much as it is from Muslim influences), here is a sample from Genesis:

1)"The Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man." (Genesis 2:21) Here woman is an appendage to man, an after thought of God.
2)"When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her hausband, who was with her, and he ate it." (Genesis 3:6) Here woman is weak and easily tempted.
3)"The man said [to God], "The woman you put here with me - she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it." Then the Lord said to the woman, "What is this you have done." (Genesis 3:12-13) Here woman is responsible for the "original sin".
4)"To the woman [God] said 'I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you." (Genesis 3:16) The natural disparity and legitimization of gender inequality is based on these conditions (childbearing and menstration) placed on women by God as punishment for her sin.

This is the story of "the fall of man". Its interesting to note that within the story man is given dominion over 1) nature (earlier in Genesis God creates animals and living things for man) and 2) women. Today both the environment and women are being subjected to exploitation. Historically, Genesis is the first document to make a distinct seperation between the the natural world and the genders. In the Qur'an Allah has dominion over everything. Man and women are equal (the hadith you used in your post - regarding "men being a degree higher than women" is misinterpreted - maybe we can start a seperate thread and discuss that). However, you can find remnants of these aspects of Genesis within the Hadith literature (yet absent from the Quran). Christian influences are just one aspect of the influences of interactions between the Muslim world and non-Muslim world and the subsequent exchange of ideas and changes in the treatment of women and other aspects of moral conduct. Influential men on both sides (Muslim and Christian) have used these arguments to legitimize and maintain the patriarchal institutions within society and the political power which they enjoyed.

I am not attempting to "demonize Christianity" here (how hypocritical that would be) - only to point out the influences its teachings have had even, on the development of Islamic beliefs. My point is that these aspects of gender inequality did not occur in a vacuum, they rather were influenced greatly by interactions within the environment in which Islam flourished (and failed to flourish). Islam cannot be exonerated as a factor leading to gender inequality - but it also cannot be held as the sole factor underpinning male-female relations in Muslim societies.

In terms of discounting colonial influences and the subsequent reaction of Muslims, I don't think it would be fair to do so. Islam, in general, is a religion of resistence. Muslims resisted change at every step during the colonial occupation of their lands and a reaction to the violence of colonialism filtered into the way they conducted the daily activitees in their lives (including the way they treated their women). Muslims recognized a threat to their cultural authenticity and forged a wall of defense. The best modern day example to the invention of defensary mechanisms aimed at preserving cultural authenticity (and blanketing them in supposed Islamic teachings) is the reaction of the Taliban party in Afghanistan. The Taliban have "invented" a new form of Islam - an Islam very much foreign to the teachings of the Qur'an and the Prophet (particularly in their treatment of women). There is an old African proverb - "when two elephants fight, its the grass that gets hurt". In Afghanistan the cold war (where two "elephants" fought) resulted in significant damage to Afghanis (the "grass"). That damage is filtering itself into the reactionary radical policies of the Taliban party.

Further, as long as the Muslim world remains militarized, as long as the culture of Muslim societies graciously supports machismo, Muslim women will be held as "secondary" in nature. Their struggle for emancipation will have to wait, while the "men's" struggle for national liberation will take the front seat. Muslim women will continue to be relegated to the position of holders of "honor" and their roles as wives and mothers, in serving that role, will continue to be emphasized. This was the case, not only in the Muslim world, but also in Latin America while it struggled for its liberation and this condition also continues to hold in present day Israel (where Jewish women are discriminated against on an equal basis to their sisters in Palistine). Many Muslim populated countries have not been shaken by a force of liberation. For many Muslim countries, the process of decolonization has not begun - after the European dominated buearacracy evacuated its posts it was replaced by an equally oppressive force of "intellectuals" who were brought up within and well versed in the art of "colonial domination". Until they are removed women's rights will not be addressed.

PG wrote: "You said "Islamists must stop now seeing "Islam" as solution of all problems and look at the solutions affered by western intellectuals....." Wow! Kiya baat hain! Exactly what secularists are arguing."

Except that secularists fail to speak the language of the masses. Strict secularism cannot offer a solution to people who adhere to the most practiced religion in the world (Islam). I believe, a mixture of both sound western knowledge and Islamic institutions may provide a more plausable solution to the conditions debilitating Muslim socieities today. This is something that is starting to be realized within Islamic discourse - Muslim intellectuals are discussing Ibn Khaldun along with Marx, Weber and Foucault.

Achtung ;)

6

ok

7

NY Ahmadi wrote: “You have taken statements from various sources, and implied that these sources somehow influenced West’s perception of Islam. As an ordinary (neutral) observant, I will tell you why I think it is not so.”

Scholars who are well versed in orientalism for the most part all agree that early western scholars “demonized” Islam through the propagation of “myths” and the false interpretations of hadith literature. The three individuals I used as examples, were three in a list of many. Shakespeare, Milton, Voltaire, Ariosto, Marlowe, Dante, Cervantes, (and the list goes on) - were all influenced by the works of orientalists and painted negative images of the “orient” in their writings.

