I have been having trouble articulating this - bear with me. It seems that there is a strong sexual component to Islamic cultural rules, and a peculiar connection to the terrorists. As to the rules, why would women and men be treated so differently? Apparently, women must be covered because men cannot be counted upon to control their sexual urges. The men are apparently totally powerless to suppress these urges, so they must by force subjugate the women. This is a strange and wildly extreme stance for them to take, but how else are we to interpret their every attempt to diminish any semblance of femininity? After all, what IS femininity if not a matter of sex? What a bizarre foundation for religious zealotry.
As to the highjackers, I have read that, although they were clearly fanatics, they went to strip joints the night or so before the attacks, and were seen in porno stores. What’s up with that? Are these guys this angry because of repressed sexuality? And then, this guy, Atta, leaves a will demanding that no “unclean” woman look at his body, and that no one should touch his genitals. What’s with this guy? How could such heinous acts be connected to sex? I mean, it seems that there is a psychosexual component to these guys’ personalities and it may even be rooted in Islam, itself. Can anyone sort this out for me?
And, don’t forget, they apparently flew those jets into the buildings with the promise of 50 nubile young virgins, waiting for them on “the other side.”
Yes, yes,…striking at two great phalluses of rampant capitalism whilst in the womb like confines of a plane cabin. Last words undoubtedly; “Mother!” Certainly…it’s all becoming crystal.
On the other hand, one could argue that Christianity is also a little inconsistent with regards the role and rights of women and, further, that some members of that Church – brace yourself for this – are also a little inconsistent in the application of their beliefs.
Then there’s characters like Timothy McVeigh. Then there’s all those crazy Catholics flagellating all over the place, Paedophile Priests…
…it’s just a funny old world.
BTW, I can’t imagine he had too much left in the way of genitalia – not something that’s of great concern.
There is some line in Islamic text about how women should “hide their adornments” (excuse my paraphrasing…perhaps someone can provide a more accurate quote). Some fundamentalists took this to an extreme & require women to be covered head to toe. Not sure where the other oppressions came from…but my impression is that you are correct in thinking that women are oppressed so that men are not tempted. I recall a statement by a Taliban spokesperson that women should not be educated because it can lead to adultary and the ruin of Islam. Jeepers, they even outlawed kite flying because some kid might stand on a roof to fly a kite and might look down into his neighbor’s courtyard and see a woman who was not 100% covered.
Good thing there are no Christians who take scripture to a literal extreme, eh? 
I don’t know that you can make a case for the men of Islam being repressed. Remember, their religion allows – encourages? – for multiple wives. Conversely, it’s the women that apparently always get the short end of the stick (no pun intended)
As for Atta and his cronies attending strip-joints, much has been made of the fact, but I have yet to see any solid psychological connection between this behavior and their suicidal fanaticism. That many a religios fanatic preaches one thing and does the opposite is hardly news – and often times sex is the irresistible bait.
It’s called hypocrisy and I very much doubt Islam has the patent on it.
I think the bigger question is “Why.” As in why does it seem that Islam fosters such an inordinate number of fundamentalists compared to other faiths? A number of theories have been advanced attempting to answer this query, but that’s a topic for a different thread altogether.
Yepsss being a muslim I can verify what you’re saying. Women are instructed not too show off their adornments in order to arouse men i.e don’t ask for trouble. Its kinda like telling your kids not to talk to strangers i.e for their own protection. As far as covering the body is concerned well thats for prayers and it goes for men too i.e there is a code for women and one for men too. But heyyy there izn’t even a head to toe thing like those shuttlecock thingyz the taleban women wear even for prayers. The face can be uncovered etc. and for men they must be covered at least from the belly button to the knees during prayers. But well these guyz banned football 'cos it was played in shorts, so you can’t really blame Islam for any of their actions.
Islam really really opposes oppression of the fairer sex. Its just that due to the mindsets of people in the areas in which Islam has spread, oppression of the fairer sex iz a reality that cannot be ignored.
