Islamic Dilemma

[Astrotoy7]

Hello. Yes, this is my first thread in the chambers so be gentle with me Just looking around here tho, I recognise many of you as great contributors to swamp discussions so I'm looking forward to your input...

 

* * *

Ok. I live in Australia. My parents are Turkish Cypriot. We are Islamic by heritage. In practise, neither my family nor myself practise Islam to the letter, but we observe the festivals, dont eat pork(try not to ), and above all identify ourselves as muslims

 

Even out here in Australia, in a hugely multicultural city such as Melbourne, it is impossible *not* to notice a tangible change in attitude towards muslims on the whole. The paranoid part of me senses it as suspicion

 

I really cannot say how it is in other parts of the world, but subsequent to the Gulf War, September 11 and the ongoing Iraqi Crisis, I do not feel safe saying Im a muslim anymore. Sometimes I just dont feel comfortable telling people because I feel as though it will cause people to categorise or judge me.

 

There was a stretch last year where I had difficulty finding a job. I sent out numerous CVs(resumes) to employers in a predominately anglo part of town. The CVs had my original, Turkish/Islamic name on them. I got not one call back.... Within the next few months, similar positions came up at the same employer(s). This time I sent in my CVs with my name as "Sam" rather than my actual first name. ALL of the applications I made got a response. I was offered 3 of the 5 positions I had applied for.....

 

this got me thinking, and a bit worried. It is hard for me to imagine how a non muslim feels, but I can imagine mentioning the word 'muslim' nowdays is linked in peoples minds with "al qaeda", "bin laden" etc...... which are obviously negative perceptions.

 

I would like to know how non-muslim members of LF perceive islam and islamic people. Do you know any/many ? What do you think can be done to deal with the negative perception the islamic community has........

 

all comments are greatly appreciated

[Crazy_dog no.3]

Well I hold nothing against Muslims, although in my life I haven't come across many (not becuase I dislike them, there are just next to none living in my area). I mean sure, the horrible events at 9/11 MAY have been done by Muslims, but I don't hold any Muslims I have met responsible.

[ET Warrior]

One of my best friends and a roommate in my apartment this coming fall is Muslim. His father is from Iran, and I have never held any feelings of ill-will towards him or any other muslims.

 

(Unless they were assholes, then I didn't like them for the way they acted, not their nationalities )

 

I also have never seen nor heard of anyone in our community give them grief for it, nor has it caused employment problems.

[Doomie]

Well, here in Holland, we're supposed to be friendly against people from outside and all, but there still aren't many people that are really tolerant. I guess you'll find that around the world.

 

Though my experiences with muslims have been totally different (All muslims i really know are fat, spoiled, aggressive, and the worst case was, on top of that, stupid, a complete *******, selfish, etc. but there are only two of them), I hear from many people that really know Nice muslims that they are very normal people, jsts like we, and that's why i have learned to see them as such. Racism and discrimination is ridiculous, but it stillh appens, and nowadays, with the war, and the terrorrists, it only got worse

[toms]

i'm pretty tolerant, and some of the uk is the same... but there has definately been an increase in anti muslim feeling here and in the us (just look at the racially motivated assaults figures).

 

Probably of more worry is that i DO think that the word "muslim" HAS been tarnished with the brush of extremism & terrorism. Maybe not openly, but subconciously. In the same way that people who see groups of black youths hanging out feel unconciously threatened.

 

Whether this continues or is just temporary is hard to say, but once an impression is given it can be hard to shake it.

Eg: English football hooligans. (the recent euro cup was the first time in decades i have seen people willing to be associted with the st georges flag).

 

In many ways muslims are similar to christian/agnostic westerners, but there are a few noticable differences, such as the whole "nation of islam" concept, that can alarm people. I'd guess that you could possibly compare islam and islamic countries to christian countries around the time of the crusades and before the concepts of democracy, seperation of church and state, acceptance of other religions and so on.

Muslims in the west appear much more "progressive" (whether that is a good or bad thing depends on your point of view i guess), but often end up being grouped with, or forced to defend the actions and beliefs of those who have a more fundamental point of view.

 

You just have to see the recent furore over a fairly moderate islamic cleric who was invited to the uk (calls for him to be banned, etc..) in the uk to see how far apart the gap of understanding is.

 

I'd say the best bet is for both sides (although it may be the muslims who have to do most of the work) to try and integrateas much as possible, rather than hiding in ghetos and hanging out only with other muslims. Mutual understanding will come eventually...

---

Australia has to be one of the most racist countries i have visited. It is odd because most of the uk sees it as some form of sun-drenched paradise with a reputation for openness and tolerance... but when you get there there is an almost constant feel of racism and intollerance running under the surface. Things like their treatment of imigrants, detention centres and aborigines add to this feeling.

I was thinking of moving there, but i think it was this feeling of small-town attitude that eventually put me off.

[SkinWalker]

To put it simply, I think that nation-states need an other to point fingers at in order to give cause for unity and create a reason for support of decisions.