Present day negative portrayals of Muslims are produced by the mass media and “hollywood”, in its negative depictions of Islam and Muslims.

The following site has an excellent well researched essay on what I discussed in my post:

Here are some quotes from the essay, taken from various writers on the subject:

Edward Said, the Christian Arab scholar writes: “. . . by Orientalism I mean several things, all of them, in my opinion, interdependent. The most readily accepted designation of for Orientalism is an academic one, and indeed, and indeed the label still serves in a number of academic institutions. Anyone who teaches, writes about, or researches the Orient and this applies whether the person is a anthropologist, sociologist, historian, or philogist either in its specific or its general aspects, is an Orientalist, and what he or she does is Orientalism.” (From Orientalism, by Edward W. Said, page 2)

“To speak of Orientalism therefore is to speak mainly, although not exclusively, of a British and French cultural enterprise, a project whose dimensions take in such disparate realms as the imagination itself, the whole of India and the Levant, the Biblical texts and the Biblical lands, the spice trade, colonial armies and a long tradition of colonial administrators, a formidable scholarly corpus, innumerable Oriental “experts” and “hands”, an Oriental professorate, a complex array of “Oriental” ideas (Oriental despotism, Oriental splendor, cruelty, sensuality), many Eastern sects, philosophies, and wisdoms domesticated for
local European use the list can be extended more or less indefinitely.” (From Orientalism, by Edward W. Said, page 4)

“The European imagination was nourished extensively from this repertoire [of Oriental images]: between the Middle Ages and the eighteenth century such major authors as Ariosto, Milton, Marlowe, Tasso, Shakespeare, Cervantes, and the authors of the Chanson de Roland and the Poema del Cid drew on the Orient’s riches for their productions, in ways that sharpened that outlines of imagery, ideas, and figures opulating it. In addition, a great deal of what was considered learned Orientalist scholarship in Europe pressed ideological MYTHS into service, even as knowledge seemed genuinely to be advancing.” (From Orientalism, by Edward Said, page 63, emphasis mine)

“The invariable tendency to neglect what the Qur’an meant, or what Muslims thought it meant, or what Muslims thought or did in any given circumstances, necessarily implies that Qur’anic and other Islamic doctrine was presented in a form that would convince Christians; and more and more extravagant forms would stand a chance of acceptance as the distance of the writers and public from the Islamic border increased. It was with very great reluctance that what Muslims said Muslims believed was accepted as what they did believe. There was a Christian picture in which the details (even under the pressure of facts) were abandoned as little as possible, and in which the general outline was never abandoned. There were shades of difference, but only with a common framework. All the corrections that were made in the interests of an increasing accuracy were only a defence of that what had newly realised to be vulnerable, a shoring up of a weakened structure. Christian opinion was an erection which could not be demolished, even to be rebuilt.” (From Islam and the West: The Making of an Image, by Norman Daniel, page 33)

“This rigorous Christian picture of Islam was intensified in innumerable ways, including during the Middle Ages and early Renaissance a large variety of poetry, learned controversy, and popular superstition. By this time the Near Orient had been all but incorporated in the common world-picture of Latin Christianity as in the Chanson de Roland the worship of Saracens is portrayed as embracing Mahomet and Apollo. By the middle of the fifteenth century, as R. W. Southern has brilliantly shown, it became apparent to serious European thinkers “that something would have to be done about Islam,” which had turned the situation around somewhat by itself arriving militarily in Eastern Europe.” (From Orientalism, by Edward W Said, page 61)

"The history of Orientalism is hardly one of unbiased examination of the sources of Islam especially when under the influence of the bigotry of Christianity. From the fanatical distortions of John of Damascus to the apologetic of later writers against Islam, that told their audiences that the Muslims worshipped three idols! Peter the Venerable (1084-1156)“translated” the Qur’an which was used throughout the Middle Ages and included NINE additional chapters. Sale’s infamously distorted translation followed that trend, and his, along with the likes of Rodwell, Muir and a multitude of others attacked the character and personality of Muhammmed. Often they employed invented stories, or narration’s which the Muslims themselves considered fabricated or weak, or else they distorted the facts by claiming Muslims held a position which they did not, or using the habits practised out of ignorance among the Muslims as the accurate portrayal of Islam. As Norman Daniel tell us in his work Islam and the West: “The use of false evidence to attack Islam was all but universal . . . " (p. 267).” (From An Authoritative Exposition - Part 1, by 'Abdur-Raheem Green, emphasis mine)

NY Ahmadi wrote: “To me (an average Joe) it is a Classic, and not to be taken as a “western” perception of Islam.”