They did something that is downright unislamic by dissallowing female education and occupation. Islam really stresses female eduction etc.
Its just that e.g in Arabia, before Islam girlz were considered such a misfortune that they buried their daughters alive as soon as they were born. Since their is a lack of education etc. and well in the Talebans case there are strict tribal customs that are pretty oppressive towards women, hence things such as banning female education and employment are imposed in the name of Islam, when actually its due to the tribal customs and mindsets in these areas.
Most of the world’s religions and nations give women second class status.
My theory: the Western industrial revolution pushed us into a new mode of ethics… as our societies became more interlinked, we just couldn’t keep killing off offensive or disobedient people any more, especially away from home. It was bad for business. Of course, this doesn’t explain Hitler or Stalin. More tribal cultures are travelling a different time line, unfortunately for their women.
Your message does not seem to explain adequately this assertion. Please elaborate.
WARNING: there are many flavours and variations of Islam. Do not do your intelligence an injustice by generalizing that all Muslim women must be covered from head to toe, or must perforce be repressed.
Although I find it difficult, I am (for now) assuming you are not trolling or propagandizing here. The issue of women in Islam is a very complex one, and has in a number of cases gone downhill since the decline of the islamic world. The Koran states that women should cover their breasts and private parts, and should wear clothing that will not get them harrassed. There are few instructions on women’s clothing in the Koran itself (there is mention of a scarf at one point, but the wearing of it to cover the head and hair is, strictly speaking, a later interpretation).
How people have interpreted the Koran is another matter. In addition to that, the Hadith, or traditions of the Prophet, were later compiled to provide more guidance than the prophet left behind, with the result that Islamic law has always been a rather complex and confusing matter, relying always upon interpretation of the Koran, but also (and at times unfortunately) on interpretations of the Hadith.
Also remember that 7th Century Arabia was not a very good place and time to be a woman. When Mohammed rose to power, he actually increased the status of women significantly, urging men to respect and honour women. It was Mohammed who slammed the practice of abandoning baby new-borns in the desert (daughters were considered an expense), and it was he who set up a system whereby women would be protected against assault, kidnapping, or even murder.
Well, if you go to Beirut, for example, I guarantee you will see some of the sexiest and most feminine women in the whole damn world, many of them Muslim. Generalizing won’t get you anywhere, and if you can find something significantly more feminine than belly-dancing or the Dance of the Seven Veils, let me know.
The crusaders found that cosmetics were widely used in the Middle East, and in fact they brought back to Europe the concept of alcohol-based perfumes, which to this day are (for women) marketed on the basis of femininity! It’s a bit of a shame that soap (also first developed by Arabs) and bathing didn’t find a popular following in Europe until later, which means that wealthy Europeans smelled of filth and perfume for a considerable time.
I am ignoring your points regarding the hijackers, because it is safe to say that those hijackers were Muslim only because they called themselves thus, and they did not represent Islam in any way. Killing innocents, as has been explained before, is prohibited by Islam. Don’t let fucked up people fuck up your head with generalizations or prejudice.
Women in a number of Islamic countries are oppressed today because Islam sought to protect them yesterday (as Prof. Dumbledore pointed out before I finished this post). As I said earlier, pre-islamic Arabia was not kind to women by any means, and Mohammed, brilliant social engineer that he was, instituted a system to protect women from men in their tribe and, importantly, from other tribes. It is indeed sad that this system to protect women has been perverted by so many cultures, but let’s face it: men are men, and women throughout the world do not enjoy primary status (hell, just look at Brazil, where “honour killings” of women are a part of the male mentality). Concerning your comments on banning women’s education and so forth, the Taleban are a group of ignorant fundamentalists who fancy themselves scholars; in no way do their absolutely ridiculous ideas represent Islam.