 

In Sir David Wilkie's painting Chelsea Pensioners Reading the Gazette of the Battle of Waterloo, we see British people united: rich, poor, Welsh, Scottish, Irish, women... even a black man. Linda Colley (1992) said that this painting represented Britains unity against outsiders in a time of war and recognized the power that having an other will have on patriotism among the general populace. I'm inclined to agree with her.

 

I think that for people to isolate among the fundamentalist Muslim community a small minority of people who share the ideal of using violence as a means of expressing their belief systems is difficult to do. The one common characteristic that is seen among the Al Qaeda terrorists is their Muslim heritage and this is where the majority of Westerners stop in trying to define the other. And they are encouraged by their leaders not think to hard about the subject.

 

Bush & co. blamed Iraq for 9/11, claiming that Iraq was thourouly connected to Al Qaeda. Western governments also do not draw a distinction between the violent acts and intensions of Al Qaeda and groups like Hizbolah or the PLO. The latter two have very specific goals and engage in very little transnational violence, yet they are Muslim.

 

Another aspect of creating this other is that it's easier to redefine "terrorism" so as to exclude the acts of Western governments. A suicide bomber who guides his own weapon against his enemy and detonates the device to kill his enemy is a terrorist. The government employee that launches a missile into an apartment building or home where a wedding is taking place is a hero.

 

But encouragement from Western governments isn't needed for people in Western nations to hate. I remember watching the events of 9/11 on the television in the Main Library of my university between classes. Hundreds of people congregate there every day, many of them of Middle Eastern descent. After staring at the screen for nearly an hour, I finally left to go home. One of the things that struck me, almost immediately once I looked around, was that there were no Asians or Middle Eastern students standing around. In fact, for a full week, it was hard to find anyone of brown skin that didn't speak Spanish on campus. Gradually they returned, but it was clear that they were made to feel uncomfortable by the sentiments and vocal expressions that Westerners were had from the very minute it was discovered who hijacked the planes.

 

Mosques in the Dallas area were attacked: windows shot out, molotov cocktails tossed at them, etc. People driving past anyone who looked Muslim yelled obsenities... etc. I was appalled. This struck me as being akin to attacking the local Presbyterian or Baptist churches to avenge the Oklahoma City bombing by McVeigh, who was a fundamentalist Christian.

 

So the short answer to your concern is that people are ignorant. They're too lazy to think past their own fears and biases. There will always be the other; it won't always be Muslims; but for now you're screwed. The best thing to do is be yourself and enlighten as many people as you can that simply being Muslim doesn't automatically make you something to be feared.

 

Good luck.

 

Colley, Linda (1992). Britons: Forging the Nation 1707-1837. New Haven. Yale University Press

[Mort-Hog]

When I was in Egypt, I found it very interesting that the Egyptian newspapers never used the word "terrorist". They were not particularly anti-American either, but they always made references to the groups by name.

 

I too think the Bushism "terrorist" is now utterly meaningless.

 

I mean, Al Queda and the Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade both make use of martyrdom operations, but other than that they are totally unrelated and have nothing in common. H.A.M.A.S, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah are all labelled "terrorist" even though they are very different and very specific organisations (Hezbollah is totally the coolest name of them all, might I add).

 

I also think it's interesting how the Kurdistan Worker's Party, Aum Shinrikyo, KKK, Christain Patriot movement, and the Tamil Tigers (who make up the vast majority of all suicide bombings in the world) are rarely referred to as "terrorists", if at all.

 

It certainly makes the word "terrorist" seem to refer to Muslim groups only.

 

Also it is interesting how the US state department has a list of "Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations" but there is no formal list of domestic 'terrorist' groups even though Americans are responsible for three quarters of all incidents classified as "terrorism" by the FBI.

 

 

When talking about such things, I always try to be as specific as possible. I try to avoid using the word "terrorist" if I can.

[Druid Bremen]

In my opinion, what someone's religion/skin colour is does not matter. But, what he does matters. Just because a Muslim perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, does not mean that every Muslim is going to bomb anybody. Sure, some might join Al Qaeda and bomb people, but they are people who are misguided. People who see one attack, and think that every Muslim is going to do the same, is BIASED. That's my opinion

[Ray Jones]

i think the general problem lies within extremism, fundamentalism and, of course, fanaticism.

[topshot]

Originally posted by Druid Bremen

In my opinion, what someone's religion/skin colour is does not matter. But, what he does matters. Just because a Muslim perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, does not mean that every Muslim is going to bomb anybody. Sure, some might join Al Qaeda and bomb people, but they are people who are misguided. People who see one attack, and think that every Muslim is going to do the same, is BIASED. That's my opinion

 

Mine, as well.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Mort-Hog

I too think the Bushism "terrorist" is now utterly meaningless.

 

Eh, "terrorist" is no bushism.

 

Al-Queda are terrorists through and through, and saying the opposite is breaking your back to justify the indefensible.

[toms]

me too... but if the general public is fed a weekly diet of news and fear about "terrorists" and those who are different then i would expect the view of most people will be different.

