veiled4allah: got racism? part two veiled4allah: got racism? part twoThe Florida office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-FL) today called on law enforcement authorities to investigate an assault on a Muslim child at a school in that state as a hate crime. The 12-year-old victim, a student at a middle school in Boyton Beach who wears an Islamic head scarf, says she was assaulted in the hallway of her school last week by four teenage boys who hit her across the face with a leather belt, injuring her lip.What is creating this climate where attacking people think they can get away with physically assaulting random Muslims they come across? Maybe it's all this "Islam is evil, Arabs are savages" rhetoric coming from certain parts of the political spectrum. Are you proud of yourselves knowing that a 12 year old girl was assaulted? She was hit across the face with a belt.
During the assault, the boys allegedly called the Muslim child "Osama" and used derogative remarks about her head scarf and about her ethnic background. (The child is of Pakistani heritage.) The perpetrators also threatened further attacks if the victim notified school authorities.
The same student told CAIR-FL that she was the target of several similar but less violent incidents of harassment in the recent past. She says school officials failed to take corrective action following those incidents.
All comments are copyright their authors
Here's who's pinging me:
The following is a list of the ten most recent entries in veiled4allah as of Mar 09, 2006:
View a list of all entries in veiled4allah
This entry has been tagged as covering the following subjects: islamophobia. The following is a list of the ten most recent entries in Al-Muhajabah's Islamic Blogs that share any of these tags:
A semantic analysis of this entry also suggests the following keywords to search for related content on: hate crimes, hate crime, group rights, crimes laws, individual rights, muslims, because, Muslims, hate, crimes, rights, people, think, political, hijab, right, group, harm, muslim, Muslim, religion, believe, say, those, religious
What links here: View a list of other entries in this blog (if any) that link to this entry
To learn more about Islam, please see Introduction to Islam.
To learn more about the issue of Islamophobia, see Links about Stereotyping of Arabs and Muslims.
Or look generally for informational pages on my website tagged with islamophobia
A semantic search of Al-Muhajabah's Islamic Blogs suggests the following as the ten entries most closely related to this entry:
Check out other web pages (if any) that I've bookmarked via del.icio.us that share the same tags: islamophobia
Explore reference materials from Answers.com about these subjects: islamophobia
Read news stories at Common Times about these subjects: islamophobia
View search results at gada.be metasearch service for these subjects: islamophobia
Find books at Amazon.com on these subjects: islamophobia
Check Waypath for blog entries generally related to this entry, or Technorati or Bloglines for blog entries that link to this entry.
Technorati tags: View blog entries, bookmarks and photos tagged by others with the same subjects as this entry: islamophobia
For external resources on the topic of this entry, you can run a search for its title got racism? part two (Google, DayPop, Feedster) or keyword(s) islamophobia (Google, DayPop, Feedster). DayPop is a search engine similar to Google that focuses on searching news sources and blogs. Feedster searches blogs via RSS feeds.
Subject: assault
Salamu alaikum,It's so sad to know these assaults happen. In my country (Netherlands) we have in history-lessons the subject racism and holocaust as one of the main issues, it's still a big issue every year on may 4th when we nationally remember the horrible acts done during WW2.
A few weeks ago I finished my prayers in the mosque I went outside and I was assaulted, a surpriseattack in my back.. by a man I never saw, only because I'm muslim..
I am wondering how the jews experienced life the 10 years before the WW2 (in my country).. I foresee a pessimistic future for humanity if such assaults gonna be more common throughout the world..
I just had to reply on this to ask everybody who read this article about this 12 year old child:
-How was the situation before the WW2 in Europe?
-Can we compare the situation from that time with this current time?
-And what are the similarities with the jews in that time and the muslims now (in the light of the subject I mean)?
.................
Peace & blessings
Subject: Re: assault
The comparisons to pre-WWII Europe don't seem quite so over the top after you visit this site. I worry a lot about what will happen if that kind of rhetoric becomes more commonplace, more accepted. I think we're a long ways away still, but as long as sites like LGF exist, there's reason to be concerned.Subject: LGF and the like.
Personally, I don't think LGF is representative of anything but LGF.Sadly, that is enough reason to be concerned, particularly when reading stuff like this LGF quiz.