Does it? Or are they simply more visible to us of the West? [anecdotal evidence ahead]I have travelled and lived on four continents, and the greatest number of fundamentalists I came across in any one place was probably in the US. I am guessing that is because these nuts had the greatest voice of any fundamentalists, and used advanced technology to amplify their message. If you live in the US you might perceive your fundamentalists as part of the background noise and therefore focus on other, easier targets less close to home?
Abe wrote:
<nitpick>
Soap-making has been around as far back as ancient Rome. However, the ancient Romans didn’t seem to be aware that it was useful for cleaning things – soap shavings were worn by ancient Roman women as a hair decoration, but that was about it.
It wasn’t until 1792, with Nicholas LeBlanc’s invention of a cheap way to make lye from ordinary table salt, that soap became inexpensive enough to become a common household item.
</nitpick>
One thing seems consistent to me about the conduct of the Al Queda scum. They do exactly what their baser motives would have them do and then torture the plain text and spirit of the Islamic religion to not only justify their behavior, but to try to urge it on others. These guys are complete outcast losers in their own culture. It reminds me of the two teenagers who shot up Columbine High School.
Actually, I heard it reported that part of the terrorist training performed at al Qadea camps is teaching the terrorists how to completely infiltrate the “target society,” and how some members try to top each other by adopting more “decadent” behavior in order to better pass as “normals”. Most of the 19 suspects in the 9/11 airplane attacks were reported to be clean-shaven, friendly to their (infidel) neighbors, took their kids to neighborhood schools, drank as much as anyone else, and generally passed as “regular folks.” I would imagine attending strip bars and girlie clubs to be part of that whole charade, with a streak of one-upsmanship machismo thrown in.
Thanks for the nitpick and the info Tracer, I double-checked Britannica and it seems the earliest mention of soap is by Pliny the Elder, who claims that the Phoenicians prepared it from basic ingredients in 600 B.C. Phoenicia was in Southern Syria, so I think I was very close to the mark.
I didn’t know the Romans didn’t know what to do with soap, that seems a little strange (weird choice of adornment!).
8th century Arabic writings explicitly mention soap as a cleaning agent, so the Crusaders might have done themselves a favour and brought it back with them en masse along with perfume after all. Soap required hundreds of years to take hold in Europe, with people like LeBlanc and Chevreul helping it along the way, as you say. Sorry for the tangent.
rjung, this is probably one of the factors involved, but RedFury is right about the general hypocrisy of many religious fundamentalists. Particularly in Third World nations, where men feel tempted by the decadent attractions of the West while at the same time unable to relinquish a strong sense of pride in their native culture (some aspects of which, as Prof. Dumbledore pointed out, are falsely attributed to Islam). Among such men there often exists the concept that there are two types of girls - those you date and those you marry. Good Muslim women are supposed to wait for their parents to arrange their marriages, then devote their lives to their husbands and families. However, amoral Western (or Westernised) women choose to lead lives of vice and if a man wants to indulge himself a little - why not? In Pakistan there are always tales of local mullahs flirting with women when they think no-one who knows them is watching.
The September 11th terrorists don’t seem to me to have been religious zealots in any case. I believe that they were inspired mainly by political, rather than religious, motivations. Their animosity was aimed primarily at the United States, rather than at Christianity or Judaism. While they could target churches, or other areas where Muslims would not be present, they target instead symbols of American might, with no concern for the members of their own faith who are within. Their religion contributes to the issue - as they feel that it is being oppressed or undermined by American influence in their part of the world. I doubt that they are inspired by passages from the Quran referring to jihad or infidels, although they may use these in order to justify their actions to others.
al-Qaeda, al-Qaidah, al-Qa’ida etc. Not, not, not with a bloody “u” goddamnit. It drives me up the wall, for no good reason of course, to see people inserting "u"s where they shouldn’t be (Quatar, e.g.).
No, no, no. You are fundamentally misunderstanding these people.
They are not losers. They not like Columbine. Well, some of them are, the footsoldiers. But only a few.
