muslim for a day - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

roachboy · 07-27-2005, 06:17 AM

in some recent posts in the context of debates about the "war on terrorism"
i found myself linking the war on terrorism to domestic racism. by coincidence, i ran across the following on al jazeera's english website--an article/advert for a new documentary from morgan spurlock, the guy who made "supersize me"---read on:

Quote:

Being a Muslim for a month
by Kris Evans in the United States
Thursday 07 July 2005 9:20 AM GMT

From eating McDonald's to being a Muslim for 30 days, a new documentary series by Morgan Spurlock of Super Size Me fame delves into the lives of Muslims in America.

For 30 Days, a Christian from the Bible Belt lived with a Muslim family in Michigan. The result? Heated arguments, religious confusion, and the start of a beautiful friendship.

Spurlock single-handedly took on the world's largest fast-food chain with his first documentary, Super Size Me, which saw the filmmaker eat nothing but McDonald's for 30 days.

The documentary was nominated for an Oscar in 2004, and although they deny the film was a motivating factor, McDonald's has now stopped the Super Size option in the US.

"After the test screening of Super Size Me, we knew we had something great that tapped into something visceral and personal in people," says Spurlock over breakfast in a Los Angeles diner.

"We don't get any happy Muslim stories. We don't get 'Here's a great thing a Muslim did today' and I wanted to do a show that would demonstrate what it is like to be a Muslim in America"

"We don't get any happy Muslim stories," he says. "We don't get 'Here's a great thing a Muslim did today' and I wanted to do a show that would demonstrate what it is like to be a Muslim in America."

Experiment

The stage was set: Spurlock would take an ordinary American - if such a thing exists - and have him live with a Muslim family, observing all their customs, for one month.

Finding the participants was not easy, Spurlock on one hand being careful to weed out those looking for Reality TV-style fame while at the same time trying to find a Muslim family who did not feel they were walking into a trap.

"As with most communities, the Muslim community is very tight knit and very protective, especially in post 9/11 America," says Spurlock. "They scrutinise any journalistic integrity and you can see why, with what's happened."

The guinea pig in this experiment would be Dave Stacy, a 33-year-old insurance sales executive from West Virginia.

Stacy is described in the show as a "beer-drinking, pork-eating American". As a practising Christian with no knowledge of Islam, Stacy admitted - before embarking on his 30-day journey - that he had felt reassured after 9/11 when he saw Muslims profiled at airports.

When Spurlock pressed him for what came to mind when someone said the word "Muslim", Stacy replied: "A man with an AK-47, at war with someone."

Mutual scepticism

The scepticism was not only on Stacy's side.

"We were worried that this was someone very opinionated about Muslims," says Shamael Haque, a first year resident in neuropsychiatry at Henry Ford hospital in Detroit.

Haque, along with his wife Sadia Shakir, who attends the Thomas Cooley Law School, put these reservations aside and opened their Dearborn, Michigan, home to this stranger from the Bible Belt.

"I had a lot of sleepless nights, the days were 15 hours of heated debates, often about global economics and politics, something which - like many Americans - I don't know that much about. It was information overload"

During his 30 days, Stacy lived, ate and prayed with his Muslim hosts.

He also read the Quran, tried to learn Arabic and visited a halal slaughterhouse. In one very tense scene, he went out on to the street to petition Americans into signing a bill to stop the profiling of Muslim Americans.

Looking back at the experience, Stacy recounts how he would often hear shouts of "Faith Traitor!" and "American Taliban!", while in Muslim areas he was approached by people who, as Stacy says, "thought the whole show was a conspiracy to make them look bad".

Traditional dress

Stacy was dressed most of the time in a salwar and kurta, something which initially bothered Sadia Shakir Haque.

"I did think 'Why are you wearing this clothing when none of us wear this?' It's not realistic," she says.

But the producers were adamant that Stacy make this change in his dress as well as grow a beard. Their insistence on this point certainly created a more eventful trip to the airport where Stacy, dressed in his new Pakistani attire, felt what many Muslims have gone through at airports since the September 11 2001 attacks on the United States.

He was stopped for the first time in his life, searched, and stared at throughout the journey.

Stacy laughs, looking back on the flight. "A lady sitting next to me on the plane was so nervous she couldn't knit," he says.

Discussions

During the daytime, while the Haques were at work, Stacy took regular meetings with a local imam. But their sessions did not produce the clear answers and explanations Stacy was searching for and he started to look elsewhere.

Enter Ameer, his Arabic teacher. In the fun and relaxed atmosphere of an English speaker trying to get his mouth around Arabic pronunciation, Stacy made his first tentative steps into understanding the religion.

"Ameer initially was there to teach me Arabic but it was so much more," says Stacy. "It's so strange for me, as fond as I am of him, to think that he was one of the people I was vilifying. It's really opened my eyes."

That is Stacy talking now, but at the time the amount of new information was almost too much.

"I had a lot of sleepless nights, the days were 15 hours of heated debates, often about global economics and politics, something which - like many Americans - I don't know that much about. It was information overload. At night I had time with my thoughts - thoughts I had not had before."

In one scene, Stacy is clearly taken aback to learn that Muslims are part of the same monotheistic tradition that he follows himself.

It seemed to highlight simultaneously how little most Americans know about Islam, and how much work American Muslims still have to do in taking control of their image.

"We need to make a better effort in how we are represented," says Sadia Shakir Haque, echoing a point she made in the documentary. "We take it for granted living in Muslim communities, and we must not forget how we are perceived by those outside it."

Sadia Shakir Haque's experience living in Miami's melting pot, where it was common to see Jewish women - not to mention the Catholic nuns on her college campus - covering their hair, helped her give some context to Stacy while educating him on the hijab.

"I explained to him that Muslim women were continuing that sense of modesty."

September 11

A dinner discussion where Stacy questioned why Muslim Americans had not come out more strongly and condemned the attacks on the World Trade Centre created one of the most illustrative scenes on the divide of viewpoints.

"There are deeper issues about Muslims in that region (Middle East)... We can't just say these people are crazy. We need to ask what would make them so crazy that they would do that"

Shamael Haque, Stacy's host for 30 days, speaking about 9/11

Shamael Haque's view was that in post 9/11 America the key questions were simply not being asked.

"There are deeper issues about Muslims in that region, and what would lead a person to do something as irrational as that. But if people do ask questions, then they are viewed as unpatriotic," he says.

"We can't just say these people are crazy. We need to ask what would make them so crazy that they would do that."

Stacy was clearly uncomfortable facing up to this question.

"I had these feelings that I was being unpatriotic," he says, but adds that since the documentary was finished he has found himself engaging in political discussions more often.

Friday prayers

Stacy's other major obstacle was praying in a mosque, something which he said at the start of the documentary he would not be willing to do.

Spurlock says: "For me the best line of the episode is when Dave is conflicted about going to his first juma and he is overcome with emotion and goes to Imam Husseini and says, 'I just don't know if I believe this, what you're saying.' And the imam replies, 'David, you're here to learn, not to believe.'"

A participant in another of Spurlock's documentaries in the series quit before the end of his 30 days, but Stacy lasted the course, eventually taking part in the prayer at the mosque.

Stacy and the Haques have kept in contact and are planning on meeting this summer.

"We expected him not to know the principles," says Shamael Haque. "But he was very receptive, open to learning."

Harsh words

Where the rest of the nation is concerned, Spurlock ends with some harsh words.

"We can't demonise six million American Muslims. There are 270 million Americans out there and the last time I checked, Timothy McVeigh wasn't a Muslim. So I think that we just need to preach a little tolerance"

"We're a country where 15% have passports. We don't think beyond our borders so why should we think beyond our own towns? We are in this protective world. We're a nation that doesn't read newspapers, we don't read books.

"For me, that's why a show like this is important, to get some information out there to educate people. We can't demonise six million American Muslims. There are 270 million Americans out there and the last time I checked, Timothy McVeigh wasn't a Muslim. So I think that we just need to preach a little tolerance."

Aljazeera
By Kris Evans in the United States

source: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...8FF3390E08.htm

there is much of interest in the above which goes beyond the pr function of the article as a whole:

1. the apparent lack of information about the most basic features of islam abroad in the states--i find the quote from dave stacy taken from the start of the adventure that defines a muslim as "someone with an ak-47, at war with someone" to be a dispiriting reflection of the way in which islam is framed by the major media apparatus in the context of marketing bushwar as if it was a rational response to 9/11.....

2. the kinds of questions that seem obvious to be asked about 9/11 and other such attacks from the two commuities being brought into contact across the theater of this film are also quite interesting: the question of analysis, of understanding why somone would undertake an irrational action on the order of flying jets into the trade center seems evident, fundamental--from this viewpoint, everything about the bushresponse to 9/11 is beside the point, was beside the point, remains beside the point.

what i find really quite interesting is stacy's response to encountering this way of thinking about the bushwar on "terror"--he thought he was being unpatriotic by considering such questions.

this is like peering down into a vast tunnel of structuted idiocy--and it confirms (in a backhanded way) the otherwise bizarre tendency in right ideology of the past few years--the equation of learning, the desire to learn--when it comes to the main signifiers that prop up the bush administration--with weakness. this boundary--the one that distinguishes "patriotic" and "unpatriotic" in the view of someone like stacy is interesting: what is this boundary? where does it comes from?

or: how did we arrive at a place where wondering about context as it shapes/impinges upon political action something that could possibly be understood as "unamerican" or "unpatriotic"? what is the inverse of this? ignorance=patriotism? where did this come from? i am genuinely bewildered by it...

i am not making any claims about the film--i havent seen it, this is a bit of buzzcreation--but nonetheless these issues are quite interesting and i for one am glad they are being raised.

another index of the racist effects of the way in which this administration has chosen to frame its Adversary:

Quote:

US group says anti-Muslim crimes up
by
Thursday 12 May 2005 5:01 AM GMT

California recorded the highest number of anti-Muslim crimes

A leading US Islamic civil rights group has released a report that indicates anti-Muslim hate crimes in the country have increased by half in the past year.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations' (Cair) study - the only annual investigation of its kind - outlined 1522 incidents and experiences of anti-Muslim violence, discrimination or harassment in 2004.