 

Look at opinions when blacks wanted equal rights in the south. I wasn't just "evil whites" and kkk who hated them, it was the average, law abiding citizen on the street (from kids to little old ladies) who were willing to turn a blind eye to beatings and lynchings. Why? Cos they had been told for year by the media, politicians, etc.. that blacks were to be feared an controlled or there would be trouble. Blacks were the "other" then, "islamic terrorists" are the "other" now.

 

There is a bob dylan somg about it somewhere.

 

If you look at Orwell's 1984 you will see that a highly important (though less often mentioned) part of the whole "big brother" control system was an ongoing war against a nameless "other". Due to the fear of this "other" that they were supposedly at war with people were willing to give up more and more freedoms.

 

"I'm willing to sacrifice a little freedom for more security". How often have we heard that. Soon there will be nothing left to sacrifice, and we will be no more secure... because there will still be another "other" out there to worry about...

[Astrotoy7]

Originally posted by toms

Australia has to be one of the most racist countries i have visited. It is odd because most of the uk sees it as some form of sun-drenched paradise with a reputation for openness and tolerance... but when you get there there is an almost constant feel of racism and intollerance running under the surface. Things like their treatment of imigrants, detention centres and aborigines add to this feeling.

I was thinking of moving there, but i think it was this feeling of small-town attitude that eventually put me off.

 

Xenophobia is almost genetic here...unfortunately....

 

* * *

 

thank you all for your comments. It has made intreesting reading. Excellent and informative post, Skinwalker Thanks !

 

mtfwbya

[Mort-Hog]

Originally posted by C'jais

Eh, "terrorist" is no bushism.

 

Al-Queda are terrorists through and through, and saying the opposite is breaking your back to justify the indefensible.

 

Yes it is.

 

Bush has made the word "terrorist" totally meaningless.

And I don't mean any of this "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" business.

 

The problem lies in branding all anti-Americans as "terrorists".

 

Al-Queda, HAMAS, Al Aqsa, Hezbollah.. All "terrorists", but they are all totally different.

 

Saying "It is a terrorist attack" tells me nothing. Saying "It is an Al-Queda attack", that tells me something. That tells me who it is and probably gives me some idea of why they're doing it. Branding them all as "terrorists" is not useful. Egyptian newspapers not once used the word "terrorist" when referring to Al-Queda or Hezbollah.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Mort-Hog

Saying "It is a terrorist attack" tells me nothing. Saying "It is an Al-Queda attack", that tells me something. That tells me who it is and probably gives me some idea of why they're doing it. Branding them all as "terrorists" is not useful. Egyptian newspapers not once used the word "terrorist" when referring to Al-Queda or Hezbollah.

 

Pardon me, but don't the American newspaper tell you more about the supposed "terrorist attacks", such as clarifying just who did it etc? To do otherwise would be stupid, and you'd be right, of course.

 

I agree the word itself is over-used, but when applied to real terrorist groups, it's not a misnomer.

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by Astrotoy7

I would like to know how non-muslim members of LF perceive islam and islamic people. Do you know any/many ? What do you think can be done to deal with the negative perception the islamic community has........

 

The discrimination you appear to have suffered is sad, mainly because it is a vicious circle: When you discriminate against a group of people, more of them will turn on you, and you become more suspicious of that group of people... repeat ad nauseum.

 

What most people fail to understand is that there is a fundamental difference between "immigrants" and "muslims" and between "muslims" and "Islam." Focusing on the latter pair, people are naturally sceptical about Islam - as well they should be! It is a vicious, totalitarian movement with almost as much blood on its hands as Christianity. Logic fails, however, when people view muslims only as representatives of Islam. Muslims, as well as Communists, Christians, and Jews come in all shapes. Most of them are good people despite the fact that they were born into a Fascist belief system. In fact, most people are good, honourable, and agreeable people, no matter what their heritage/history.

 

In short, I can never respect someone because of his religion, but I can easily respect most people despite their religion.

 

And as a note on the side, favoring Christians over Muslims, as seems to have been the case in your case, is just plain silly, since - if anything - Christianity is the more bloody-handed of the pair.

 

Probably of more worry is that i DO think that the word "muslim" HAS been tarnished with the brush of extremism & terrorism. Maybe not openly, but subconciously. In the same way that people who see groups of black youths hanging out feel unconciously threatened.

 

Curiously, this implies that people don't feel threatened by white teenagers hanging around in gangs on the street corners... Maybe it's just me, but I'm willing to bet that they are no less vicious.

 

Australia has to be one of the most racist countries i have visited.

 

I am not surprised. They had an Apartheid-like system for longer than South Africa

 

Also it is interesting how the US state department has a list of "Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations" but there is no formal list of domestic 'terrorist' groups even though Americans are responsible for three quarters of all incidents classified as "terrorism" by the FBI.

 

But those are Christian fanatics... Dubya wouldn't want to alienate his principal voter base, would he?

 

If you look at Orwell's 1984 you will see that a highly important (though less often mentioned) part of the whole "big brother" control system was an ongoing war against a nameless "other". Due to the fear of this "other" that they were supposedly at war with people were willing to give up more and more freedoms.

 

And, curiously, this enemy could be changed overnight - or even in the midst of a speech... See where I'm going?