LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quotefact is that the proportion of muslims who would fit your view are a minority hence this belief can easily be viewed as universalOriginally Posted by Ray
Actually, it is true that a Moslem puts his religion first and then his country. Or so it appears.
Even on this forum we have seen this.
Yet, I like to believe that it is not universal, even though the majority may feel so.
I find this "religion over country" attitude a little difficult to understand.
"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."
I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.
HAKUNA MATATA
fact is that the proportion of muslims who would fit your view are a minority hence this belief can easily be viewed as universal
An Alternative point of view from those express by most here.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
VIEW: Today’s counter-enlightenment —Ralf Dahrendorf
We have to defend those who give unwelcome views whether we like them or not. If anyone does not like them, there are all the instruments of public debate and of critical discourse that an enlightened community has at its disposal
Not long ago, one might have concluded that, at least in Europe, there were no taboos left. A process that had begun with the Enlightenment had now reached the point at which ‘anything goes’. Particularly in the arts, there were no apparent limits to showing what even a generation ago would have been regarded as highly offensive.
Two generations ago, most countries had censors who not only tried to prevent younger people from seeing certain films but who actually banned books. Since the 1960s, such proscriptions have weakened until, in the end, explicit sexuality, violence, blasphemy — while upsetting to some people — were tolerated as a part of the enlightened world.
Or were they? Are there really no limits? Outside Europe, the ‘anything goes’ attitude was never fully accepted. And there were limits in Europe, too. The historian David Irving is still in detention in Austria for the crime of Holocaust denial. This is, to be sure, a special case. The denial of a well-documented truth may lead to new crimes. But is the answer to the old question, “What is truth?” always so clear?
What exactly are we doing if we insist on Turkey’s acknowledgement that the Armenian genocide did take place as a condition of its membership in the European Union? Are we so sure of Darwin’s theories of evolution that we should ban alternative notions of genesis from schools?
Those concerned with freedom of speech have always wondered about its limits. One such limit is the incitement to violence. The man who gets up in a crowded theatre and shouts, “Fire!” when there is none is guilty of what happens in the resulting stampede. But what if there actually is a fire?
This is the context in which we may see the invasion of Islamic taboos into the enlightened, mostly non-Islamic world. From the fatwa on Salman Rushdie for The Satanic Verses to the killing of a nun in Somalia in response to Pope Benedict’s Regensburg lecture and the Berlin Opera’s cancellation of a performance of Mozart’s Idomeneo, with its severed heads of religious founders, we have seen violence and intimidation used to defend a particular religion’s taboos.
There are questions here that are not easily answered by civilised defenders of the Enlightenment. Toleration and respect for people who have their own beliefs are right and perhaps necessary to preserve an enlightened world. But there is the other side to consider. Violent responses to unwelcome views are never justified and cannot be accepted. Those who argue that suicide bombers express understandable grudges have themselves sold out their freedom. Self-censorship is worse than censorship itself, because it sacrifices freedom voluntarily.
This means that we have to defend those who give unwelcome views whether we like them or not. If anyone does not like them, there are all the instruments of public debate and of critical discourse that an enlightened community has at its disposal. It is also true that we do not have to buy any particular book or listen to an opera. What a poor world it would be if anything that might offend any group could no longer be said! A multicultural society that accepts every taboo of its diverse groups would have little to talk about.
The kind of reaction we have seen recently to expressions of views that are offensive to some does not bode well for the future of liberty. It is as if a new wave of counter-enlightenment is sweeping the world, with the most restrictive views dominating the scene. Against such reactions, enlightened views must be reasserted strongly. Defending the right of all people to say things even if one detests their views is one of the first principles of liberty.
Publishing or presenting such views is a matter of judgment, almost of taste. I might not do it, but I would nevertheless defend the right of someone who decides otherwise. It is debatable whether recent incidents of this kind require a ‘dialogue between religions’. Public debate making clear cases one way or the other seems more appropriate than conciliation. The gains of enlightened discourse are too precious to be turned into negotiable values. Defending those gains is the task that we now face. —DT-PS
Ralf Dahrendorf, author of numerous books and a former European Commissioner from Germany, is a member of the British House of Lords, a former Rector of the London School of Economics, and a former Warden of St Antony’s College, Oxford
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...-10-2006_pg3_6
_____________________
when they make no laws but what they themselves and their posterity must be subject to; when they can give no money, but what they must pay their share of; when they can do no mischief, but what must fall upon their own heads in common with their countrymen; their principals may expect then good laws, little mischief, and much frugality
ray,
religion is older than country. nationalism only developed in the 19th century. with the collapse of nationalism (both the regular sort and the pan-arab sort) in the middle east, along with the structures of nationalism- state schooling for example- people are reverting to a more ancient form of organization.I find this "religion over country" attitude a little difficult to understand.