The figure, according to Cair's Unequal Protection report published on Thursday, is 50% higher than an assessment made in 2003.

The rights group said factors contributing to the sharp increase in reported incidents included the lingering impact of post-9/11 fears, increased awareness of civil rights issues in the Muslim community and a general increase in anti-Muslim rhetoric.

Other factors for growth in the number of incidents may also include an increase in local Cair chapters reporting cases and alleged abuses associated with the implementation of national security policies.

Worst offenders

Ten states accounted for almost 79% of all incidents reported to Cair in 2004, with the majority of attacks reported in California, followed by New York, Arizona, Virginia, Texas, Florida, Ohio, Maryland, New Jersey and Illinois.

By far the greatest increase over last year, in both real and proportional terms, occurred in the areas of unreasonable arrests, detentions, searches/seizures, and interrogations.

"These disturbing figures come as no surprise given growing Islamophobic sentiments and a general misperception of Islam and Muslims"

In 2003, complaints concerning law enforcement agencies accounted for only 7% of all reported incidents. In 2004, however, these reports rose to almost 26% of all cases.

But not all the news was bad. There were drops in certain categories from the previous year's report.

For example, workplace discrimination complaints constituted nearly 23% of complaints in 2003, but dropped to just under 18% of total complaints in 2004.

Complaints involving governmental agencies decreased from 29% in 2003 to 19% in 2004.

Report comments

Cair Legal Director Arsalan Iftikhar, also the report's author, said the findings "come as no surprise given growing Islamophobic sentiments and a general misperception of Islam and Muslims".

Iftikhar said the phenomenon of Islamophobia would be addressed at a Cair conference, called Islamophobia and Anti-Americanism: Causes and Remedies, to be held on Saturday in Washington DC.

Cair Executive Director Nihad Awad added that the rights watchdog called on "President Bush ... to once again speak out against Islamophobic attitudes".

Awad also called on Congress to hold hearings on the findings of Cair's report.

Cair began documenting anti-Muslim incidents following the 1995 attack on the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. The council is America's largest Islamic civil liberties group, with 31 regional offices and chapters nationwide and in Canada.

linked from the story above....

what do you make of all this?

caveat: i know, i know--the folk from the right are going to see aljazeera linked and immediately revert to repeating the rumsfeld platitudes about it that you see relayed and ridiculed in "control room"--that al jazeera is somehow "unamerican" because it does not operate within the frame of the american press pool, does not simply focus on questions framed in such a way as to reasure americans of the rightness of everything they think, say and do. i have thought this accusation bullshit from the earliest phase of its repetition...i doubt seriously that anyone from the right will have anything substantive to say or post about al jazeera that goes beyond these television cliches about it. ....

[[note: my apologies for the typo in the thread title--drinking my morning coffee while typing has some consequences it seems.....]]]

Seaver · 07-27-2005, 07:45 AM

Quote:

his is like peering down into a vast tunnel of structuted idiocy--and it confirms (in a backhanded way) the otherwise bizarre tendency in right ideology of the past few years--the equation of learning, the desire to learn--when it comes to the main signifiers that prop up the bush administration--with weakness. this boundary--the one that distinguishes "patriotic" and "unpatriotic" in the view of someone like stacy is interesting: what is this boundary? where does it comes from?

I stopped reading right here. There is no equation of learning to weakness in the bush admin. I support Bush while my major is Middle Eastern History. I personally admire the Muslim religion (not Islam... there IS a difference). This one guy was picked because he knew absolutely nothing about this. I am willing to bet if you did the random guy he'd know enough to at least hold his own, but this was done simply for as much shock value as Fear Factor.

politicophile · 07-27-2005, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

this was done simply for as much shock value as Fear Factor.

True, but so was "Supersize Me", so that shouldn't come as a surprise. Who would have imagined that eating too much food makes you fat? It must be because the food is provided by a big corporation! There's no way you could make a documentary about losing weight whilst eating reasonable portions of McDonalds food for every meal, so dont even try to find a counterexample!

Charlatan · 07-27-2005, 07:57 AM

To my mind, this film could be as useful to understanding Muslims in America as Black Like Me was to understanding Blacks.

I can almost guarantee that there will be talking points structured on the right to villify this film.

roachboy · 07-27-2005, 07:57 AM

i understand the choice (of stacy as the guy to be tracked through this process) and the function it was to serve for the film--both are obvious. what i wonder about--and what i guess i tried to frame as a question in a kind of inept way above--is his representativeness...is he representative or not? is the problem with saying that he is that the outcome is kind of unflattering?

either way, clearly there is a dispositional-level "politics" that would prefer to see him as typical.

second point: i am not interested in questions of personality when i try to pose questions about the administration's ideology--i am interested in the ideology itself, the structures of argument particular to it and their effects. i do not find the assumption that conservative ideology appeals to stupid people interesting or useful or even correct--what i think is much more interesting is think about the extent to which investing in that ideology causes you--or anyone--to exlcude types of information and privelge others.

the more general point is a reaction to what i have been see in repeatedly in threads here over the past week or so on the question of "terrorism"---the opposition between support for the administration's policies on "terror" and questions of context/explanation.

i should have posed it in a less inflammatory manner--mea culpa.

but there are much more interesting questions to be considered across the above than that of whether you like supersize me or not--personally, i found the film obvious and not terribly interesting--eric schlosser's fast food nation was much more damaging than was supersize me. besides, supersize me is not exactly the issue here, is it?

Charlatan · 07-27-2005, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

True, but so was "Supersize Me", so that shouldn't come as a surprise. Who would have imagined that eating too much food makes you fat? It must be because the food is provided by a big corporation! There's no way you could make a documentary about losing weight whilst eating reasonable portions of McDonalds food for every meal, so dont even try to find a counterexample!

Providing a counter example is not the job of "Supersize Me". The film had a simple premise and it followed through on the premise.

If you want a counter example make a film with one.

This is a threadjack... so if you wish to carry this debate elsewhere please feel free.

politicophile · 07-27-2005, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Providing a counter example is not the job of "Supersize Me". The film had a simple premise and it followed through on the premise.

If you want a counter example make a film with one.

This is a threadjack... so if you wish to carry this debate elsewhere please feel free.

I think it is unfortunate that you reacted in such a negative way to my comments. I will refrain from following in your footsteps.

alansmithee · 07-27-2005, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

in some recent posts in the context of debates about the "war on terrorism"
i found myself linking the war on terrorism to domestic racism. by coincidence, i ran across the following on al jazeera's english website--an article/advert for a new documentary from morgan spurlock, the guy who made "supersize me"---read on:

source: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...8FF3390E08.htm

there is much of interest in the above which goes beyond the pr function of the article as a whole:

1. the apparent lack of information about the most basic features of islam abroad in the states--i find the quote from dave stacy taken from the start of the adventure that defines a muslim as "someone with an ak-47, at war with someone" to be a dispiriting reflection of the way in which islam is framed by the major media apparatus in the context of marketing bushwar as if it was a rational response to 9/11.....

2. the kinds of questions that seem obvious to be asked about 9/11 and other such attacks from the two commuities being brought into contact across the theater of this film are also quite interesting: the question of analysis, of understanding why somone would undertake an irrational action on the order of flying jets into the trade center seems evident, fundamental--from this viewpoint, everything about the bushresponse to 9/11 is beside the point, was beside the point, remains beside the point.

what i find really quite interesting is stacy's response to encountering this way of thinking about the bushwar on "terror"--he thought he was being unpatriotic by considering such questions.

this is like peering down into a vast tunnel of structuted idiocy--and it confirms (in a backhanded way) the otherwise bizarre tendency in right ideology of the past few years--the equation of learning, the desire to learn--when it comes to the main signifiers that prop up the bush administration--with weakness. this boundary--the one that distinguishes "patriotic" and "unpatriotic" in the view of someone like stacy is interesting: what is this boundary? where does it comes from?

or: how did we arrive at a place where wondering about context as it shapes/impinges upon political action something that could possibly be understood as "unamerican" or "unpatriotic"? what is the inverse of this? ignorance=patriotism? where did this come from? i am genuinely bewildered by it...

i am not making any claims about the film--i havent seen it, this is a bit of buzzcreation--but nonetheless these issues are quite interesting and i for one am glad they are being raised.

I'll say to start off with that I'm not a big fan of Spurlock. His documentary "super-size me" I found ridiculous to the extreme. The fact that he was able to wrangle a tv series out of that (as well as the acclaim he recieved) stuns me.

As to this show (it's an episode of a series which follows the same 30-day form), when I read about it I thought IT was racist. The way I read it seemed similar to how you would promote a freak show or circus:

"See the AMAZING AMERICAN as he enters the den of the...MUSLIM !!!
WATCH as he grows a BEARD !!!
THRILL as he goes to a MOSQUE !!!
SUFFER as he is DENIED PORK !!!"

and so on (some artistic licence taken). To me, it seems the best way to try to make any understanding between differing groups of people isn't to accentuate those differences.