All of these depictions (including the three I mentioned in my first post) contribute to the “‘western’ perception of Islam.” As is evident, I am not alone in my convictions. Many leading scholars believe, and support their beliefs with substative evidence, that Islam indeed was “demonized” by western intellectuals, to serve their own interests.

Achtung :wink:

8

ok

9

I'm sorry I just don't seem to get your point. I wasn't alluding to a "conspiracy" - the writers I discussed in my post directly propagated falsities and myths regarding Muhammad, Islam and the Orient in their writings. You do not have to read between the lines and look "deeper" to understand they're message. If they were not directly involved in orientalist scholarship, the works of orientalists definitely influenced their works (Shakespeare's "Merchant of Venice" was even banned in some schools after being labeled anti-Semitic, although a literary genius, he seemed to buy into various racist stereotypical depictions quite easily). In the process a large volume of negative depictions of Islam, Islamic figureheads and the Orient was disseminated throughout Europe. A Europe that was intolerant to the spread of a religion it felt was a heresy, a religion that would upset the balance of Christendom. This is a fact - it isn't a "conspiracy" theory - it is just the truth. If you would like direct examples from writers - you should read "Orientalism" by Edward Said - he provides plenty.

NY Ahmadi wrote: "Could Achtung name a few (even one) Islamic Institutes where Christianity and Judaism or eastern religions are being studied. I am asking for only one."

What does this have to do with the post? Again, I'm not sure what your alluding to here. It seems to me that you may be implying that Islamic Institutions of learning have closed themselves off from other religious teachings, and therefore are less worthy when compared to their western counterparts. The inclusion of "area studies" in the west, what Edward Said terms the "politically correct" terminology for "orientalism", is a product of various factors. Initially understanding the orient in the west - was synonymous with understanding the 'enemy'. Today it is also the product of immigrant and refugee Diaspora. With the movements of various groups into the west, the inclusion of programs which focus their attention on areas in the "Orient" appeal to individuals from the wide variety of backgrounds which encompass the cultural diversity of Europe and North America today. The courses are still geared towards understanding the "Orient" in relation to the "Occident". The "Orient" is never studied for the purpose of understanding the "Orient" itself, but in most cases to understand the "Orient" in light of its impacts on the "Occident". With the appointment of scholars from the "Orient" itself, programs are slowly changing their focus. It would be great if educational institutions, both in the west and the rest of the world, focused their attention on an un-biased understanding of the world's religions. In terms of Christianity and Judaism, I think the demand for these types of programs is limited in Muslim societies and with limited budgets, they cannot afford to offer such courses to the small number of students who may be interested.

By mass media I mean newspapers, magazines, radio, TV, anything and everything media related which aims to disseminate information to the masses. By Hollywood I mean the American movie making industry. Again, most people would agree that Islam is depicted negatively in many of these sources. In Hollywood countless movies have been made which depict Islam in a negative light. "Not without my daughter", "Executive Decision", "True Lies" and "Under Siege" are a few (made in the last decade). Muslims are not the only group marginalized in Hollywood depictions. As you mention, Christians have come under similar scrutiny (but not near the same degree). Better examples of racist depictions of groups in Hollywood would include the depictions of "Africans", "African-Americans", "Chinese", and "Latin Americans." In terms of Jews, they are the one group, which remains unscathed for the most part. You can draw your own conclusions to why that is so. I'd rather steer clear of any "anti-Semitic" labeling - after witnessing the way Marlon Brando was lynched after making comments insinuating that Jew's run Hollywood and eagerly depict minorities in a negative light. Spielberg aptly replied "lets make sure he doesn't get another job in Hollywood again, how dare he".

The media reports that the Iranian clergy is debating weather or not to institute a "ban" on laughing. This example you provided is a perfect example of Islam being painted in a negative light. Islam is associated here with the views of, most likely, one Ayatullah - one individual. One Ayatullah who may have (if we are to believe what we read) commented on the excessive laughter in Iran. Ignorant readers than associate this Ayatullah's equally ignorant views with Islam. They fail to even recognize the fact that Khatami is as much a Muslim as the Ayatullah who wished to pass the fatwa. They also fail to present the ongoing debate between various Ayatullah's regarding the Fatwa. Were you aware that certain Ayatullah's opposed the Fatwa of death passed on Salman Rushdie? Probably not, because the debates that are ongoing within the Iranian clergy are kept secret. When outlandish Fatwas are discussed though, they are quickly fetched up and utilized as placards, by western media, to illustrate the idiocy promoted by "Islam" (rather than the idiotic individuals themselves).