Last edited by astralis; 15 Oct 06, at 06:32.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/6050392.stmCode:A Muslim teaching assistant suspended for refusing to remove her veil in class should be sacked, a local government minister has said. Phil Woolas, whose brief includes race relations, told the Sunday Mirror that Aishah Azmi, 23, had "put herself in a position where she can't do her job". Ms Azmi, who works at a junior school in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, said her pupils never complained about the veil. She said she would remove the garment, but not in front of male colleagues. Mr Woolas told the newspaper this amounted to sexual discrimination. He added: "She is denying the right of children to a full education by insisting that she wears the veil."
Here is the interview in which the woman was caught out by the BBC presenter.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/3681938.stm
http://www.khaleejtimes.ae/DisplayAr...editorial&col=
What say you??
Looking beyond veil
16 October 2006
THE unsavoury row over the Muslim veil has deepened in the UK with a senior member of the Tony Blair government calling for the sack of a schoolteacher for wearing the veil. Phil Woolas, the minister for local government and community cohesion, has joined the ongoing heated debate over the veil by insisting that Aishah Azmi, the 24-year old mother of two, "has put herself in a position where she cannot do her job."
Coming on the heels of the controversy sparked by former British foreign secretary Jack Straw’s absurd remarks on the Muslim veil, Aishah Azmi’s case has come to challenge Britain’s famed traditions of religious tolerance and multiculturalism. For ages, persecuted and freedom-loving people from around the world have headed to Britain seeing it as a land of freedom, peace and opportunity. It was rightly celebrated as the most liberal and tolerant country in the whole of Europe.
But the very fact that Britain should be debating whether Muslim women can practise their religion, shows that the country is undergoing an alarming change, with the rest of the West.
The far from liberal remarks made by Woolas and before him by Jack Straw are a clear sign that the freedom once enjoyed by religious and cultural minorities in Britain may not last long. If this is how senior leaders of the left-wing Labour party view the country’s largest minority, it is not hard to imagine the possible reaction of right-wing fringe groups such as UKIP.
It is not as if Straw does not understand the larger issue of Muslim identity and why Muslim women wear hijab or cover their face. After all, there is a large concentration of Muslim community in his Blackburn constituency and until this controversy, the British Muslims saw their member of parliament as being largely sympathetic to them, despite their resentment over the government’s Iraq policy.
Besides, what is secularism, the cornerstone of Western democracy, if not non-interference with individuals’ religious beliefs and cultural practices? If some Muslim women choose to wear the veil, how does it affect their relationship with the state or the society at large? Or for that matter, why should governments, ministers or society get all worked up over an individual’s religious beliefs or cultural practices, unless they affect public peace or order in the country?
How is it anybody’s business, if Aishah Azmi wears veil in her school in the presence of her male colleagues? As she has sensibly pointed out in her defence, her students have never complained about her Muslim veil coming in the way of her communication with them. Why are Blair’s ministers — and with them the rest of Europe — getting so worked up then?
Ironically enough, liberal and secular Europe has no problem with in-your-face nudity on newspaper front pages and in public places — flaunted as individual freedom or art. But eyebrows are raised when a woman exercises her individual right to protect herself and her identity by covering her head or face. And from Jack Straw to Phil Woolas, every politician worth his salt rushes to condemn the ‘sacrilege’! This is nothing but moral and intellectual duplicity. Instead of panning the Muslim veil as decadent or a challenge to its secular ethos, Europe should celebrate its religious and cultural diversity.
_____________________
when they make no laws but what they themselves and their posterity must be subject to; when they can give no money, but what they must pay their share of; when they can do no mischief, but what must fall upon their own heads in common with their countrymen; their principals may expect then good laws, little mischief, and much frugality
Actually, I wonder what is wrong in running naked like the pygmies of yore?
Now, if a pygmy who is a school teacher want to teach in the nude, because it is an ancient pygmy culture and part of his pagan religion, should we object?
Some may feel that this is an extreme example, but it is not.