As to what was described in the article, there are a couple of key things I'll address. First:

Quote:

A dinner discussion where Stacy questioned why Muslim Americans had not come out more strongly and condemned the attacks on the World Trade Centre created one of the most illustrative scenes on the divide of viewpoints.

"There are deeper issues about Muslims in that region (Middle East)... We can't just say these people are crazy. We need to ask what would make them so crazy that they would do that"

Shamael Haque, Stacy's host for 30 days, speaking about 9/11

Shamael Haque's view was that in post 9/11 America the key questions were simply not being asked.

"There are deeper issues about Muslims in that region, and what would lead a person to do something as irrational as that. But if people do ask questions, then they are viewed as unpatriotic," he says.

"We can't just say these people are crazy. We need to ask what would make them so crazy that they would do that."

You can both condemn and work to understand. They are not mutually exclusive. I don't need to work to understand Hit...Stalin to condemn how he behaved, unless I think there's some valid reason that could excuse his actions. McVeigh was mentioned later in the article, there were no shortage of Americans who condemned him publicly. The same was not seen with the 9/11 attacks from the muslim community.

And in general, the exchange seems to be one-sided. Americans seem to be portrayed in the piece (as I gathered from the article) as ignorant hillbillies recieving education from their perfect Muslim hosts. That adds a staged feeling.

As to how questioning can be seen as unpatriotic, I touched upon that above. Trying to understand lends the impression that terrorist acts can be justified, which is an opinion that many people would find unpatriotic. Also, in wartime asking questions does undermine war efforts (regardless of if the questions are valid) so there's a reason anyone running a war would want to make any questioning undesired.

Quote:

another index of the racist effects of the way in which this administration has chosen to frame its Adversary:

linked from the story above....

what do you make of all this?

There is no room for hate crimes against muslims. I can understand them, but they are wrong. However, as to the racial profiling, I see little wrong with that. Being black, I'm racially profiled constantly and I make it through life. SUre, it's wrong and yadda yadda yadda, but it's not going away. And if blacks/muslims really want profiling to stop they should work on stopping the crime/terrorism disproportionally found in their respective groups and quit blaming others. Sure, their should be some help from those who helped contribute to the conditions that breed crime/terrorism, but when someone in the community tries to place some responsibility at the source, they are usually yelled down (Bill Cosby comes to mind).

Quote:

caveat: i know, i know--the folk from the right are going to see aljazeera linked and immediately revert to repeating the rumsfeld platitudes about it that you see relayed and ridiculed in "control room"--that al jazeera is somehow "unamerican" because it does not operate within the frame of the american press pool, does not simply focus on questions framed in such a way as to reasure americans of the rightness of everything they think, say and do. i have thought this accusation bullshit from the earliest phase of its repetition...i doubt seriously that anyone from the right will have anything substantive to say or post about al jazeera that goes beyond these television cliches about it. ....

[[note: my apologies for the typo in the thread title--drinking my morning coffee while typing has some consequences it seems.....]]]

If you don't think al jazeera is biased, you aren't paying attention. But I do agree that dismissing anything out of hand can be wrong. Liberals should remember this the next time they see something linked from Fox News.

Charlatan · 07-27-2005, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

I think it is unfortunate that you reacted in such a negative way to my comments. I will refrain from following in your footsteps.

That was hardly a negative response. I simply pointing out that, in my opinion, your criticism of Supersize Me was flawed and that, furthermore, our continued discussion of Supersize Me in this thread is essentially a threadjack and that we should take it somewhere more appropriate... (implying that it is valid discussion, just not here).

Sorry the text was so cold that you read it as negative or hostile.

07-27-2005, 09:13 AM

This is a classic case of double standards - first you say:

Quote:

Trying to understand lends the impression that terrorist acts can be justified, which is an opinion that many people would find unpatriotic.

Then, you state:

Quote:

There is no room for hate crimes against muslims. I can understand them, but they are wrong.

So, if you are able to say that something is understandable and wrong (presuming that wrong is another way of saying 'unjustifiable'), can you see how trying to understand terrorist acts can be done without also justifying them?

Charlatan · 07-27-2005, 09:43 AM

Here's what I think...

The film is being made with good intentions... the idea being that there *are* many people in the west that are clueless when it come to the Muslim religion. The film, in an entertaining way, hopes to educate or at least lessen the divide by showing that Muslims are not all that different... by providing a different angle on who these people are.

Unfortunately, as I mentioned about, the film will be maligned by certain factions. Unfortunately those factions have a big platform and even bigger mouths.

The reality is that we in the west *need* a Muslim Like Me. I don't know that this film is going to achieve this but at least it is an attempt.

powerclown · 07-27-2005, 09:58 AM

I think the only thing this will accomplish is to make people even angrier at Muslims because it tries to obfuscate the point through some flaky television show. Especially when you put an American in the role of clueless buffoon. Who is the audience for this?

People don't want to hear what its like to be a Muslim in America. We all struggle through life enough just being who we are. Come watch my show: "Being an Average Joe In America For A Day!" People want to hear Muslim politicians, Muslim clerics, Muslim countries, Muslim scholars, Muslim organizations speaking out against islamic terrorism. Which they aren't doing enough of if you ask me. Playing the victim card - while your people are blowing up other people all over the world - is not a helpful way to improve your image in my opinion.

Locobot · 07-27-2005, 10:01 AM

Apparently I'm the only person here who has actually seen the show in question?

It airs on Rupert Murdoch's Spike TV. The show does not glamorize the Muslim lifestyle and in fact doesn't shy away from the negative aspects of Islam. Spurlock's show is the only reality show which makes an actual effort to portray something real. Comparison's above between it and "Fear Factor" are remiss.

The participant in this episode actually does have some of his opinions changed, but there is no hokey dramatic epiphany. One of the major things he learned, and myself as a viewer, was the high level of self-discipline required of Muslims. I also found the trip to the Muslim "Hal el" butcher pretty interesting, it's virtually identical to the Jewish Kosher practice except the animal carcasses are hung facing east, towards Mecca.

As to Roachboy's question whether this show's subject, Stacy, is representative of Americans at large, I would say yes. If anything Stacy is more open-minded than the general attitude I encounter these days, he did after all agree to live as a muslim for 30 days, something many Americans wouldn't do. It's amazing to me when I find myself in an all-white group of acquaintances or semi-strangers how quickly the racist dialogue begins. "Sand-nigger, towelhead, camel jockey etc." These are the terms and hatred I find bubbling under the surface with frightening regularity.

Seaver · 07-27-2005, 10:13 AM

Quote:

It's amazing to me when I find myself in an all-white group of acquaintances or semi-strangers how quickly the racist dialogue begins. "Sand-nigger, towelhead, camel jockey etc." These are the terms and hatred I find bubbling under the surface with frightening regularity.

Ok... I get called cracker/honkey/juedo(sp?) on pretty much a daily basis. Lets all go out and see what it's like to be me for 30 days!

If they made it like a real documentary I'd support it. Instead they picked the most ignorant and backward American they could find who'd do the show. Intentionally putting people in an akward situation to film how they react... how is this not like Fear Factor? Oh thats right... it's a guy instead of bikini models... my bad.

Cynthetiq · 07-27-2005, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locobot

Apparently I'm the only person here who has actually seen the show in question?

It airs on Rupert Murdoch's Spike TV. The show does not glamorize the Muslim lifestyle and in fact doesn't shy away from the negative aspects of Islam. Spurlock's show is the only reality show which makes an actual effort to portray something real. Comparison's above between it and "Fear Factor" are remiss.

The participant in this episode actually does have some of his opinions changed, but there is no hokey dramatic epiphany. One of the major things he learned, and myself as a viewer, was the high level of self-discipline required of Muslims. I also found the trip to the Muslim "Hal el" butcher pretty interesting, it's virtually identical to the Jewish Kosher practice except the animal carcasses are hung facing east, towards Mecca.

As to Roachboy's question whether this show's subject, Stacy, is representative of Americans at large, I would say yes. If anything Stacy is more open-minded than the general attitude I encounter these days, he did after all agree to live as a muslim for 30 days, something many Americans wouldn't do. It's amazing to me when I find myself in an all-white group of acquaintances or semi-strangers how quickly the racist dialogue begins. "Sand-nigger, towelhead, camel jockey etc." These are the terms and hatred I find bubbling under the surface with frightening regularity.

Spike TV is an MTV Networks Channel.

TrioTv did a thing in Nov2004 called Turning Muslim in Texas. As far as the 30 days series, I do recall at one point in my youth a group that "helped people be blind or deaf for a day to help raise awareness of the difficulities faced by the deaf and blind.

I hope that positive items come out of these things.

Quote:

Turning Muslim in Texas

http://www.channel4.com/culture/micr...ot/texas1.html

George W Bush may be backed by Christian
fundamentalists but in his home state of Texas, Islam
is the latest big draw. The Bible belt is transferring
its allegiance to the Qur’an because, for many
erstwhile Christians, believe it or not, the church is
too liberal.

Eric was a Baptist preacher before he became a Muslim
14 years ago. Now he prays five times a day – even in
the middle of watching a football game. His wife,
Karen, also a convert, is covered from head to toe in
the traditional Muslim burka. Islam, says Eric, ‘is
everything I wanted Christianity to be’. His mother
has found it hard to come to terms with her son’s
conversion and believes he will return to the
Christian faith: ‘Then he will be a dynamic preacher.’
Eric says: ‘Maybe some day she’ll embrace Islam.’