One has to understand this in the context of the political culture of the region. That most methods of expression and criticism of the government, those in power is utterly cut off. But everyone senses things are going badly wrong in their society. That is clear. Now, most of the governments are in fact secular --at least in name and enough in appearance to give secular a bad name, imposed secularism. Arab socialist or not.
So, many well-motivated, caring folks turn to some form of political Islam because it seems to them to offer an answer to a situation with no exit. I’ve known a fairly large number of these types of people. I may have even known people who had ties with al-Qaeda and so forth, certainly fairly radical. I found most of them --and of course my bias in contacts was towards the middle class (such as it is) but I have always made it my business to know my guard and others well-- highly motivated people. Disciplined. Angry that their society so clearly has so many sicknesses. Intelligent, usually. Rarely unsociable.
Their ‘medicine’ is very wrong, but to think there is a relationship between the Columbine incident and this is to utterly fall into a complete misunderstanding of culture and politics.
In re the hijackers and the strip joints: my recollection of the Washington Post and NY Times follow up articles is that no one can recall the core hijackers, Mohammed Attah and his coterie of indulging much. They were there, but not there. It strikes me they were engaged in cover, very well-thought out cover. Who looks for Islamic radicals in a strip joint? We didn’t. The footsoldiers, the little Saudi bastids who may not --the evidence suggests-- have known they were flying to their deaths, they indulged.
Two different groups.
I disagree with Pennylane in re political versus religious. A distinction without a difference. Certainly as part of their ‘jihad’ they were willing to suppress religious observance. No contradiction with religiousity there, there is plenty of Quranic text regarding allowing religious observance to slide under duress and in war. Of course, one is to make it up later on. Rather like the missed days in Ramadan thing.
Finally in re the Redfury question why “so many radicals”: history, location and current politics. One might as well as why does RC produce so many terrorists – taking the Basques, the Columbian terrorists and N. Ireland to name but three majority RC areas and lumping them all together. Religion is just the mode of expression.
Hmm, yes, well, Collounsbury, it is not simply lack of religious observance which leads me to believe that the motivation for the terrorist attacks had a strong political component. Most of those of believe that the attacks were partially or fully justified claim political reasons as well. I believe that these attacks were intended to send a political, and not a religious, message.
As I said before, one cannot completely separate religion and politics in this issue anyway. But I don’t think it is a “distinction with a difference”.
I guess I made too many typos in that last message to be taken seriously, though…
I want to go back to my OP - which asks why sex should be such a strong component to CERTAIN religious customs (Thank you, Abe, for catching me up on the tendency to generalize - primarily out of ignorance, not bias.) I suppose one could make the case that other religions have their dismissive views of women, based, of course on laws written by men. E.g. in orthodox temples, men sit separate from women, etc. But there is still something primitive about a set of rules that seems to be in place to compensate for the fact that men cannot be counted on to counteract some enevitable and inordinate amount of lust when viewing a woman, thereby rendering them helpless to do anything else except mate. Yes, I know the meaning of “custom” and “tradition,” but there comes a time that civilized people leave certain traditions and customs behind. I’d submit that’s one definition of civil. If Atta and his gang were not exclusively religious fundamentalists, ok. But that doesn’t detract from the anachronistic behavior of those who are, and whose laws include such peculiar proscriptions against showing adornments.
Well, you see, CC, the rule is not intended to somehow restrain men from wildly leaping upon women in order to copulate. Islam actually commands both men and women to be modest, and to cover themselves, and to lower their gaze from the opposite sex. Thus, the religion does not include this notion of uncontrollable male lust.
However, it does seem that this is how it is being interpreted by many members of the religion. I have heard claims that women should cover themselves because it is immodest to be stared at. This kind of mentality does seem to imply that men cannot help themselves and thus it is up to the women to shield men from such temptation. And I think that there is something primitive about this mentality as well. You’ll find gender inequalities and double standards in all cultures, regardless of religion. But you’re right, it’s time to leave them behind.