The interests of the west are simple. Initially the interests were couched in the views of the Church. Writers were very much influenced by the intolerance of the Church. Intolerance towards what the Church seen to be a formidable threat. The interests also spill over into colonial and neo-colonialism. In order to legitimize the subjugation of a group of individuals - you require a convincing ideology. In order to force the oppression of thousands of individuals, the west (I am using west generally here to signify colonial interests) supplanted the myth that a "barbaric" Islam, under the teachings of an equally immoral and unethical Prophet, was a threat, which needed to be suppressed. In the process they legitimized the cruel practices of the crusades, colonialism, the genocide's, the murders, the rapes, the looting - all in the name of the altruistic interests of the west - all in the name of taming the 'savages'. The interests today are similar - they are fueled by a fear of a threat. The depictions of Islam help legitimize the starvation and political murder of thousands. When asked on "60 Minutes" in May of 1996 about the deaths of half a million children, more than died in Hiroshima, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright responded, "We think the price is worth it." To hold a population hostage and let them starve to serve a political purpose is acceptable - utilitarian suffering is justified. The media helps such governments legitimize their agendas. Noam Chomsky, is the most talked about and read critic of the media in regard to these questions.

NY Ahmadi wrote: "If Hollywood makes a movie showing Muslim women cannot attend funeral of even their "own brother or father or son or husband", it wont be a conspiracy to show Islam in a negative light. It will be a fact."

"Fact is merely the abuse of reality, while Truth is reality itself." The western media provides us with facts, ignoring the Truth.

NY Ahmadi wrote: "In one of his earlier replies, Achtung referred to Jesus and Moses as "true Muslims", in the spirit of brotherhood, I am referring to Mohammed as a true "Christian" and a true "Jew"."

Your statement is an oxy-moron, simply because Christians and Jews would never consider Muhammad to be a true "Christian" or "Jew". Muslims do believe Moses and Jesus were Muslims. Muslims love all three messengers and do not distinguish between them. That is the difference.

Achtung ;)

"Beware of pursuing savage speech in your quest for eloquence." Ibn al-Muqaffa (d. 759)

"When asked on "60 Minutes" in May of 1996 about the deaths of half a million children, more than died in Hiroshima, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright responded, "We think the price is worth it."

[This message has been edited by Achtung (edited March 28, 1999).]

10

Why not such courses even if it means understanding enemy. The complete lack of knowledge of Christianity, much abused Hindusm and Judaism is apaaling in Pakistani higher educated people. Worse, they talk about it in an autoratarian manner and make fools of themselves.

And if west takes Khomeini's words on laughing seriously, what's wrong? He indeed had a huge following all over the world. If you think his version of Islam is not right, maybe it is or it is not. Khomeini needs to be taken seriously since he is a force to reckon with. There maybe debate on fatva on Rushdie. But can Rushdie afford to move around without security? Khomeini meant business and he can not be ignored. Rest is all intellectual hair-splitting for a person who can be targetted for laughing or clapping or whistling or dancing or writing.

In fact, I am sure that if west starts telling that Khomeini or Taliban do not follow true Islam , that will be immediately dubbed as an intellectual arrogance. West will be interested in Islam as it is practiced and understood by majority since that is what is important politically. The miniscule liberal views are just of marginal academic interest.

Bye. I will not be able to reply since I won't be around for a month.

[This message has been edited by PG (edited March 29, 1999).]

11

PG wrote: "Why not such courses even if it means understanding enemy. The complete lack of knowledge of Christianity, much abused Hindusm and Judaism is apaaling in Pakistani higher educated people. Worse, they talk about it in an autoratarian manner and make fools of themselves."

I completely agree with you. In my post I wrote: "It would be great if educational institutions, both in the west and the rest of the world, focused their attention on an un-biased understanding of the world's religions. In terms of Christianity and Judaism, I think the demand for these types of programs is limited in Muslim societies and with limited [educational] budgets, they cannot afford to offer such courses to the small number of students who may be interested." Furthermore, I think the same can be said about non-Muslims living in the west. They definately talk about our societies in an "authoritarian manner", with little knowledge. This forum itself is a good example of such discussion (on both sides of the fence). During the Gulf War, a number of so called "experts" were called upon on CNN and BBC discussing "Islam" - these individuals can also be grouped into that category of individuals who discuss matters with little knowledge. My belief is that religion takes upon many "esoteric" aspects. For those who are not believers, it is near impossible to understand a religion completely and fully. I think you will agree, that Islam is as misunderstood (if not more so) in the west as Christianity and Judaism are in Muslim societies - work has to be done on both sides.

PG wrote: "In fact, I am sure that if west starts telling that Khomeini or Taliban do not follow true Islam , that will be immediately dubbed as an intellectual arrogance."

Yes it would. It would also be viewed, in light of the neo-imperialistic interests of the west in the region. With both countries Iran and Afghanistan - the US has had a strong political interest. With the CIA backed Shah in Iran and the Cold War era Russia-Afghan war, the US did not hide its altruistic interests. The people of both nations have a right to be skeptical of what the actual interests of the west are in their lives. This skepticism should be understandable. It is without a doubt that the Taliban are committing crimes and curtailing human rights - the question is how can we prevent these crimes. Spreading hate and over-simplified, generalized stereotypes regarding Afghanis and Iranians does not help the situation - taking international action may. Literature is growing regarding the US interests in the region and how it may be indirectly supporting the Taliban regime. Of course that is a political discussion. My point is that Iranians, Afghans, and Muslims have a right to be skeptical and label western interests - "neo-imperial" - often they are.