Women are also becoming followers of Muhamed. Yasmine
(previously Mindy) arranged a marriage for herself and
has three children. Islam, she says is ‘the solution
to a lot of the prevailing evils: drugs, adultery,
fornication…’ Converts often see the religious laws
more clearly than those who have been brought up as
Muslims and Yasmine can spot a mistake at 20 paces.
She believes that she has a unique opportunity to help
people who are born into the religion get back to the
fundamentals.

Catherine has been a Muslim for two weeks. She came
from a privileged background – private school followed
by a career in PR. Now the established Muslim women
guide her through the purification rituals as she
washes before prayer and removes her nail varnish.

David is the only white Muslim in his little town on
Route 66. He believes his new religion makes him a
better American and, far from undermining liberties,
gives the individual more rights. He had an arranged
marriage and his wife, who was born a Muslim, was
shocked by the strictness with which he insists they
live their lives. His family – a white man with his
wife and daughter dressed in their hijabs
(headscarves) –are stared in the streets and
supermarkets of their one-horse town.

There are 400,000 Muslims in Texas alone and Islam is
the fastest growing religion in the USA. Since 9/11
there have been more converts to Islam than ever. Eric
believes that people are trying to understand Muslims
and want to learn about their religion. Yasmine says:
‘America should not be afraid. If it would be better
Muslims were the majority. If a child asks me: “Who
made this leaf?” I say, “Allah. Allah made
everything.”’

Charlatan · 07-27-2005, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Ok... I get called cracker/honkey/juedo(sp?) on pretty much a daily basis. Lets all go out and see what it's like to be me for 30 days!

And I am sure you are really, deeply, emotionally hurt by it.

Your access to the community at large is never in question. Those in the casually maligned minority constantly question their place.

And just what is a "real documentary"... really. Factual programming has no law or reason suggesting that it has to offer all sides of an arguement...

And really, who is being hurt by this program? Are people learing something? Are these same people likely to watch a "real documentary"? This is Spike TV after all... Spoonful of sugar.

roachboy · 07-27-2005, 11:21 AM

Quote:

People don't want to hear what its like to be a Muslim in America. We all struggle through life enough just being who we are. Come watch my show: "Being an Average Joe In America For A Day!" People want to hear Muslim politicians, Muslim clerics, Muslim countries, Muslim scholars, Muslim organizations speaking out against islamic terrorism. Which they aren't doing enough of if you ask me. Playing the victim card - while your people are blowing up other people all over the world - is not a helpful way to improve your image in my opinion.

powerclown:
this is exactly the type of response i expected the dominant politics on the question of "terror"---which in the hands of the bush squad really is the question of "islam"--so it is "us" (who?) versus "them."

if one were to take on the right's "terror" discourse on its own level, the greatest challenge to it is division--the fragmentation of terms--from this one could derive the hysterical responses to opposition to the war in iraq from the outset from the right--it threatened the unity of the "us"--now from powerclown you get the other term being defended as unitary--so according to him, presenting what is in fact something of the reality of the matter--the groups that carry out attacks in the name of islam are no more representative of islam as a whole than the christian identity whack-jobs are representative of christianity as a whole--presenting this obvious fact is to "play the victim card"....

the implications of your post are to a certain extent mitigated by your repetition of thomas friedman's editorial line from about a week ago in the ny times. in it, friedman disengenuously blames all of islam for "terrorism" because islamic organizations did not do more to isolate the groups responsible for it---in his view of course-- but if the correlate of a unified "us" is a unified "them" then what space would you imagine would be given to spokesmodels for various muslim political organizations on american television? zero. if you add to this the simple fact that the political terms within which the bushideology of "terror" operates requires that one concede its legitimacy in order to be able to speak from within it--and that like the many msulim folk that i know, those cited in the article above understand that bushideology as misguided from its inception--then why would you be surprised to find that not alot of spokesmodels have made it onto fox news?

given that the existing order within islam, in particular contexts, is the primary target for these groups that organize various "terrorist" actions, of course the dominant order has been reacting--they reacted earlier than the americans did--they have reacted all along. that you were not paying attention, powerclown, means only that you were not paying attention. that you would use a footnote to thomas friedman or his equivalent as a footnote to rationalise the fact that you were not paying attention changes nothing about the facts of the matter that you were not attending.

who are these "people" you talk about who "dont want to know about being muslim in america" because they are too caught up in their own problems?

"people" are entirely caught up in the minutae of their everyday lives--that might be true--but this distractedness does not stop folk from acting as though their experience offers then an adequate basis for a politics.
in a context of intense economic pressure and factoid-style information, of distractedness shaped by generalized paranoia in the form of the bushwar on "terror" it should not be surprising that many people derive purely racist conclusions from the outlines of this ideology.

this would seem like a general statement about the preconditions for the problem this show tries to address.

but you, pc, go from there to denounce one of the more effective ways to demonstrate how and why these conclusions are in fact racist--simply by showing that not all muslims are "terrorists"...this is incomprehensible.

what it seems to me that you are doing, powerclown, is defending the prerogative shaped by the war on "terror" to be racist, and unapologetically so. you seem to be arguing this by criticizing the production of dissonant information---even if all this information really does is show something of the diversity of the muslim community in the united states.

is this really the position you are trying to defend?
it seems different from previous exchanges on this kind of topic....
maybe you could explain it differently--it would be a pleasure to see this post be mistaken.

Charlatan · 07-27-2005, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

People don't want to hear what its like to be a Muslim in America. We all struggle through life enough just being who we are. Come watch my show: "Being an Average Joe In America For A Day!"

I think the whole point is that Mulims *are*, as you put it, average joes.

Paq · 07-27-2005, 11:58 AM

i watched this show and while i did kinda chuckle at first at the reactions from the bit too stereotypical conservative christian, but after watching for a while, i noticed that he was a bit more open minded and made a nice transition. The info presented during the show was mainly what's given in an intro to religion class and was presented well.

Honestly, it was about 10x better than i thought it was gonna be. I really thought they were going to go for the true shock value, but it seemed to be a pretty reasonable show.

la petite moi · 07-27-2005, 12:14 PM

Awesome show, I tell you. I watched the minimum wage one, the steroids one, and this last Muslim one.

I think it's educating. It makes people who otherwise would have a stereotypical view on something stand back and say: "Ohhhh, so that's how that is!"

Like powerclown said, all these shows are really about the "average joes"...unfortunately, some people don't understand how it feels to live a certain way- whether it be living off minimum wage, dealing with extreme pressure to do steroids, or being Muslim (which is currently a hot button, what with "terrorism" and all).

I tell you what, there are some days when I think to myself while helping a snotty customer: "Jesus, does this guy have manners? Hasn't he ever worked in lower rung job before?"

guthmund · 07-27-2005, 01:05 PM

I watch the show (it's on FX, by the way, not SpikeTV). I enjoy it.

I think it should be noted that 30 days hardly seems like a long enough time to scratch the surface considering some of the topics Spurlock picked for his first season, but I think he did a fine job all things considered. I mean, I think they try to keep it as evenly balanced as they possibly can. It seems like an honest venture.

powerclown · 07-27-2005, 01:12 PM

If my response is exactly what you expected roachboy, why bring it up?
How do you expect people to respond, knowing their positions on the matter?
Not just that, why bring up the subject in the "Politics" section of this board?
There are a dozen of other places here where you could have brought up your interest in a tv show.

It seems to me that if you already know an outcome, and shoot for it deliberately, you're simply trolling.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

It is amusing how you would attempt to claim that the American media would somehow stifle the responses to terrorism coming from the Islamic world.

Are you serious???

In this day and age of Left-driven reporting on "American Gulags", flushing korans down toilets, the inhuman "tortures" of Abu Ghraib (AMERICA IS NO DIFFERENT THAN SADDAM!!), the sustained, daily bombardment (no pun intended) of media-exposed sectarian insurgent violence (construed daily by pundits as "further proof of defeat").

Are saying that within this media environment it is impossible for it to be reported that a prominent Islamic cleric issued a fatwa denouncing al-Qaeda, for example? I guess it's in the realm of possibility, but I'm skeptical.

roachboy · 07-27-2005, 01:29 PM

what i meant, powerclown, is that it is the response i might have expected in general (in a more cynical moment no less), but not from you.
that is not trolling--i offered an interpretation of your post and, in the end, asked you if you meant it or not.
i was surprised--your post seems to diverge considerably from other interactions we have had around parallel questions.
don't throw around accusations of trolling without at least some basis, pc. it looks like you are simply trying to make a conversation stop.

as for your counter concerning media coverage of the american gulag (i'll leave the scare quotes aside, though in general i wouldnt use the term--a question of scale and degree--accuracy even...) what you list are actions undertaken by american troops/contractors that reveal the extent to which religious symbols are being used as instruments to break prisoners down during interrogation within the legal black hole (i like that term better)--these incidents are entirely about signifiers and the official american relation to them as performed by various individuals in the context of interrogation. what these incidents point to is not good--but it is about problems within the american military and its relation to islam, not to islam itself.

not a bit of that is about making more complex--or even starting to consider--the complexity of the muslim community in the states or anywhere else--none of it is about the obvious fact that the vast majority of muslims do not support the actions of these small fringe groups that undertake actions like flying jets into the trade center.
in fact, your examples do not even begin to address the central problem--that in order to build support for this war on terror, the administration has had to skirt dangerously close to conflating it with a war on muslims. at times, this was justified with reference to the wholly ridiculous clash of civilizations line drawn from samuel huntington--you remember that--i think you invoked it yourself on occaision (my meory could be faulty on this--if so, mea culpa)....

kutulu · 07-27-2005, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Are saying that within this media environment it is impossible for it to be reported that a prominent Islamic cleric issued a fatwa denouncing al-Qaeda, for example? I guess it's in the realm of possibility, but I'm skeptical.