I think Abe and Collounsbury make good points vis-a-vis other religions also having their share of fanatics – moreover, as Abe suggests, because of their ‘local flavor’ we don’t notice them as much. But I still don’t think this is a totally valid assessment and/or excuse for the perception of a more radicalized Islam. And hard as it may be to discuss this matter without getting into the habitual “war of cites,” I’d like to give it a try from a more personal approach.
Two points come to mind when pointing towards Islam as having more than their share of fundamentalist activists:
1-As Collounsbury touches on, Islamic nations in general have fallen behind the times not only in technological advances but culturally as well. Meaning that many of the civil liberties we tend to take for granted in Western civilizations are far from being mainstream in Muslim nations.
I think that such a state of affairs, where totalitarianism is more of the norm than the exception, inherently provides a fertile ground for indoctrination – be it religious, political or a mixture of both. I was particularly struck by the teaching methods employed in the madras or religious schools that abound in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Seeing literally hundreds of children bobbing their heads back and forth while endlessly reciting some mantra is perhaps the most bone-chilling image captured in this whole affair. Now, I don’t claim to know just how widespread this kind of practice is, but I do know that brainwashing techniques such as these are frowned upon in Western civilization. Unless of course, we’re talking about Branch Davidians, Heaven Gaters and other fringe organizations with little to no support in the mainstream.
Again, I am speaking from personal observations, but the number of Muslims that adhere – at least in principle – to the more extreme factions of that religion is not, as much as many of us would like to believe, a 'tiny minority." Not when you read that ‘Osama’ is now the most popular name for newborns in the region, not when you see that the Al-Jazeera network, practically a spokesman for Al-Queda and The Taliban, is by far, the network of choice in the region. So, if for the sake of argument, we’re ''only" talking about 10% of the Muslim population, we’re still dealing with over 100 million radicals – many of whom seem to think there’s no greater glory than dying for Islam while killing the infidels. Far beyond any other religious group as a whole. Scary thought is it not?
2-I don’t know that bringing ETA and IRA – for instance --into the mix as counter examples of RC extremists is a fair analogy. For instance, in the case of the ETA, one could argue that their agenda is hardly a religious one but one of flat-out secular separatism. And the while the IRA advances a mixture of religion and politics, it is also an extremely localized movement with no recognizable global agenda.
As for rjung’s comments on the nature of the visits to the strip clubs as a way to camouflage and integrate themselves into society, seems valid enough. Though I question if that’s necessary, I can think of a great number of male members of society that don’t frequent strip clubs and are perfectly integrated. Perhaps the easier explanation is the prior one still: the lure of sex and the intrinsic hypocrisy of religious fundamentalism?
Lastly, and as mentioned at the start, these are mostly observations based on what I’ve read and processed from many different sources. I realize this method of discourse may not be the most appropriate in this area of the SDMB, but again, I’m not big on ‘citemania’ and think this topic will ultimately remain subjective regardless of the number of cites on either side. Or else we’d all have agreed on politics and religion long ago.
And for the record, I don’t espouse any particular religion.
Fallen behind? That was not at all my point. Fallen behind who? The wealthiest nations? Yes. Behind the West? Well, frankly, I am not sure what that means. Is Japan the “West” Taiwan? Singapore? Etc.
As for “Muslim” nations, I am most familiar with Africa and MENA, but from the top of my head Senegal and Mali appear to me to have, allowing for problems connected to poverty, much better civil liberties than a whole slew of Asian nations, non-Muslim all.
Civil liberties are a funny thing. After long on the ground experience, I am reluctant to conclude they are priority number one, or that liberties valued in the USA are valid benchmarks for the entire world.
As such, I rather reject the whole primitive versus advanced,
Madrasa(h). Madras is a city in India. Yeah, traditional education the world over tends towards wrote memorization. Hardly an Islamic fault. Fault of traditional learning. On the other hand, moving beyond that presupposes a certain level of learning which just does not hold in most places. Wrote learning has its uses at some levels.