Jews have been a persecuted minority all over the world for more roughly 2000 years and it's unlikely this is going to change anytime soon. However the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is framed, it is essentially a national connflict that uses religious ethnic markers, much like what is happening in Northern Ireland. In addition, there are many Palestinians who aren't Muslims. To frame this conflict as one between Jews and Muslims is a PR induced simplification that is simply untrue.
That said, incidents like the bullying of the little girl are unjustifiable - yet they do occur. It is, however, difficult to know whether they occured simply because the four boys were looking for a victim and she was simply the first to walk by or if she was deliberately singled out because she was a Muslim.
If a Jewish guy gets in a barfight about a girl, there's a chance this wasn't an anti-semitic incident. If four boys bully a girl, there's a chance it was - while undoubtedly unfair and unjustifiable - not a hate crime in the common definition.
I don't know. Maybe it was. All I'm saying is that the Council on American-Islamic Relations certainly has a political agenda to call this a "hate crime".
Subject: Re: LGF and the like.
I will say only this: I completely disagree with you. When people are assaulted and called religious and ethnic epithets, that is a big problem to me and not something I'm going to keep silent about.You're entitled to your own opinion of course, but I have to say I find it offensive. Politically-motivated whining indeed.
Subject: Re: LGF and the like.
Oh, and a few more things. As long as LGF is near or among the top ten most popular blogs and there probably aren't more than two degrees of separation between it and any given right-wing blog (i.e., the blog links to somebody who links to it), it's not "just" LGF. Open your eyes!!! That a site like that exists at all is bad, that it's so popular among conservatives and right-wingers should be a major cause of concern for any thinking person.You know what, Tobias? If this is a problem, and it gets worse, I'm the one that's going to suffer because of it, not you, because I'm visibly Muslim. Maybe that's why the people who are potentially at risk are more concerned about it than you are, not because they play "victim politics". Don't you think?
P.S. If there's only one person at a place who's visibly Jewish (e.g., by wearing a yarmulke) and that person gets assaulted by someone who calls him religious and ethnic epithets, then we can be pretty sure that it was motivated by anti-Semitism. That's the proper analogy to this situation. The girl was wearing hijab and is clearly and visibly a Muslim.
Subject: Re: LGF and the like.
Hi again,>P.S. If there's only one person at a place who's visibly Jewish
>(e.g., by wearing a yarmulke) and that person gets assaulted by
>someone who calls him religious and ethnic epithets, then we
> can be pretty sure that it was motivated by anti-Semitism. That's
>the proper analogy to this situation. The girl was wearing hijab
>and is clearly and visibly a Muslim.
I think there are inappropriate derogatory terms for every faith, nationality and ethnicity that exists on this planet. For some of my personal experience with with "Kraut-bashing" read
http://almostadiary.baldingwithgrace.de/archives/2003_01.php#000782
if you like.
And I have also been the target of LGF's wrath for a fisking of William Safire last year
http://almostadiary.baldingwithgrace.de/archives/2003_01.php#000769
and a later comment on their board:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=5386#c0049
I was lucky not to have comments on blogspot back then
My point was not to justify bullying, it was just to say that in my experience guys of the bullying ilk don't bully because of any ascriptive traits of the victim, they do it because it gives them real, or imagined power.
In addition, I can imagine religious religious and ethnic epithets being used in a fight without a background of ethnically or religiously motivated hate. In my opinion, it's not the expressions themselves, but the reasons for their use that would make it a hate crime.
Problem is, how do we know? I understand the victim's sensitivity about this and not every reaction is some kind of "victim politics", or reverse discrimination - but when a - any - politcal organisation goes public, there's most likely a political windfall. Maybe I'm a bit too cynical about this. But my experience tells me I'm probably not.
Subject: Re: LGF and the like.
If you really want to debate hate crimes, I would recommend that you read Who needs hate crime laws? by David Neiwert and also his Hate crimes: A response for even more detail.CAIR is a civil rights organization. It's their job to speak up about the rights of Muslims. The NAACP does the same for African-Americans, the ADL for Jewish Americans and so on. If you don't believe that there's a problem or that there should be a special legal category for hate crimes/bias incidents, then you're bound to find all of these groups to be annoying at best and perhaps opportunistic and "political". I've noticed that conservatives in particular seem to feel this way while groups who because of their minority status are more likely to face these problems tend to support the idea.