Not impossible at all. Maybe you just aren't listening:

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/new...ervice_id=2623

Quote:

Outspoken Muslim cleric Youssuf al-Qaradhawi, whose has recently visited Britain, has condemned religious extremism.

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/019880.htm

Quote:

As popular as radical Islam is, not even all clerics in Saudi Arabia support it - at least not the clerics who are under the control of the government. Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul-Aziz al-Sheikh has told Saudi citizens that they should spend more time listening to religious authorities than to radical Muslims who expounded upon "fanatic interpretations of Islam."

al-Sheikh has denounced terrorism and AQ on numerous occasions.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...7/195606.shtml

Quote:

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - A prominent Muslim cleric today denounced terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden and urged Afghanistan's Taliban rulers not to risk thousands of lives for him.
"Bin Laden is not a prophet that we should put thousands of lives at risk for," said Tahirul Qadri, who heads the Pakistani Awami Tehrik Party.

Grand Ayatollah Montazeri issued a fatwa denouncing terrorism and suicide attacks in 2002:

http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen042902.asp

That took all of a few minutes but if you'd rather believe that they are all a bunch of raghead who 'hate our freedom' then by all means keep on.

powerclown · 07-27-2005, 02:18 PM

My point is this: it is intellectually dishonest to play the race card whenever you feel that muslims are getting a bad rap. There is a legitimate reason for all the scrutiny in my opinion. Is it fair for any majority to be characterized by the minority? No. Is it logical for certain ethnicities to be singled out under the circumstances? Yes. Is such activity at odds with an official declaration of universal respect for human rights and dignity? Possibly, but I certainly wouldn't characterize it as the actions of racists.

I mean, seriously...who has the PR problem here? More and more countries around the world are having to address the issues of their own radical muslim constituencies. Every day, from every corner of the world, you read about muslim this, muslim that, muslimmuslimmuslim. What country outside of the Middle East isn't having to deal with these issues? And why are those who are earnestly - peacefully - trying to address these issues branded as racists?

kutulu · 07-27-2005, 02:40 PM

It's even more intellectually dishonest to blame people for actions that did not contribute to or to expect them to clean up a mess that the government created.

Charlatan · 07-27-2005, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

And why are those who are earnestly - peacefully - trying to address these issues branded as racists?

Perhaps it has to do with blanket statments that encompass the many instead of just addressing the few... I could be wrong.

powerclown · 07-27-2005, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

It's even more intellectually dishonest to blame people for actions that did not contribute to or to expect them to clean up a mess that the government created.

The government (I'm assuming you mean the American government) didn't create the mess. The terrorists created the mess. Crucial distinction.

Quote:

Perhaps it has to do with blanket statments that encompass the many instead of just addressing the few... I could be wrong.

This is exactly the type of politically correct doublespeak that leads to roachboys theories of racism. Nobody is blaming mainstream muslims! If mainstream muslims, all 3 billion of them, were doing this, the entire world would be in flames.

Locobot · 07-27-2005, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Spike TV is an MTV Networks Channel.

30 Days airs on Rupert Murdoch's FX channel, not Spike TV. My mistake.

boatin · 07-27-2005, 04:50 PM

I'm stunned that anyone could see a problem with this show. Sure, question it's execution, or some of the choices within the show, but this seems to go back to the conversation that has permeated many of these threads: is understanding good?

It's so clear to me that understand only helps, and never hurts, that I'm still befuddled by those that don't see it. I try and try to understand, but continue to fail to see why this could be bad. Note: I'm not (nor is anyone I've seen) advocating that understanding alone will solve the problem. Please don't put those words in my mouth.

As to whether he was 'average', I'd say so. As someone else pointed out, not average in that he was willing to do this. But certainly average in his knowledge of that culture. By participating in this board most everyone here has, definitionally, more knowledge than average. Many of us are in/have been in school longer than average.

I just had a conversation with a coworker whose husband is in the national guard. Both she and her husband thought that some of the 9-11 hijackers were Iraqi. They both believed that we found WMD in Iraq.

I would suggest that they are 'average' in their knowledge. If you don't like the word 'average' (tough to average knowledge), I'd suggest that many many Americans believe such things. Certainly they know nothing of the cultures of the Middle East.

roachboy · 07-27-2005, 05:05 PM

powerclown:

perhaps a point of clarification on my part is in order here.
what got me going down this road was realizing that there is almost nothing in the way in which the category "terrorist" is associated with "muslim extremists" that puts any emphasis on the word "Extremist"--in other words there is nothing in the ideology that makes sliding through it into racism a problem. you see it all the time--at the worst reflected in stats on the number of assaults on muslims in the united states--at the least bad, hearing persistent stories from all over the country about people who happen to be muslim or who happen to be arab being afraid to go outside (this mostly in the weeks following attacks of one kind of another).
you see the same thing happening at an apparently more benign level in posts here--it is really easy to slip from being specific in who you are talking about to describing an entire religious group or--more specifically--an ethnic group that is largely associated with a religious position.

Marvelous Marv · 07-27-2005, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

It's even more intellectually dishonest to blame people for actions that did not contribute to or to expect them to clean up a mess that the government created.

I'm glad the questions of affirmative action and reparations are settled.

/threadjack

powerclown · 07-27-2005, 06:57 PM

roachboy,

I see where you're coming from.
I agree to an extent with the spirit of your argument.
Where I disagree is in the one-dimensional nature of the presentation.
I'll leave it there.

roachboy · 07-28-2005, 06:11 AM

Quote:

U.S. Muslim Scholars To Forbid Terrorism

By Caryle Murphy
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 28, 2005; A11

An organization of top American Muslim religious scholars plans to issue a formal ruling today condemning terrorism and forbidding Muslims to cooperate with anyone involved in a terrorist act, according to officials of two leading Islamic organizations.

The one-page ruling, or fatwa, will be issued by the Fiqh Council of North America, an association of Islamic legal scholars that interprets Islamic law for the Muslim community. Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, an advocacy group, said the ruling does not represent a new position on terrorism.

Rather, Hooper said, "it is another way to drive home the point that the American Muslim community rejects terrorism and extremism."

Although Muslim leaders and political organizations have repeatedly denounced religious extremism, Hooper added, "any time any Muslim goes on a talk show or on television, the first question is, 'Why haven't Muslims condemned terrorism?' "

Louay Safi of the Islamic Society of North America noted that there is an important difference between a fatwa and previous statements from the Muslim community. The fatwa "is not a political statement. It's a legal or religious opinion by a recognized religious authority in the United States," said Safi, whose group is based in Indianapolis.

The fatwa, to be released at a news conference in Washington, was prompted by the condemnation of terrorism in a similar ruling from the Muslim Council of Britain after the July 7 terrorist attacks in London, Hooper said.

Safi, who heads the society's Leadership Development Center, said yesterday that "the statement prohibits Muslims from giving any support to terrorist groups who have carried out attacks against unarmed civilians. Groups like al Qaeda have misused and abused Islam to fit their own radical and criminal agenda, and I feel the statement is an important step to repudiating such groups."

Although the fatwa is important, Safi added, "there is a need to become more proactive in addressing the issue of terrorism by American Muslims."

The British fatwa did not name al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, and neither does the ruling to be issued today. But a March 11 fatwa from the Spanish Muslim Council on the first anniversary of the Madrid train attacks received widespread publicity because of its harsh denunciation of bin Laden by name.

John O. Voll, a professor of Islamic studies at Georgetown University, said naming bin Laden and al Qaeda is not a major issue. "I think that it is very important for both Muslim and non-Muslim leaders to go beyond the fixation on Osama bin Laden," he said. "The important thing is to condemn violent extremism done in the name of Islam."

i wonder if this will be mentioned on television.

Charlatan · 07-28-2005, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i wonder if this will be mentioned on television.

I've can remember hearing a few stories like this... the funny thing is they don't get nearly the same play as the bombings...

If it bleeds it leads..

irateplatypus · 08-03-2005, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i wonder if this will be mentioned on television.

i think they're leaving it alone because it's bogus

the chairman of the council you cited appears to be actively financing Islamic Jihad... nice.

the specter of "cultural misunderstanding" as a source for racism or paranoia is often talked about, but can anyone point to a broad trend of this actually happening?

it's my opinion that there probably isn't much understanding between the American public at-large and the middle eastern Islamic history/situation... however, i also believe that were such educational goals met, it would lead towards less tolerance rather than more.

Ustwo · 08-03-2005, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

it's my opinion that there probably isn't much understanding between the American public at-large and the middle eastern Islamic history/situation... however, i also believe that were such educational goals met, it would lead towards less tolerance rather than more.

So very true. It has been my exposure to Islam and the citizens of a wide range of Islamic nations which has convinced me there is no hope but for war.

WillyPete · 08-04-2005, 01:49 AM

With the recent bombing in London, this issue has been at the front of the media quite a lot here.