PG wrote: "The miniscule liberal views are just of marginal academic interest."

They are growing in number. The challenges are great but change is inevitable. Be optimistic PG!

Achtung ;)

12

ok

13

NY Ahmadi wrote: "I agree that those 'Ayatollahs' are a disgrace to Islam and they don't represent the Islamic views but their own prejudices against others."

I never said they were a disgrace to Islam. Many of them are knowledgeable and very well educated, others seem to use bad judgment at times.

NY Ahmadi wrote: "I think Khomeni was a despicable human being (remember Hostages, and sending 12 and 13 year old boys to fight against Saddam)."

I'm not sure if I would use the word "despicable", but I am not the man's biggest fan. He definately used poor judgment when issuing the Fatwa against Rushdie. Although not a justification for the actions of the Ayatollah or the fatwa (on the life of Rusdie), one can see a double standard in practice when it comes to Islam. Some believe that "*n the 1960's the Americans conspired to attempt to kill Fidel Castro, and there is a whole school of thought which says the Americans paid with the assassination of John F. Kennedy as being linked to that. In other words: Murder by remote control. [Is there] a style of doing it. [Perhaps] the Ayatollah is just opening a whole new tactic? It is not more immoral, the way it was done, it is just bad taste. He announces it on the radio instead of sending his spy to do it for him." After all Ronald Reagon did say "you can run but you cannot hide" (when addressing Qaddafi) opening the entire world as fair playing ground for the practice of "good old American justice". The question is, why can't the same apply for the Islamic world, or should it apply for any nation? (Lisa Appignanesi and Sara Maitland, The Rushdie File, Fourth Estate, 1989, Great Britain, page 225.)

NY Ahmadi wrote: "And that banning laughing is not just a few Mullahs in Iran but the entire clergy has asked for that."

And you know this because you are in close contact with the Iranian clergy? I haven't heard about this discussion on "laughing" in public. I do know however, that opinion varies within the Iranian clergy. If a debate ensued amidst the presence of Khomeini regarding the Rushdie Fatwa, I'm sure similar debates are occurring on this petty issue - policies like these are not readily accepted by everyone within the clergy. I know that the most ardent critics of Iranian policy reside in Iran. And they are courageous enough to speak their minds.

NY Ahmadi wrote: "Don't you think that it is nice that the Hollywood has spared at least one group from defamation? I think it is wonderful."

No I don't. Racist and stereotypical depictions of groups are just that - racist - they are wrong. Just because one group, which in this case holds the authority and power to make decisions on what is and what is not produced, is exempt from the racist practices doesn't make it right. What your saying here is tantamount to saying, "don't you think its nice that Serbs in Kosovo are spared from ethnic cleansing," or "don't you think it was nice that Nazi Germans were not subject to the concentration camps" or "don't you think its nice that whites weren't slaves for blacks...I think its wonderful J "- although these are extreme examples. Perhaps a better one would be, "don't you think its nice that whites were spared from defamation and racist stereotypical portrayals within Hollywood in the 1940's". Doesn't sound very clever does it? Your blatant attempts at twisting words and logic just don't work.

NY Ahmadi wrote: "I also think that the movies you mentioned (some of them true stories) are not any group's perception of Islam."

Whose perception of Islam are these than? You obviously buy into them. So do countless others living in the west. Recall the Oklahoma bombing - who was the first to be blamed by all Middle Eastern experts and media personnel - Muslims. Why? Because of depictions like these. If you tried to pass a similarly racist depiction of a Jewish miser saving every penny - you'd be labeled an anti-Semite. But why the double standard with Muslims?
1) Under Siege - This was not a true story - it went through several cuts (after being edited by various Muslim organizations) and still was blatantly racist.
2) Executive Decision - This was not a true story - Qur'an spouting terrorists take over an airplane, after killing passengers they thank Allah and offer their prayers.
3) True Lies - This was not a true story - more Qur'an spouting terrorists, wish to take over the world in their "Jihad".
4) Not Without My Daughter - This is based on a true story. Based being the key word, because it is laced in images of stereotypes of Islam and miss-represented Iranian culture.

NY Ahmadi wrote: "It would be the same as saying 'Silence of the Lambs, or 'Dead Man Walking' was Hollywood's perception of Christianity."