In the end, it doesn't really matter to me whether or not an attacker really hates me for being Muslim or is saying it opportunistically. As long as such attacks do occur and as long as religion and/or ethnicity become a part of the incident, anybody who belongs to that religion or ethnic group is going to feel like they are especially at risk. As Neiwert explains, it is the fact that hate crimes have these effects that go beyond just the attack itself, by increasing fear and suspicion, that is the legal justification for punishing them differently than crimes that do not have this bias element. It has nothing to do with punishing people for what they think and everything to do with the greater harm that is caused by these crimes.
I am also concerned about the effects of hateful rhetoric like from LGF. The basic idea of propaganda and "the big lie" is that if people hear something often enough, they start to believe it. I am concerned that if people start to hear anti-Muslim rhetoric often enough (and believe me it is not just LGF, not even close), they will start to believe it and it will create a climate where attacks on Muslims come to seem more acceptable. I hear it all too often that Muslims are somehow "different", worse than other groups, more deserving of having restrictions placed on them, of being treated worse than other people. You implied this several times during our discussion of hijab and you seem to be an intelligent and reasonable sort of person. There are an awful lot of people who aren't so intelligent or so reasonable.
Subject: Re: LGF and the like.
Hi again,CAIR is a civil rights organization. It's their job to speak up about the rights of Muslims.
Sure.
If you don't believe that there's a problem or that there should be a special legal category for hate crimes/bias incidents, then you're bound to find all of these groups to be annoying at best and perhaps opportunistic and "political".
I'm living in a society with one of the strictest hate crime regimes in the world. In Germany - for reasons that need no explanation - it is against the law just to deny the Holocaust, for example. Yet the fact that there should be a different category for - carefully specified - hate crimes (I suppose we might run into defintional difficulties here) doesn't refute the claim that the group-rights-organisations do have a political agenda in doing so. Sometimes their actions are more justfiied, sometimes less.
I've noticed that conservatives in particular seem to feel this way while groups who because of their minority status are more likely to face these problems tend to support the idea.
Hmm - there are no conservatives in "minority groups"?
In the end, it doesn't really matter to me whether or not an attacker really hates me for being Muslim or is saying it opportunistically. As long as such attacks do occur and as long as religion and/or ethnicity become a part of the incident, anybody who belongs to that religion or ethnic group is going to feel like they are especially at risk.
I don't think you read my article about "Kraut Bashing". My point in the article as well as in my comments was one that Mr Neiwert explicitly makes in his article - let me quote:
"There's no doubt that the main point here is true: Establishing a bias motivation is unquestionably the most difficult aspect of prosecuting these cases. Indeed, the bar is extremely high, since proving this motivation requires relying on both previous statements or associations and with establishing the perpetrator's state of mind, or mens rea, at the time of the act."The motivation is not irrelevant. If it weren't for motivation there would be no need for a different category of law. If there is a general social consensus on what is inacceptable I have no objections to regulate the way people can act, not the way they think. There are obviously borderline issues, say, publishing racist pamphlets.
However, is one group's perception of "being at risk" sufficient for the establishment of general laws? I find it interesting to hear this group-rights argument after your adamant defense of individual rights when confronted with the same argument - that there is a sizeable group of people that feels indeed threatened by the hijab. This does seem a little eclectic to me.
As Neiwert explains, it is the fact that hate crimes have these effects that go beyond just the attack itself, by increasing fear and suspicion, that is the legal justification for punishing them differently than crimes that do not have this bias element. It has nothing to do with punishing people for what they think and everything to do with the greater harm that is caused by these crimes
I think this is a rather dangerous justification attempt. When a serial bankrobber is caught eventually he is not punished for raising the security related costs of the banks he has not robbes but for those he actually did rob. I think the appropriate justification is to punish them for what they are, not ehat they could possibly cause - they ARE crimes against humanity, and human dignity, that happen because of ascriptive traits of the victims (and are caused by aesthetic perceptions of the perpetrator).
"I am also concerned about the effects of hateful rhetoric like from LGF. The basic idea of propaganda and "the big lie" is that if people hear something often enough, they start to believe it. I am concerned that if people start to hear anti-Muslim rhetoric often enough (and believe me it is not just LGF, not even close), they will start to believe it and it will create a climate where attacks on Muslims come to seem more acceptable.