I could pick at a few points here that I disagree/agree with but to continue with the spirit of the topic regarding making the western 'christians' more understaning of Muslims:

Does the show point out the differences between the different muslim factions and groups and how amongst even the same 'types' of muslim, such as Sunni or Shi'ite, there is national and racial tension?

Does the show make it clear that there is not really one controlling body for the Islamic movement?
The muslim community's apparent lack of response about the london bombings raised the same question asked about 9-11 and the US muslim seeming lack of reaction to it.
With the Catholics you have the pope and an alleged representative body for the protestant churches in the World council of churches that can make statements to appease public opinion.

Who makes such statements on behalf of the muslims?

The British Muslim council declared fatwa on suicide bombers, but even some british muslims have commented in UK websites like The Telegraph that they don't accept that this council reperesents them.

I read a thought provoking article here the other day:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...07/09/do09.xml

Quote:

Where is the Gandhi of Islam?
By Charles Moore
(Filed: 09/07/2005)

Yes, there was a Blitz spirit. As we waited in large crowds for a train out of London on Thursday afternoon, everyone was peaceful, cooperative, calm and slightly more jokey than usual. A woman near me in the carriage was talking on her mobile phone: "There's nothing left for them to bomb," she said cheerfully. "You'll find the sausage rolls at the bottom of the fridge."

And, yes, the emergency services were magnificent. They had trained; they were coordinated; they were ready. The strength of a civilisation is shown not only in its great monuments and works of art, or in its famous people: it appears also in the instant, instinctive behaviour of millions at a moment of crisis. By this measure, London is part of a great civilisation.

Yet there seems to me to be a radical disjunction between our heroic capacity to deal with the immediate effects of terrorism and our collective refusal to confront what lies behind it. The effects of this disjunction are, literally, fatal.

The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, was in Singapore on Thursday, having helped London's successful Olympic bid. His stricken face showed his shock, and of course he condemned the attacks. Then he analysed them.

They were not, he said, attacks "against the mighty and the powerful", but against "working-class Londoners". Would they have been all right, one wondered, if they had been against the mighty and powerful, or if they had cleverly found a way of killing only middle-class Londoners?

Then Mr Livingstone said: "This is not an ideology or even a perverted faith." Why did he want to say that? How - if, as the authorities tell us, the attacks were carried out by Islamist extremists - could this be true?

The main spokesman for the Metropolitan Police on Thursday was Deputy Assistant Commissioner Brian Paddick. He also complained about attacks on "purely innocent members of the public", thereby making one think that there might be other people (police? soldiers? politicians?), who are not purely innocent and should have been attacked instead. Asked about the nature of the terrorists, Mr Paddick said: "Islam and terrorism don't go together."

It is true that the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists, or involved in terrorism, and this needs to be said strongly if people assert otherwise. But if the Metropolitan Police really believe what Brian Paddick says, if they really, truly think that the words "Islam" and "terrorism" must not be linked, then we have little hope of catching the killers, of understanding how the terrorism works, or of preventing new atrocities.

You can show this with a simple comparison. When Britain was afflicted by Irish republican terrorism, most Irish people repudiated that terrorism. It was nevertheless the case that the great majority of the terrorists - more than 95 per cent - were Irish, or of Irish origin, and they drew overwhelmingly on Irish people to help and hide them.

This was not a funny coincidence. It was because the IRA preached a doctrine about Ireland and called on the loyalty of a perverted version of Irishness. Therefore, the words "Irish" and "terrorist" went together, hard though this was on the majority of Irish people. The Brian Paddicks of the day would have been appallingly negligent if they had not concentrated their investigations among the Irish. And the vigilance of the public, which the police then and now rightly call for, inevitably directed itself towards Irish neighbours, Irish accents, Irish pubs.

So it must be with Muslims in Britain. In fact, the situation is more serious because we are dealing with a religion, not merely a national aspiration, and the demands of a religion are more absolute than anything else. If fanatics can persuade people that their religion insists that they kill others (and often themselves) in its service, then they will obey. And whereas the IRA, though utterly sadistic and fanatical, kept in mind a political aim which, once achieved, would mean that they need kill no longer, the religious fanatic lacks even this check on his behaviour.

From time to time, perhaps, he will kill for a specific reason - to take power in one country, to drive foreign troops out of another - but, in principle, there is no end to his killing until everyone who does not share his particular version of truth is exterminated.

What strikes one again and again about the reaction of the public authorities, of commentators, of the media, is the terrible lethargy about studying what it is we are up against. We are dealing with an extreme interpretation of one of the great religions of the world.

We flap around, looking for moderates and giving them knighthoods, making placatory noises, putting bits of Islam on to the multi-faith menu in schools, banishing Bibles from hospital beds, trying to criminalise the expression of "religious hatred", blaming George Bush and Tony Blair. But if we do not know the way the faith in question works, its history, its quarrels, its laws and demands, we will not have the faintest chance of distinguishing the true moderate from the fellow-traveller or of bearing down on the fanaticism.

If you look at the Koran, you will find many glorifications of violence. In Sura No 8, for example, God is quoted as saying: "I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers!" This punishment comes to them for having "defied God and His apostle". It seems reasonable to ask Muslims what this sort of remark means in the modern world.

Some will counter that there are plenty of equally nasty dictums in the Old Testament. This is true - though it is surely significant that they are very much harder to find in the New Testament. History is full of violent deeds done in the name of the Christian God.

But it is an important fact about Christianity in the past two or three centuries that it has conducted a great reinterpretation of these texts and of how the faithful should follow them. The struggle against the enemy in the Book of Joshua, say, or in Judges is now seen as a strictly spiritual one. The idea that these are divine 007 licences to kill has been explicitly repudiated.

Has the equivalent happened in Islam? Certainly, most Muslim leaders advocate peace and most are surely sincere in doing so. But push a bit harder, and you encounter some interesting problems.

I have asked, for example, if the Muslim Council of Britain, the mainstream umbrella organisation in this country, will condemn the killing of British troops in Iraq. They will not do so in absolute terms. They prefer instead to condemn the war itself, which is by no means the same thing.

Take a case from the dramas on Thursday. One heartening tableau was of the Bishop of Stepney, Stephen Oliver, appearing with Mohammed Abdul Bari from the East London Mosque, both condemning the attacks. But if you look up Mohammed Abdul Bari, you find that he welcomed to the opening of the London Muslim Centre Sheikh Abdul Rahman al Sudais, the Saudi-government-appointed imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca.

In Mecca two years ago, al Sudais described Jews as "scum of the earth", "rats of the world" and "monkeys and pigs who should be annihilated". Yet, criticise al Sudais, and Mohammed Abdul Bari leaps furiously to his defence.

As I write, I have beside me an article that appeared during our recent election campaign in Muslim Weekly. By Sheikh Dr Abdalqadir as-Sufi, it calls for the replacement of British parliamentary democracy with "a new civilisation based on the worship of Allah", attacks the Conservatives for being "in the hands of an illegal Jewish immigrant from Romania" and speaks of the "near-demented judaic banking elite".

These views are expressed by an educated Muslim in a Muslim publication. Are these Muslim views, non-Muslim views, anti-Muslim views?

The mayor of our bombed city has himself got involved with Muslim leaders who say some interesting things. Last year, Mr Livingstone extended a warm welcome in London to Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a mainstream, world-famous spiritual leader based in Qatar.

Qaradawi has supported suicide bombing against Israelis, the treatment of all Jews as legitimate targets, the whipping of homosexuals and the killing of all Americans - civilian and military - in Iraq. Surely, Ken recognises an ideology here, and a faith of sorts? Yet he praised, rather than condemned, and so now, when the logical extension of such ideas hits King's Cross and the Edgware Road and kills dozens of his voters, he has to say that such deeds arise from no belief at all.

There seem to be two broad reasons why many Muslim leaders appear unable or unwilling to break absolutely with the teachings that give cover to violence. The first is that their religion is much more literal and much more political than modern Christianity. Its Prophet was a political and military leader.

The faith Mohammed taught does not just hope that the world will become Muslim. It wants all human society and politics to be governed by religious law: it draws no distinction between the secular and religious sphere (except to condemn the secular). Therefore, Muslim leaders find it very difficult to resist the hotheads who say that Sharia - the divine law - should be imposed wherever possible.

In addition, the religion is absolute in its attitude to particular bits of territory. It is forbidden, for example, that any other religion be practised in the Arabian peninsula, because that land is considered sacred to Islam. Therefore, it is hard for a "moderate" to oppose the second-class citizenship of Christians or Jews in Muslim lands, or to say that "infidels" fighting in Muslim countries should not be murdered - even when they are his fellow citizens in a Western country.

When someone like bin Laden says that Islam should confront the "Cross-worshippers" and the "Zionists", he is making a claim in which politics and religion dangerously reinforce one another - a claim which most Muslims might not like, but which most of their leaders cannot find quite the right words to resist.

The second reason is that the leaders are frightened. In private conversations with the moderates, one is always told that they are under "enormous pressure", that they risk losing control of their own people, and therefore they cannot say very fierce things against the extremists. One must accept that this pressure exists, which only goes to show how serious the problem is.

The Bishop of Stepney, say, would not have to look over his shoulder before he dared to condemn Christian suicide bombers (if there were any). But if his friend Mohammed Abdul Bari wants to condemn Muslim ones in Israel, then his life - or certainly his career - might be threatened.

So we have in our midst a religious minority in a state of ferment, and somewhere inside it a number of people (though a tiny proportion of the whole) who want to kill the rest of us. Now, it would seem, they or their foreign allies have succeeded. This country has suffered a greater land-based terrorist death toll than it has ever known before. Instead of subjecting our entire population to the loss of liberties and increase of bureaucratic power which identity cards involve, we should develop a strategy that works out much more precisely where the danger lies, and seeks it out.