Now, if a pygmy wants to return to his roots and then teaches in an area where suchlike people exist in the deep jungles, who in the name of Dickens will object?
But should the same pygmy want to do so in, let us say, India or UK, apart from raising eyebrows, he would be hounded out.
Should he do so in Saudi Arabia, he needn't wait to meet his Maker. He will be under the executioner's sword before he can say "Faisal"
In short, in Rome, do as the Romans do.
However, if Azmi wishes to veil herself, nothing wrong in that. But then she should do so not in a domain where interactivity is essential. Imagine an Egyptian mummy all swathed up in bandages suddenly coming to life, moving and talking. Heavens, it will give anyone sane a fright!
Last edited by Ray; 16 Oct 06, at 08:37.
"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."
I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.
HAKUNA MATATA
"Some may feel that this is an extreme example, but it is not"
But it is argument by assertion
"if Azmi wishes to veil herself, nothing wrong in that. But then she should do so not in a domain where interactivity is essential"
But she has been interacting just fine, after all, note "her students have never complained about her Muslim veil coming in the way of her communication with them. Why are Blair’s ministers — and with them the rest of Europe — getting so worked up then"
Should Europeans be required to shed the clothes they are comfortable in, for clothes others are comfortable with ??
Don't get me wrong, I'm no supporter of niqab or burkha and such and very much an opponent of it, yet I have not found any of the positions forwarded, and there really is just one, namely, "we don't like it", to be persuaded that we ought to intrude into a private matter.
_____________________
when they make no laws but what they themselves and their posterity must be subject to; when they can give no money, but what they must pay their share of; when they can do no mischief, but what must fall upon their own heads in common with their countrymen; their principals may expect then good laws, little mischief, and much frugality
She has been on TV quite enough to see and hear that this particular classroom assistant has an unfortunate mixture of a regional accent and the voice of a immigrant. I know the children in her care are mostly from ethnic backgrounds, but that should mean they be addressed in correct English. This person is trying to stamp her Islamic identity on the kids, and getting herself in line for a large sum of money in compensation should she be dismissed from her post. There is no doubt that her 'community' is behind her claims. There is also no doubt that the average Briton is sick and tired of hearing about it. I know that I am!
Quite possibly this is all a ploy as you suggest, but we can be assured that the realm of "possible" is a vast and for our purposes, unproductive. And ofcourse many share your disgust, however; neither is sufficient cause for her to lose her job or fro a precedent to be set in a "secular" so****ry such as the UK.
As for her accent and voice, once again, if all we have to go on is subjective, will that not be a dangerous road to take in a country of laws?
_____________________
when they make no laws but what they themselves and their posterity must be subject to; when they can give no money, but what they must pay their share of; when they can do no mischief, but what must fall upon their own heads in common with their countrymen; their principals may expect then good laws, little mischief, and much frugality
This is true, but not for the reason the author suggests
Liberalism is not the same as Anarchy. Liberalism has a code of ethics and behaviours just like any other societal philosophy. The idea that liberalism is one where anything goes is incorrect.The far from liberal remarks made by Woolas and before him by Jack Straw are a clear sign that the freedom once enjoyed by religious and cultural minorities in Britain may not last long. If this is how senior leaders of the left-wing Labour party view the country’s largest minority, it is not hard to imagine the possible reaction of right-wing fringe groups such as UKIP.
Again. liberalism does not equate with a philosophy of 'anything goes'. Liberalism is underpinned by the society in which it is based. While as a philosophy it allows/enforces a wide degree of tolerance in certain areas, it is easily as restrictive as conservatism in many others. Infact you could argue that it is more restrictive to the majority of the population.
Besides, what is secularism, the cornerstone of Western democracy, if not non-interference with individuals’ religious beliefs and cultural practices? If some Muslim women choose to wear the veil, how does it affect their relationship with the state or the society at large? Or for that matter, why should governments, ministers or society get all worked up over an individual’s religious beliefs or cultural practices, unless they affect public peace or order in the country?
Because it offends them. Such offense is as valid as her 'right' to wear the veilHow is it anybody’s business, if Aishah Azmi wears veil in her school in the presence of her male colleagues? As she has sensibly pointed out in her defence, her students have never complained about her Muslim veil coming in the way of her communication with them. Why are Blair’s ministers — and with them the rest of Europe — getting so worked up then?