They do. I've followed the American discourse for some time now and I tend to think it is far more extreme than it is here in Europe. There's LGF, but there's also those who send "Hitler==Bush" videos to MoveOn.org. Maybe the specific American discourse about political correctness is simply a corrective to a publice sphere swamped with extreme opinions that is crowding out the centre, the moderates on all sides. As a consequence, a more rigorous coding system is needed so the social discourse doesn't completely stop. Yet I am surprised that it took so long until more than just a handful of people realised that much of the blogosphere is, just as the media, mostly an echo chamber: I mean, those who go to LGF most likely do already have a specific pre-configuration of reality, just as those on the other side. I don't think there's much "convincing" going on.
I hear it all too often that Muslims are somehow "different", worse than other groups, more deserving of having restrictions placed on them, of being treated worse than other people. You implied this several times during our discussion of hijab and you seem to be an intelligent and reasonable sort of person.
I suppose that's an interpretation of what I said that's entirely in the eye of the beholder. Yes, some Muslims are religious in a way that understandably raises allegiance questions of the kind that Christianity dealt with during the enlightenment era.
As I understand, for a plethora of reassons, many, if not most Islamic cultures, just as an important part of Islamic theology has succeeded in opposing societal modernisation, with the establishment justifying the continuation of ancient social rituals with and Islam to be an all-encompassing guide for life, thus a fundamentally political religion.
I mean, take the Q&A section on interest of the current shi'ite good guy in Iraq, Ayatollah Sistani, for example [ http://sistani.org/html/eng/main/index.php?page=4&lang=eng&part=1 ]. That's the kind of questions that were relevant in Christianity during the Medieval (and that drove Jews into the money lending business which in turn led to pogroms after debt defaults, rising interest rates, more defaults, more pogroms and thus added significantly to the anti-semitic rethoric employed for the last two thouasand years). There's a reason this time is called the dark ages.
There's religion and there's culture - yet in most cases these two present an intertwined mixture impossible to disentangle whether looking to the Occident or to the Orient. There's a place in life for religion but it should not dispute that there is also one for economic theory - as I understand it, much, not all - of Islamic teaching isn't accepting this in theory (although taking interest from infidels is apparently in order...).
So to get back to your last statement - when Islam is a purely private issue it is a religion just as all others and to be treated as such. When it becomes strongly political (since it is hard to draw the line), it is clearly different.
Subject: Re: LGF and the like.
Perhaps I am not expressing myself clearly; I think that you've tried to read more into some of what I wrote than I meant. If so, that is my fault for poor writing. The purpose of the links to Neiwert's blog were to present you with an explanation of the reasoning behind hate crimes laws that is more comprehensive and better-written than anything I could produce. Since I didn't write it myself and can't link to just parts of it, there may be some parts that are "redundant" or that are telling you what you already think. I did have your "kraut" incident in mind when I selected those links and I thought that you might like to see how it fits into the larger defense of hate crimes laws, but I would have linked to Neiwert anyway just because what he wrote is so comprehensive.You said that you find my views "eclectic" (no doubt a polite way of saying that they are "inconsistent") because in one case I was standing up for the rights of individuals and in the other for the rights of groups. For one thing, those are not mutually exclusive! But as I tried to make clear in the hijab discussion, what you have failed to do is to convince me that hijab is some kind of "assault" on the rights of the other group. I said that I would not have a problem with restrictions where there is a clear harm. In the case of physical assault (as with the hate crimes we are discussing), there is a very obvious harm: the physical damage of the assault. The attack may also generate fear in the minds of others of the targeted group that they too will be physically assaulted. This is recognized under the law as a real harm (in fact, literally under American law, I should be talking about "battery" not assault because battery is the actual physical attack while assault is causing someone to fear imminent battery).
What has this to do with a piece of fabric on a woman's head? Over and over and over again, I have asked you to explain the harm that is caused by the hijab, or any right of others that it interferes with. You have never provided this explanation.
As I stated in the hijab discussion, since the hijab does not cause a quantifiable harm, then I do not believe there is a justification in banning it. Assaults clearly do cause harm and I believe (following Neiwert) that hate crime assaults cause a greater harm than ordinary assaults. Therefore, I support efforts to ban them.