Are we satisfied that our immigration and asylum system, and our ceding of much of it to European conventions, keeps a proper check on who comes in? Do our own laws give too ready an entitlement to people to join or marry family here? Do our judiciary now interpret the rights of immigrants and asylum-seekers so generously as to give the country almost no protection from those who abuse those rights?

What about the methods of the police? Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, has shown himself so obsessed with the implementation of the recommendations of the Macpherson report that followed the Stephen Lawrence case that he has been officially criticised for "hanging out to dry" three officers falsely accused of racism.

His approach to policing Muslims appears to be to seek the consent of those he supposes to be community leaders before "going in". It is surely not right that they should have a veto on whether or not an inquiry is pursued, and it must be asked whether all of them could be trusted not to protect some of those who merit police attention.

The methods matter, too. Although offence should always be avoided if possible, if the police will not use dogs in their investigations of Muslims (as they may do with almost anyone else), and if they undertake never to go into the religious parts of Islamic buildings, then some people with things to hide will hide them.

If the Blairs and Paddicks won't look at the link between faith and terrorism, how can they ever learn from the evidence in the websites and madrassehs and sermons which incites the trouble and brings like-minded extremists together?

And what about public vigilance? Yesterday, the Met's press conference called for public vigilance - but would you want to go and tell Sir Ian your anxieties about a Muslim neighbour? Might you worry about being turned away as a racist?

The most important question is for Muslims, and the authorities' attitude towards them. Embedded in modern government are too many advisers who believe in a quietist policy. To them, the most important thing is to avoid a "backlash" against Muslims. But the truth is that the backlash only threatens because the terror strikes. Mired in ignorance, our Government (let alone the Opposition) has little idea how to find the trends in Islam that could really improve the life of our country, and run with them.

It is only when you start thinking about what we are not getting from leaders of British Muslims, and indeed Muslim religious leadership throughout the world, that you start to see how much needs doing. The moderates are not pressed hard for anything more than a general condemnation of the extremists.

When did you last hear criticisms of named extremist groups and organisations by Muslim leaders, or support for their expulsion, imprisonment or extradition? How often do you see fatwas issued against suicide bombers and other terrorists, or statements by learned men declaring that people who commit such deeds will go to hell?

When do Muslim leaders and congregations insist that a particular imam leave his mosque because of the poison that he disseminates every Friday? When did a British Muslim last go after a Muslim who advocates or practises violence with anything like the zeal with which so many went after Salman Rushdie?

Why is not more stigma attached to the Muslims who are murdering other Muslims every day in Iraq and the Middle East?

What communal protection is offered to those Muslims who really are brave and confront Islamist violence, or the poor treatment of women, or call for democracy in the Middle East? How much do mainstream political parties with Muslim councillors and candidates really insist on their religious moderation and co-opt them to extrude the bad people lurking within their communities?

I understand and accept that there are many moderates among British Muslims, but I want to know why Britain gets so pitifully little to show for their moderation.

When a nation, a race, a political movement, a group of workers, the followers of a religion have legitimate grievances, there generally arises amongst them a champion who can command respect for his advocacy of peace, his willingness to fight without weapons and to win by moral authority. There may be many such grievances for Muslims in Britain, and in the West, but we are still waiting for the Gandhi or the Martin Luther King to give them the right voice.

We all love it when the British people shrug their shoulders and move stoically on in the face of attack. It is a powerful national myth, and a true one. But it contains within it a great danger - a self-fulfilling belief that there is nothing to be done to avert future disaster. That's not the Blitz spirit - what made London's suffering in 1941 worthwhile was that, in the end, we won.

roachboy · 08-05-2005, 09:45 AM

irate: nice misleading post--your link describes the fatwa as "bogus" becuase, in the view of the authors of the blog you cite, it did not go far enough in naming specific groups, etc....but rather than say all that, you simply said it is "bogus"--so someone reading your post would assume that the fatwa is a fake.

meanwhile, ustwo is resigned to war with islam. it is amazing to me how stupidity on the order of samuel huntington's "clash of civilizations" "thesis" continues to have a half life in the tiny intellectual world of right ideology. i suppose it functions to spare folk from having to think too much.

i am really not sure what advantage conservatives find there to be in imagining a religious war. perhaps one of you could explain sometime.

WillyPete · 08-05-2005, 01:56 PM

Here's my take:
To the muslims as I understand it, state and religion are not seperable as in the US or UK.
The state is based on religious edicts and the punishments although barbaric to us westerners are quite acceptable to many muslims as they are acceptable according to their religious texts, in some cases, recommended.
With this in mind, when the US as a state attack a Muslim state such as Iraq or aids another state attack fellow muslims, the boundary between state action and an action against their religion is very feint.

The hardliners use this motivation to fire up the more fundamentally minded muslims into action agains the west and its allies.

When a very large religious body feels that it is being attacked AS A RELIGION and by virtue of it's beliefs, feels that it should retaliate not as a state but as a religious movement the typical westerner is very surprised and thus we see a move back towards the more right-wing christian religious bodies. Not due to a resurgence in belief in a Christ, but to identify with a body that is not muslim and that they feel is being attacked. It is hard for the westerner to understand that a religious body wants to attack a state. They feel that a religiously based attack is focussed on their religion.

Thus I feel that the lack of understanding on both sides makes them feel that war is inevitable. Just as in many christian debates that rage through western society like abortion, homosexuality and creationism there seems to the common man that there is NO solution, how can two separate religions NOT fight when they are so different?

I don't think it's as much a right-wing mindset as much as a total misreading of the others' motivation, customs and beliefs.

07-27-2005, 07:57 AM	#4 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	To my mind, this film could be as useful to understanding Muslims in America as Black Like Me was to understanding Blacks. I can almost guarantee that there will be talking points structured on the right to villify this film. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

07-27-2005, 07:57 AM	#5 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i understand the choice (of stacy as the guy to be tracked through this process) and the function it was to serve for the film--both are obvious. what i wonder about--and what i guess i tried to frame as a question in a kind of inept way above--is his representativeness...is he representative or not? is the problem with saying that he is that the outcome is kind of unflattering? either way, clearly there is a dispositional-level "politics" that would prefer to see him as typical. second point: i am not interested in questions of personality when i try to pose questions about the administration's ideology--i am interested in the ideology itself, the structures of argument particular to it and their effects. i do not find the assumption that conservative ideology appeals to stupid people interesting or useful or even correct--what i think is much more interesting is think about the extent to which investing in that ideology causes you--or anyone--to exlcude types of information and privelge others. the more general point is a reaction to what i have been see in repeatedly in threads here over the past week or so on the question of "terrorism"---the opposition between support for the administration's policies on "terror" and questions of context/explanation. i should have posed it in a less inflammatory manner--mea culpa. but there are much more interesting questions to be considered across the above than that of whether you like supersize me or not--personally, i found the film obvious and not terribly interesting--eric schlosser's fast food nation was much more damaging than was supersize me. besides, supersize me is not exactly the issue here, is it? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 07-27-2005 at 08:05 AM..

07-27-2005, 09:43 AM	#11 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Here's what I think... The film is being made with good intentions... the idea being that there are many people in the west that are clueless when it come to the Muslim religion. The film, in an entertaining way, hopes to educate or at least lessen the divide by showing that Muslims are not all that different... by providing a different angle on who these people are. Unfortunately, as I mentioned about, the film will be maligned by certain factions. Unfortunately those factions have a big platform and even bigger mouths. The reality is that we in the west need a Muslim Like Me. I don't know that this film is going to achieve this but at least it is an attempt. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

07-27-2005, 11:58 AM	#19 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	i watched this show and while i did kinda chuckle at first at the reactions from the bit too stereotypical conservative christian, but after watching for a while, i noticed that he was a bit more open minded and made a nice transition. The info presented during the show was mainly what's given in an intro to religion class and was presented well. Honestly, it was about 10x better than i thought it was gonna be. I really thought they were going to go for the true shock value, but it seemed to be a pretty reasonable show. __________________ Live. Chris

07-27-2005, 12:14 PM	#20 (permalink)
la petite moi Filling the Void. Location: California	Awesome show, I tell you. I watched the minimum wage one, the steroids one, and this last Muslim one. I think it's educating. It makes people who otherwise would have a stereotypical view on something stand back and say: "Ohhhh, so that's how that is!" Like powerclown said, all these shows are really about the "average joes"...unfortunately, some people don't understand how it feels to live a certain way- whether it be living off minimum wage, dealing with extreme pressure to do steroids, or being Muslim (which is currently a hot button, what with "terrorism" and all). I tell you what, there are some days when I think to myself while helping a snotty customer: "Jesus, does this guy have manners? Hasn't he ever worked in lower rung job before?" Last edited by la petite moi; 07-27-2005 at 12:17 PM..

07-27-2005, 09:58 AM	#12 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	I think the only thing this will accomplish is to make people even angrier at Muslims because it tries to obfuscate the point through some flaky television show. Especially when you put an American in the role of clueless buffoon. Who is the audience for this? People don't want to hear what its like to be a Muslim in America. We all struggle through life enough just being who we are. Come watch my show: "Being an Average Joe In America For A Day!" People want to hear Muslim politicians, Muslim clerics, Muslim countries, Muslim scholars, Muslim organizations speaking out against islamic terrorism. Which they aren't doing enough of if you ask me. Playing the victim card - while your people are blowing up other people all over the world - is not a helpful way to improve your image in my opinion.