The real problem is issues of (a) basic literacy for the population (which implies ability to master basic economic functions such as reading, writing and basic maths) (b) distribution of that literacy © effectiveness of that literacy. Native language teaching is widely held to be more effective than 2nd language. In much of the colonized Islamic (and non-Islamic) 3rd world there are 2 choices: (i) religious education in non-native language (ii) secular education in colonial [non-native] language. Insofar as the religious education is often free, what would you chooose? The advantages are not often obvious. Colonial language education may not have real advantages unless one can get hooked into the economic world where English or French (or other) matters. A non-trivial task.
You need to learn a bit about 3rd world education before making judgements.
How very fucking patronizing. And utterly fucking inappropriate as a generalization. Wrote memorization perhaps fits the very broadest of definitions of ‘brainwashing’ but does not in any way
Very nice. I do so hope you are prepared to cough up the dinero necessary to upgrade educational opportunities over the next ten years for 3rd world kids.
Very nice, where and when are these personal observations? Do you speak local languages? Do you have a genuine ability to quantify?
My own observation on the matter of extremism, based on my mastery of 3 dialects of Arabic, long personal experience in the region and subsequent contacts is that indeed the most extreme, violent aspects of Islamic radicalism are in fact rejected by the larger portion of the population. Generalizing for all Muslims in all places would be foolish. Even for all Arab Muslims in all places.
The
Yeah, so? Aside from the fact that it is a bullshit “fact” – I have no idea how anyone could possibly have begun to quantify this given the lack of data**. Even if it were true, it does not of necessity indicate Islamic radicalism versus a kind of ‘in your eye’ attitude.
Frankly, I don’t think that if one did a survey ten years from now that Osama will have substantially moved from its traditional place in the universe of Arabo-Islamic names. Maybe a 10% change.
Ash tkellim al-arabiyah ya habiibi? Wa bithalik, kief t’arifi maouqif al-jazeerah 'amouman wa bithubt biannisbatila al-Qaeda wa at-Taliban? Aouw ash tkellim bilaa ie t’aariif qanaat al-jazeerah?
Or do you know anything at all directly about al-Jazeerah. Because I do. I follow it as closely as possible.
Let me say that I am disappointed with a real anti-American slant to al-Jazeerah.
At the same time they are hardly “the spokesmen” for al-Qaeda nor at-Talebaan. Their rapportage certainly does not neglect American perspectives nor does it pull punches. For all some simple minded Americna complaints. Hell 6 months ago, we were pleased as little pigs in shit about al-Jazeerah and most Arab govs were fucking pissed. Slaves to fashion they are not. Paragons to journalist virtue, well that depends. They certainly do not have a pro-American view. But neither is it ipso facto anti-American.
Sometimes freedom of the press cuts both ways. Freedom is a motherfucker, it is.
If one wants to pull numbers out of one’s ass, sure. I can pull numbers of Columbians involved in drug trade out of my ass too. What does that prove.
Even the phrase “radical” is a slippery one. Islamic radicalism (I’ll take it to mean political Islam) does not mean ipso facto approval of al-Qaeda type tactics nor support. 10% is a bullshit figure and applying it to the total Muslim pop is utter bullshit.
One can equally argue that (a) in re IRA religion is fundamental to their identity (b) that the localized nature of IRA is (i) your perception and hardly analytical given their capacity to raise funds etc in NA © a function of local circumstances. Who the fuck gives a fucking fuck about fucking NI except the IRA, Americans and GB? On the other hand, the ME and in particular the Mashriq has Oil and has holy sites to not one but 3 of the world’s international religions. Disputed holy sites at that.
So, what the fuck do you think is going to happen. The motherfucking problem is going to be internationalized. To think otherwise is rather naive. At best. One notes with ease that the IRA’s agenda has included the relevant actors. So to does that of the Islamic radicals.
Necessary? I dunno. Do live on the East Coast in a large single male pop?