How can you possibly say that because I support a woman's individual right to wear a headscarf, I should also support a person's "right" to attack others over their religion or ethnicity because both are an "individual rights" position??? I try my best to support and help whoever is suffering harm because of something. Sometimes the harm is done to an individual and sometimes to a group. Supporting the individual over the group in the first case and the group over the individual in the second is not, in my opinion, inconsistent.
Because you have failed to explain the harm caused by a headscarf, I hold the headscarf-wearing woman to be more injured by the restriction of her right to dress as she chooses than the society to be "injured" by having to see her wearing it. Meanwhile, I believe that groups who are targeted by hate crimes (which may not all be minority groups, although I think they tend to be most of the time) would be more injured by the lack of hate crimes laws than people who commit hate crimes are injured by the existence of such laws. Based on the reasoning I explained above, I do not feel that these two positions are inconsistent.
Could you explain how and why you believe my practice of my religion to be "political" and thus different from the practice of, say, Christianity or Judaism? I don't mean, point to some Muslim cleric somewhere who said something political, I mean what about my religious practice specifically is political?
This blog is political, definitely so. But the arguments I made in favor of a woman's right to wear a headscarf are based on the American Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom - even the U.S. Department of Justice has intervened in a case to support a female student's right to wear hijab. The arguments I am trying to make in favor of a vigorous approach to hate crimes are again based on the actual existence of hate crimes laws in the U.S. and the arguments that are made by non-Muslims (for instance, Neiwert) in a secular context to support these laws.
As far as I can tell through my interactions with and observations of others, my views on both issues are completely typical of many American liberals. If I were not Muslim, I would probably spend a lot less time talking about the rights of specifically of Muslims, but I would still hold the same views about these issues. And as I have tried to make clear, I support the right of (for instance) a Jewish man to wear a yarmulke just as much as I do the right of a Muslim woman to wear a headscarf, and I support hate crimes laws to protect him against assault because he wears it just as much as I do the protection of Muslim women from assault because they wear headscarves.
I do not believe that the fact that I have political views about issues that relate to Muslims in American society make my religious practice politicized and certainly not more so than any other religion becomes politicized in these ways.
So what is it about me and what I do (not that I've ever made mention of much that I do besides pontificating at this blog and veiling in public) that is somehow different? Is there anything? If no, will you give me a special exemption from your view that Muslims should be treated differently? Don't forget to do the same for other Muslims who may also be like me. Once again you seem to be arguing that because some Muslims somewhere do something, it is OK to restrict other Muslims elsewhere even though they have not done that thing or because you think that they might someday do it on account of being Muslims.
Subject: Re: LGF and the like.
Hi again,If so, that is my fault for poor writing.
I suppose that is probably a bigger problem on my side of this discussion...
You said that you find my views "eclectic" (no doubt a polite way of saying that they are "inconsistent") because in one case I was standing up for the rights of individuals and in the other for the rights of groups. For one thing, those are not mutually exclusive!
No they're not. I agree. In fact, the hijab discussion essentially is just that, a discussion about group rights (usually culturally defined) vs. individual rights. It's the essence of political conflict and will probably never be solved logically.
But as I tried to make clear in the hijab discussion, what you have failed to do is to convince me that hijab is some kind of "assault" on the rights of the other group. I said that I would not have a problem with restrictions where there is a clear harm. ... What has this to do with a piece of fabric on a woman's head? Over and over and over again, I have asked you to explain the harm that is caused by the hijab, or any right of others that it interferes with. You have never provided this explanation.
Clearly, physical assault is different from a headscarf. And I agree with you that my explanations of the "threat-potential" weren't as strong as I'd like them to be. This is probably owed to my own ambivalence with respect to this question. Sloppy thinking leads to sloppy writing. All I tried to say is that there are a significant number of people who do feel culturally threatened by it, as you implicitly acknowledge.
... I hold the headscarf-wearing woman to be more injured by the restriction of her right to dress as she chooses than the society to be "injured" by having to see her wearing it.
This is your valid point of view. However, I cannot really understand that you cannot seem to accept that people might feel different, that visual disturbance might not be the only reason for their position and that they do deserve to be heard, too. Such an admission is basically all I was ever asking for.
But beyond visual questions, there are clearly those girls who are forced to wear a hijab against their will. Is that "clear harm"? Harm justifies restrictions on those who do it voluntarily? Tough.