How you come up with this is beyond me. One is a picture about a serial killer, while the other attempts to gauge at issues dealing with the morality of capital punishment. The movies I mentioned above directly depict Muslims in a negative light. You will not see similar depictions of Jews. In fact Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice was banned in Ottawa schools, Noam Chomsky's book Fateful Triangle was wholeheartedly banned (so much for freedom of speech), The Great Holocaust Trial written by M.A. Hoffman was banned and Jim Allen's play Perdition which offended Jews in the United States was also banned. In retrospect Jim Allen told the Observer (March 5th 1989), "I guess what it all comes down to is that there are some religions and some races that you can attack and others you cannot." Salman Rusdie's Satanic Verses, which offended thousands of Muslims was not banned - it was rather praised and one literary claim. The double standard threatening the dignity of Muslims in the West is alarming.

NY Ahmadi wrote: "Ironically, it is the ADL, and the ACLU (both Jewish orgs dealing with matters concerning civil liberties) that are vocal whenever any ethnic group or religion is being demonized or ridiculed."

With the holocaust (yes it is a holocaust - Jews do not own a monopoly over this word, contrary to popular belief) occurring in Kosovo today, and Bosnia yesterday, you would really expect Jewish groups and the state of Israel to vocally oppose the actions of the Serbs. But they are silent. I didn't here any Jewish groups oppose the negative depictions of Muslims in the movies I mentioned either. Even after widespread protest of the movies, you still did not here any protest from their quarters or even a statement of support for Muslims. On a personal note, I recall in my undergraduate years, inviting Jewish groups to protest and be active in demonstrations against the Serbian massacres in Bosnia - they politely refused.

NY Ahmadi wrote: "In terms of referring to Mohammed as Jewish, I meant it in a sincere way."

Give me a break, your responses are not sincere, they are furthest from that. You went out of your way to bring into this post, something I posted in another.

NY Ahmadi wrote: "There is nothing in Jewish teachings that say Mohammed was not a Jew."

Are you serious here. Ask a Jew my friend, they will tell you Muhammad is not one of them. Ask a Muslim about Jesus or Moses, and they will confirm to you that, yes indeed, these figures were full-fledged Muslims, and the best example of Islam.

NY Ahmadi wrote: "The term "Jew" means 'righteous' in Hebrew."

Your trying again to twist words. In the post in question you referred to Muhammad as both a "Jew" and a "Christian". Now you are defending your comments (regarding Muhammad being a Jew) by citing your knowledge of Hebrew. Well than defend the later part of your comment - Muhammad a "Christian"? Your sincerity falls short when you present half your argument and leave the other half behind. Yes Muhammad was "righteous", but the best label for him is Muslim.

NY Ahmadi wrote: "You don't have to be a philosopher to figure out the negative connotation attached to the term "Jew" in Islamic societies. In Pakistan, for example, the term "Jew" is synonymous with the term "piece of dirt". I think that's where your comments came from, from that kind of prejudice and hatred of the term "Jew"."

Where have I shown any prejudice or hatred for Jews? Your the one full of hate. Your stereotypical depiction of all "Islamic societies" as "Jew bashers" exemplifies that. I don't make broad generalizations, I support my comments with evidence, unlike some people who are driven by sheer hate.

Achtung ;)

"Let me say at the risk of seeming ridiculous, that the true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love." Che Guevara

14

ok

15

Your statement regarding the Ayatollahs is based on ignorance. There is a difference between labeling them unknowledgeable and having a problem with their type of rule. To make such a blanketed statement regarding an entire group of individuals, whoever they may be, shows a lack of knowledge in itself. As far as women are concerned, the rights of women are limited in Iran. In terms of women being "shut out from the decision-making process in governance", I am unclear to what exactly you are referring to. Since you are our resident expert on Iran and their religious clergy - please do explain.

I merely mentioned that Hollywood has depicted Muslims (and other groups) in a negative light, while Jews have not been depicted in such a manner. I never said that Hollywood is "owned" by Jews or is "100% Jewish". I simply said that they have considerable influence in the production of movies (many of which depict Muslims in a negative light). The difference between the movies you mentioned and the ones I did, is that white males are shown in both a positive and negative manner in Hollywood. There is a balance. Islam on the other hand is depicted, for the most part, negatively.

You go on to mention a number of instances where Muslims were convicted of crimes in the US. What your point is in mentioning these instances is unclear. When I mentioned the Oklahoma bombing it was to illustrate misconceptions on the part of the media. Your list doesn't seem to have a point. Are you trying to say that since certain groups of Muslims are guilty of crimes, which could be labeled terrorist, all Muslims are terrorists - this seems to be your implication. In which case, you have just affirmed the purpose of my original post. Or are you saying that I somehow fail to see the entire picture. In which case I think your mistaken. I denounce fanaticism in all of its manifestations. But, this post is not about fanaticism, its about misinformation. In terms of the Jewish lawyers, why should I mention them?

My posts have been directed towards certain segments of society and institutions in the west - namely orientalists, colonialists, and the media. I have not been judgmental of "western" people as a whole in my post. The point of my post is that they (westerners) are victims of the misinformation they are fed - you fail to have grasped this point.