07-27-2005, 10:01 AM	#13 (permalink)
Locobot is awesome!	Apparently I'm the only person here who has actually seen the show in question? It airs on Rupert Murdoch's Spike TV. The show does not glamorize the Muslim lifestyle and in fact doesn't shy away from the negative aspects of Islam. Spurlock's show is the only reality show which makes an actual effort to portray something real. Comparison's above between it and "Fear Factor" are remiss. The participant in this episode actually does have some of his opinions changed, but there is no hokey dramatic epiphany. One of the major things he learned, and myself as a viewer, was the high level of self-discipline required of Muslims. I also found the trip to the Muslim "Hal el" butcher pretty interesting, it's virtually identical to the Jewish Kosher practice except the animal carcasses are hung facing east, towards Mecca. As to Roachboy's question whether this show's subject, Stacy, is representative of Americans at large, I would say yes. If anything Stacy is more open-minded than the general attitude I encounter these days, he did after all agree to live as a muslim for 30 days, something many Americans wouldn't do. It's amazing to me when I find myself in an all-white group of acquaintances or semi-strangers how quickly the racist dialogue begins. "Sand-nigger, towelhead, camel jockey etc." These are the terms and hatred I find bubbling under the surface with frightening regularity.

07-27-2005, 01:05 PM	#21 (permalink)
guthmund big damn hero	I watch the show (it's on FX, by the way, not SpikeTV). I enjoy it. I think it should be noted that 30 days hardly seems like a long enough time to scratch the surface considering some of the topics Spurlock picked for his first season, but I think he did a fine job all things considered. I mean, I think they try to keep it as evenly balanced as they possibly can. It seems like an honest venture. __________________ No signature. None. Seriously.

07-27-2005, 01:12 PM	#22 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	If my response is exactly what you expected roachboy, why bring it up? How do you expect people to respond, knowing their positions on the matter? Not just that, why bring up the subject in the "Politics" section of this board? There are a dozen of other places here where you could have brought up your interest in a tv show. It seems to me that if you already know an outcome, and shoot for it deliberately, you're simply trolling. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - It is amusing how you would attempt to claim that the American media would somehow stifle the responses to terrorism coming from the Islamic world. Are you serious??? In this day and age of Left-driven reporting on "American Gulags", flushing korans down toilets, the inhuman "tortures" of Abu Ghraib (AMERICA IS NO DIFFERENT THAN SADDAM!!), the sustained, daily bombardment (no pun intended) of media-exposed sectarian insurgent violence (construed daily by pundits as "further proof of defeat"). Are saying that within this media environment it is impossible for it to be reported that a prominent Islamic cleric issued a fatwa denouncing al-Qaeda, for example? I guess it's in the realm of possibility, but I'm skeptical.

07-27-2005, 01:29 PM	#23 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	what i meant, powerclown, is that it is the response i might have expected in general (in a more cynical moment no less), but not from you. that is not trolling--i offered an interpretation of your post and, in the end, asked you if you meant it or not. i was surprised--your post seems to diverge considerably from other interactions we have had around parallel questions. don't throw around accusations of trolling without at least some basis, pc. it looks like you are simply trying to make a conversation stop. as for your counter concerning media coverage of the american gulag (i'll leave the scare quotes aside, though in general i wouldnt use the term--a question of scale and degree--accuracy even...) what you list are actions undertaken by american troops/contractors that reveal the extent to which religious symbols are being used as instruments to break prisoners down during interrogation within the legal black hole (i like that term better)--these incidents are entirely about signifiers and the official american relation to them as performed by various individuals in the context of interrogation. what these incidents point to is not good--but it is about problems within the american military and its relation to islam, not to islam itself. not a bit of that is about making more complex--or even starting to consider--the complexity of the muslim community in the states or anywhere else--none of it is about the obvious fact that the vast majority of muslims do not support the actions of these small fringe groups that undertake actions like flying jets into the trade center. in fact, your examples do not even begin to address the central problem--that in order to build support for this war on terror, the administration has had to skirt dangerously close to conflating it with a war on muslims. at times, this was justified with reference to the wholly ridiculous clash of civilizations line drawn from samuel huntington--you remember that--i think you invoked it yourself on occaision (my meory could be faulty on this--if so, mea culpa).... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 07-27-2005 at 01:34 PM..

07-27-2005, 02:18 PM	#25 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	My point is this: it is intellectually dishonest to play the race card whenever you feel that muslims are getting a bad rap. There is a legitimate reason for all the scrutiny in my opinion. Is it fair for any majority to be characterized by the minority? No. Is it logical for certain ethnicities to be singled out under the circumstances? Yes. Is such activity at odds with an official declaration of universal respect for human rights and dignity? Possibly, but I certainly wouldn't characterize it as the actions of racists. I mean, seriously...who has the PR problem here? More and more countries around the world are having to address the issues of their own radical muslim constituencies. Every day, from every corner of the world, you read about muslim this, muslim that, muslimmuslimmuslim. What country outside of the Middle East isn't having to deal with these issues? And why are those who are earnestly - peacefully - trying to address these issues branded as racists?

07-27-2005, 02:40 PM	#26 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	It's even more intellectually dishonest to blame people for actions that did not contribute to or to expect them to clean up a mess that the government created.

07-27-2005, 04:50 PM	#30 (permalink)
boatin Psycho	I'm stunned that anyone could see a problem with this show. Sure, question it's execution, or some of the choices within the show, but this seems to go back to the conversation that has permeated many of these threads: is understanding good? It's so clear to me that understand only helps, and never hurts, that I'm still befuddled by those that don't see it. I try and try to understand, but continue to fail to see why this could be bad. Note: I'm not (nor is anyone I've seen) advocating that understanding alone will solve the problem. Please don't put those words in my mouth. As to whether he was 'average', I'd say so. As someone else pointed out, not average in that he was willing to do this. But certainly average in his knowledge of that culture. By participating in this board most everyone here has, definitionally, more knowledge than average. Many of us are in/have been in school longer than average. I just had a conversation with a coworker whose husband is in the national guard. Both she and her husband thought that some of the 9-11 hijackers were Iraqi. They both believed that we found WMD in Iraq. I would suggest that they are 'average' in their knowledge. If you don't like the word 'average' (tough to average knowledge), I'd suggest that many many Americans believe such things. Certainly they know nothing of the cultures of the Middle East. Last edited by boatin; 07-27-2005 at 04:53 PM..

07-27-2005, 05:05 PM	#31 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	powerclown: perhaps a point of clarification on my part is in order here. what got me going down this road was realizing that there is almost nothing in the way in which the category "terrorist" is associated with "muslim extremists" that puts any emphasis on the word "Extremist"--in other words there is nothing in the ideology that makes sliding through it into racism a problem. you see it all the time--at the worst reflected in stats on the number of assaults on muslims in the united states--at the least bad, hearing persistent stories from all over the country about people who happen to be muslim or who happen to be arab being afraid to go outside (this mostly in the weeks following attacks of one kind of another). you see the same thing happening at an apparently more benign level in posts here--it is really easy to slip from being specific in who you are talking about to describing an entire religious group or--more specifically--an ethnic group that is largely associated with a religious position. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 07-27-2005 at 05:08 PM..

07-27-2005, 06:57 PM	#33 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	roachboy, I see where you're coming from. I agree to an extent with the spirit of your argument. Where I disagree is in the one-dimensional nature of the presentation. I'll leave it there.

08-05-2005, 09:45 AM	#39 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	irate: nice misleading post--your link describes the fatwa as "bogus" becuase, in the view of the authors of the blog you cite, it did not go far enough in naming specific groups, etc....but rather than say all that, you simply said it is "bogus"--so someone reading your post would assume that the fatwa is a fake. meanwhile, ustwo is resigned to war with islam. it is amazing to me how stupidity on the order of samuel huntington's "clash of civilizations" "thesis" continues to have a half life in the tiny intellectual world of right ideology. i suppose it functions to spare folk from having to think too much. i am really not sure what advantage conservatives find there to be in imagining a religious war. perhaps one of you could explain sometime. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-05-2005, 01:56 PM	#40 (permalink)
WillyPete Addict	Here's my take: To the muslims as I understand it, state and religion are not seperable as in the US or UK. The state is based on religious edicts and the punishments although barbaric to us westerners are quite acceptable to many muslims as they are acceptable according to their religious texts, in some cases, recommended. With this in mind, when the US as a state attack a Muslim state such as Iraq or aids another state attack fellow muslims, the boundary between state action and an action against their religion is very feint. The hardliners use this motivation to fire up the more fundamentally minded muslims into action agains the west and its allies. When a very large religious body feels that it is being attacked AS A RELIGION and by virtue of it's beliefs, feels that it should retaliate not as a state but as a religious movement the typical westerner is very surprised and thus we see a move back towards the more right-wing christian religious bodies. Not due to a resurgence in belief in a Christ, but to identify with a body that is not muslim and that they feel is being attacked. It is hard for the westerner to understand that a religious body wants to attack a state. They feel that a religiously based attack is focussed on their religion. Thus I feel that the lack of understanding on both sides makes them feel that war is inevitable. Just as in many christian debates that rage through western society like abortion, homosexuality and creationism there seems to the common man that there is NO solution, how can two separate religions NOT fight when they are so different? I don't think it's as much a right-wing mindset as much as a total misreading of the others' motivation, customs and beliefs.