I've talked to a friend about this and he reminded me of a logically similar issue - legalisation of prostitution. There is ample evidence of a lot of forced prostitutes working in Germany, just as there are a lot of prostitutes who do this work voluntarily. Hardly any of the forced prostitutes would say so when asked by law enforcement.
Is their plight - are the crimes committed by human trafficers and their pimps - sufficient reason to restrict the right of other consenting adults to engage in transactions of their choosing? Tough.
Is the right of girls not to be forced into a dresscode they might disapprove of sufficient reason to restrict other people's voluntary actions?
Very soon this argument will be down to cultural and moral norms, perceived imperatives, or, in a more philosophical discussion, about the nature of true "free will".
What does "free" mean? No one has ever lived behind a veil of ignorance. So when is a decision ever truly "free"? But, for all practical purposes - when should it be considered as such?
In practice legislation will always meander between the two extremes. Practical solutions to will vary widely between countries. In Turkey, an de facto Islamic country, prostitution is legal, in the US it's illegal for both parties, and in Sweden, it's only illegal for clients. Differences that remain insatisfactory, sure. But probably as good as it gets in absence of a truly compelling argument about the practical nature of "free will" and "socialisation".
How can you possibly say that because I support a woman's individual right to wear a headscarf, I should also support a person's "right" to attack others over their religion or ethnicity because both are an "individual rights" position???
I did not. Please don't suggest I did. No one has a de jure right to attack others for whatever reason. De facto, in a pre-crime-less (remember Minority Report) world, everyone does have a de facto right to attack anyone for any reason.
Meanwhile, I believe that groups who are targeted by hate crimes (which may not all be minority groups, although I think they tend to be most of the time) would be more injured by the lack of hate crimes laws than people who commit hate crimes are injured by the existence of such laws.
Again, I argued in favour of a hate crime category. I am just opposef to basing it on possible future consequences for a "group". That's politics (as seen in the hijab discussion) and should be kept out of the tort law as far as possible. I think it is sufficient to punish these crimes for what they are, not for what they might possibly cause.
Could you explain how and why you believe my practice of my religion to be "political" and thus different from the practice of, say, Christianity or Judaism? I don't mean, point to some Muslim cleric somewhere who said something political, I mean what about my religious practice specifically is political?
Well, for one, we wouldn't be discussing if the hijab weren't a political issue, and, I suppose, your blog woulfn't be called veiled for Allah if it weren't political. But that's not what I was referring to. In fact, I am most grateful for such a forum of exchange (I've just linked you in the non-Europe section on a fistfulofeuros.net).
I think the Q&A from Ayatollah Sistani's site is an example of what I meant with respect to Islam. The upholding of pre-modern social myths of rationality - as well as social order (in those countries where Islam is the official religion) in the name of religion with all the dysfunctional consequences in the Islamic world we're witnessing on CNN everyday. In Falludja, these days, there's the law of the land, and there's the Sharia. Sure, we could say that the ten commandments are in some way the origin of modern tort law, but that would be rather farfetched. Yet Islamic law is, as I understand, divine law. Verdicts are made by religious leaders. How is this not political?
Sure it does not per se make the practice of Islam political. But that's precisely why the veil is topic at all - what might have been a useful and culturally appropriate dresscode in Mekka circa 700 ad may just not be that in a Western Metropolitan area ca. 2004. Where Christianity adapted (violently) Islam hasn't yet. As I understand there is hardly any non-liturgical scientific research conducted with respect to the Quran, as has been done with the Hebrew Bible as well as the New Testament for centuries. In 2000, when a first study about the possible theological consequences of aramaic influences on the Quran was published, the author did so under a pseudonym fearing the fate of Salman Rushdie. His thesis that the Quran was not the first Arabic book and that it was compiled and reqritten for a long time after the prophet, largely based on an Aramaic version of a Christian sect's New Testament will be tough reading for any believing Muslim. But so must be the archeological evidence that Mose never led the Israelis out of Egypt for Jews, or for Catholics to realize that there is at least as much fiction in the New Testament as there is fact. Yet it is Christians and Jews who conduct this research.