Your diatribe about the war in the Balkans has nothing to do with any of the posts in this thread. Perhaps you wished to post it elsewhere and forgot. I never said the war in the Balkans was a "religious" one. I criticized the Israeli government for not speaking up against the crimes in Kosovo and in Bosnia. And I am not alone in my criticism. Granted Serbia helped Jews from Nazi Germany, failing to denounce genocide is still deplorable and even more so when it comes from a country whose sole existence is based on a horrible holocaust. Also, in spite of your views, religion does play a part in Israel's decision to stay quiet on the issue of the genocide:

"Foreign Minister Ariel Sharon and the Russians discussed concern about Islamic fundamentalism in Kosovo. Speaking on Israel Radio yesterday, Sharon spoke about Israel's ambivalence about siding with one party [either Serbia or NATO] to the conflict and mentioned Muslim fundamentalism in Albania. After calling the Balkans "a historic area of unending conflict," he expressed Israeli concerns about Albanian Kosovars. Sharon said, "...On a human level, we see things very gravely. But one must understand that in this region, there are extreme Islamic groups. One can find there Hezbollah people among the Albanian forces...There are also mujahidin forces, and [Saudi terrorist financier Osama] Bin-Laden people. It is unparalleled in its complexity." (March 30th, 1999, David Makovsky, Ha'aretz Newspaper Daily, Israel)

The statements made by Sharon are obvious. It would be ok to remain silent while thousands perish, because it would not be in Israel's interests to support them, solely on the basis of the religious affiliation of certain groups operating within their society. In other words the entire society pays for the actions and affiliations of a few.

To be fair to Israel, late yesterday, under immense pressure from opposition, Netanyahu denounced the Serbian attacks and pledged support to NATO. Opposition from Meretz MK Yossi Sarid, for example, who criticized the government for what he called "the thundering silence" on the continuing massacres taking place in Yugoslavia. "Israel always rails at the rest of the world when we Jews are being killed, said Sarid, "but when it is others being killed, this pathetic government has nothing to say. Netanyahu and (Foreign Minister Ariel) Sharon believe that one measly plane with medicines will make up for this... but it will only bring attention to the embarrassment."

By the way, as far as your summary of the war in the Balkans goes - it isn't entirely accurate. Yes it is true that the war in the region cannot be entirely viewed as a "religious" conflict (I can't think of very many conflicts than can be viewed in respect to one casual factor alone). But religion is not, as you mentioned a "minor element" and your statement:

"Milosevic is not killing Bosnians and Kosovars because they are Muslims; he is killing them because they are Bosnians and Kosovars. Hitler killed Jews because they were JEWS."

Is not true. I'm not viewing everything in a 'religious paradigm', I never negated any element of the war in the Balkans (which wasn't the discussion of this post in the first place), but now you have. You've emphasized ethnicity as the only source of conflict in the region - this is inaccurate. For Serbs Kosovo is like a Holy Land, their very own "Jerusalem". Serbian children are brought up with full knowledge of what happened in June, 1939 in Kosovo - its a sense of Serbian nationhood. In that month, Serbs fought at the Battle of Kosovo, at the helm of Serbian Prince Lazar. His forces were easily defeated and killed by the Ottomon Turks. The battle began over 500 years of Turkish rule. Prince Lazar could have avoided defeat if he simply paid a tribute tax to Turkish Sultan Murad I. He refused, and rather swore allegiance to what is known as the Kosovo Covenant, "to fight to death". Lazar became a Christ like figure for Serbs, while Muslims (both Bosnian and Kosovar) became the anti-Christ. Hymns and folk stories praising the "Christ-like" Lazar and denouncing Islam are prevalent in Serbian literature. Both Bosnians and Serbian's are Slavs - the same ethnicity. Serbian's believe that Bosnians gave up their ethnicity's when they converted to Islam. They were in essence "Turkized" and "Islamized". This is one of the reasons they were "cleansed" (and are being "cleansed" today) - to rid Europe of the "anti-Christ". Bosnian Muslims would resent your comments and be quite offended. Many strongly feel they were singled out for reasons pertaining to their religion. Anyway this is subject for another thread.

NY Ahmadi wrote: "Let me say it again, Mohammed was a Jew, and a Christian, and a Hindu, and a Sikh, and not just a Muslim."

This is ridiculous and not even worthy of comment. It makes no sense.

NY Ahmadi wrote: "As much as you may believe that I am playing word games with you, I see it as if I am learning things from your perspective!!!!"

Well frankly I am not learning anything from you. The more I read your posts the stupider you sound.

Good day,

Achtung

"...And its true we are immune. When fact is fiction and TV reality. And today the millions cry. We eat and drink while tomorrow they die. The real battle has just began, to claim victory to this one." U2

16

ok

17

NY Ahmadi wrote: “They [Iran’s Ayatollah’s] are the biggest supporters of international terrorism.”

Some give this title to the Americans.

NY Ahmadi wrote: “…do share with us what you believe [the Ayatollah’s] “knowledge” is. As you know that the Iranian Clergy picks candidates by hand who can run for an office. I don’t think academic debates are necessary to address simple questions like that.”

In terms of knowledge, the Ayatollah’s are well versed in various disciplines and have spent much of their time in institutions of higher learning. I can’t agree with a statement, which relegates them all to the status of “idiocy”. As I would not make broad generalizations about the Catholic clergy or the Jewish Rabbinical orders either. I am sure that within each of these are competent intelligent individuals who are well versed in a variety of disciplines. In terms of the second question regarding “governance” - in recent elections in Iran, progressive candidates with moderate viewpoints won a substantial portion of seats. Many of which were women. Most of which were running against conservative candidates who support the Ayatollah’s. I’m not sure where you got the notion that the “Iranian Clergy picks candidate by hand who can run for an office.” The Ayatollah’s obviously have a weighted opinion in the selection of conservative candidates, but they do not dictate who is placed in positions of power. If they were, Khattami would be excluded. The clergy does have an open hand with legal legislation, in particular that dealing with personal status law.

NY Ahmadi wrote: “You are trashing Jews all over this place…”

I am? Where? Is stating that Jews have been exempt from racial discrimination, for the most part, within Hollywood and that the state of Israel was lax in condemning the atrocities in former Yugoslavia considered anti-Semitic?

NY Ahmadi wrote: “I don’t consider Iranian Clergy “an entire group of people”. I consider them a group of Idiots who got together to exploit the “entire nation of Persians”.”

Many in that “entire nation of Persians” supported the revolution. Women donned the hijab (as a sign of disapproval for the Shah) and alongside men protested in the streets of Tehran. The US backed, CIA supported Shah could only withstand the strong public upheaval for so long. The people demanded change and for the most part supported Khomeini.

NY Ahmadi wrote: “All I was trying to imply was that people don’t form their opinion of Islam based upon movies alone. There are other instances that happen in this society that have influences on peoples 'perception of Islam.”

I never said it was movies alone which people base their opinions upon. It is one factor, which affects people’s perceptions in America though. Especially in light of the limited amount of credible information on Islam and the Middle East available in the US - its imperative that popular culture and mass media be accountable for their depictions of Islam and Muslim peoples. And attempt to balance their negative portrayals of Muslims with positive ones. If they fail to do so, those who are marginalized have every right to be offended. There definitely is a double-standard in effect when it comes to issues related to the depictions of Islam and Muslims.

NY Ahmadi wrote: “these political analysts comments about Oklahoma bombing was not based upon watching movies alone. The impression that you gave indicated that their perception was based upon watching movies alone.”

I never said it was based on movies alone. I believe I said “depictions like these” in Hollywood influence peoples perceptions. And they do. Along with other sources of information - which I discuss in my original post. Edward Said discusses other sources in detail in his book “Covering Islam: How the Media and Experts Determine How We See the Rest of the World” and the classic “Orientalism.”

NY Ahmadi wrote: “You were quite clear about your “unease” with at least one group of people.”

I have no “unease” with Jews. I do have some problems with Zionists but I didn’t let those seep into this thread.

NY Ahmadi wrote: “[The] “west” does not form its opinion about a group of people by watching Hollywood movies alone. There are other factors as well.”

I agree with you, again I never said it was Hollywood alone. There is no excuse for racist depictions of individuals and groups, they only fuel hatred.

NY Ahmadi wrote: “You again tried to trash Jewish groups and state of Israel in the above paragraph. What kind of Jew are you?”

First I am obviously not a Jew. Jews would not accept me in their purview. I am not one of the “chosen” people. They would exclude me. I never trashed Jewish groups or the state of Israel. I merely brought up the fact that they neglected to oppose the atrocities in Serbia (or at least delayed their response) - a debate, which was occurring in their own parliament. Were those Jews who questioned Netanyahu’s policy to remain silent about the atrocities in Kosovo also “trashing Jew[s]”?

NY Ahmadi wrote: “If my comments about Mohammed being multi-religious offended you…”

They did not offend me, I just found your statement to be an “oxy-moron”.

NY Ahmadi wrote: “Thanks for calling ma a stupid. I hope your views don’t represent the entire nation of Camels.”

I just don’t seem to get anything out of your posts, it seems as though you disagree for the sake of disagreeing. Your arguments fly in the face of countless well researched contemporary studies and documentation on the subject of Islam, the media and the dissemination of information, by Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Achtung :wink:

“A principal familiar to propagandists is that the doctrines to be instilled in the target audience should not be articulated: that would only expose them to reflection, inquiry and very likely ridicule. The proper procedure is to drill them home by constantly presupposing them, so that they become the very condition for discourse.” Noam Chomsky (Reflections on Propaganda)