Maybe this kind of reformation is more difficult for Islam because of it's decentralised nature. Maybe possible changes in Iran will be indicative with respect to the theory that we are currently witnessing some kind of alphabetisation driven Islamic reformation (and counter-reformative movements like Wahhabism). I don't know. I'm just consuming more informed people' opinions.
I do not believe that the fact that I have political views about issues that relate to Muslims in American society make my religious practice politicized and certainly not more so than any other religion becomes politicized in these ways.
I agree that there are scary trends, particularly among American Evangelicals.
So what is it about me and what I do (not that I've ever made mention of much that I do besides pontificating at this blog and veiling in public) that is somehow different? Is there anything? If no, will you give me a special exemption from your view that Muslims should be treated differently? Don't forget to do the same for other Muslims who may also be like me. Once again you seem to be arguing that because some Muslims somewhere do something, it is OK to restrict other Muslims elsewhere even though they have not done that thing or because you think that they might someday do it on account of being Muslims.
I think I have sufficiently expresed my abivalenve with respect to this question. But yes, the actions and politcal theology of Muslims do somewhat affect even those Muslims who might not agree with it, as unfortunate as that may be, just as I do have to accept that some people might call my Nazi for being German. It's simply a fact of life. The more importante question to me is, however, how to deal with the consequences in practice, how to strike a wortwhile practical balance between individual rights and group rights in absence of a convincing theoretical argument.
you might be interested in this
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17054
I've talked to a friend about this and he reminded me of a logically similar issue - legalisation of prostitution. There is ample evidence of a lot of forced prostitutes working in Germany, just as there are a lot of prostitutes who do this work voluntarily. Hardly any of the forced prostitutes would say so when asked by law enforcement.
Is their plight - are the crimes committed by human trafficers and their pimps - sufficient reason to restrict the right of other consenting adults to engage in transactions of their choosing? Tough.
Worst analogy ever.
The young girl in question was hit in the face with a belt because she had on a hijab, and is Pakistani. Period.
Let's not pretend those committing this assault are in any way similar to human traffickers and pimps. Or that restricting Muslim women's (and girl's) rights would somehow be out of concern for their percieved "plight".
That's just absurd.
All I tried to say is that there are a significant number of people who do feel culturally threatened by it, as you implicitly acknowledge.
Careful, lest you yourself fall into the dreaded "group rights" argument...
Subject: Re: got racism? part two
LauraJ,Worst analogy ever.
If you read my comment carefully you will realise that the analogy was not with the girl being hit but with the question of ihjab bans in public/secular institutions. The logical structure of these two problems is similar.
Careful, lest you yourself fall into the dreaded "group rights" argument...
Politics is always about group rights. That's why minorities need protection in a Democracy. Group rights become a problem when they enter the legal realm.
Subject: Enough
I'm sorry, Tobias, but this has become pointless. I have said all that I am going to say; I'm sorry that you don't seem to understand it. I feel like I'm wasting my time repeating myself over and over to no effect. It is clear that you will never accept my point of view and I have explained exhaustively why I do not accept yours.If you ever have something to say beyond trying to justify banning hijab, you are welcome to share it; however, we must have done 30 or 40 comments on this one topic and I am saying "Enough". I will not respond further in this thread. I hope that you will respect my wishes. I also hope that you will find people with more patience than me who will give you the debate on this topic that you really want to have.
Subject: Re: Enough
I'm sorry, Tobias, but this has become pointless. I have said all that I am going to say; I'm sorry that you don't seem to understand it. I feel like I'm wasting my time repeating myself over and over to no effect. It is clear that you will never accept my point of view and I have explained exhaustively why I do not accept yours.I'm sorry, too. But fair enough. It was interesting though.
As I said over and over - if such a discussion is not going anywhere what could you possibly expect from a society-wide discourse. While I think that this discourse is as important for non-Muslims as it is for Muslims - it concerns the nature of our shared polities - the Muslims will very likely be the ones to bear the more painful consequences of a discourse disruption, as witnessed by the sad story about the girl.
You might no longer want to talk to me - but I can only encourage you, and your brothers and sisters in faith, to continue the dialogue wherever you can.
Did you read the article in the New York Review of Books I linked to above? I'd be really interested in your opinion.
Subject: Comments closed
Comments are now closed on this entry. Please do not attempt to re-open this discussion by commenting on some other entry. Thank you.