Again, liberalism or secularism is not a philosophy of 'anything goes' and is rooted in the morality and views of the society in which it is based.Ironically enough, liberal and secular Europe has no problem with in-your-face nudity on newspaper front pages and in public places — flaunted as individual freedom or art. But eyebrows are raised when a woman exercises her individual right to protect herself and her identity by covering her head or face. And from Jack Straw to Phil Woolas, every politician worth his salt rushes to condemn the ‘sacrilege’! This is nothing but moral and intellectual duplicity. Instead of panning the Muslim veil as decadent or a challenge to its secular ethos, Europe should celebrate its religious and cultural diversity.
My dear old Granny summed it best: "consistency my boy, is the hobgoblin of small minds".
In this context: Because society is tolerant of one behaviour, does not mean that it has to be tolerant of all behaviours. It is fun however to see liberals hoist by their own petard
A not so valiant effort parihaka- Let me see if I understand you correctly, you think that the GulfNews editorial, suggests that "Anything goes" is what "British" society ought to be about??
And do you also understand from the GulfNews editorial that it equates Liberalism with Anarchy?? If you do think it does, may I trouble you to point to (quote) where in the editorial it does this.
So, if I understand you correctly ,the crux of position is that "well, I'm offended" or "we are offended" - is that right? would you say I have fairly represented your position? If yes, then consider:
Who has died and left to you or others the right to decide what is "British"? Change is not something open societies hope to arrest, nor are agents of change the kinds of elemenst fo rwhich we have sanctions.
What seperates, generally, Western society from the rest is the organic quality of Western society, it comes about from being open about, well, everything. By Open I'm not suggesting that anything goes but that ther are very few "taboos" in Western society - how is it that this issue has become what it has.
Now if as is suggested by the editiorial, "liberal and secular Europe has no problem with in-your-face nudity on newspaper front pages and in public places — flaunted as individual freedom or art " - why is that ms. Aziz is to be denied the same individual freedom?
It is not sufficcient to say we are offended, after all, who cares if we are, we are offended by any number of things we experience everyday, but have any of these become fodder, or the kind of issue about which we feel threatened, for god's sakes man, we are not bothered that more than 600,000 have been killed to secure or attempt to, liberty and are not bothered that we have been duped and are not bothered by the incompetence that led to this calamity, but are "offended" by Ms. Aziz - I suggest to you that our priorties are misplaced.
Last edited by tarek; 16 Oct 06, at 12:04.
_____________________
when they make no laws but what they themselves and their posterity must be subject to; when they can give no money, but what they must pay their share of; when they can do no mischief, but what must fall upon their own heads in common with their countrymen; their principals may expect then good laws, little mischief, and much frugality
LOL, the author is suggesting that because liberalism allows some behaviours, it should allow all behaviours, that is his(?) basic tenent. Because nude women can appear on page three, anything else is permissible, lest 'liberal Britain' be declared hypocritical.A not so valiant effort parihaka
And do you also understand from the GulfNews editorial that it equates Liberalism with Anarchy?? If you do think it does, may I trouble you to point to (quote) where in the editorial it does this.
So, if I understand you correctly ,the crux of position is that "well, I'm offended" or "we are offended" - is that right? would you say I have fairly represented your position? If yes, then consider:
Who has died and left to you or others the right to decide what is "British"? Change is not something open societies hope to arrest, nor are agents of change the kinds of elemenst fo rwhich we have sanctions.
What seperates, generally, Western society from the rest is the organic quality of Western society, it comes about from being open about, well, everything. By Open I'm not suggesting that anything goes but that ther are very few "taboos" in Western society - how is it that this issue has become what it has.
Now if as is suggested by the editiorial, "liberal and secular Europe has no problem with in-your-face nudity on newspaper front pages and in public places — flaunted as individual freedom or art " - why is that ms. Aziz is to be denied the same individual freedom?
It is not sufficcient to say we are offended, after all, who cares if we are, we are offended by any number of things we experience everyday, but have any of these become fodder, or the kind of issue about which we feel threatened, for god's sakes man, we are not bothered that more than 600,000 have been killed to secure or attempt to, liberty and are not bothered that we have been duped and are not bothered by the incompetence that led to this calamity, but are "offended" by Ms. Aziz - I suggest to you that our priorties are misplaced.
What is ignored is the fact that nude women on page three does not equate to nude women walking down the street. Nor does any single set of behaviours automatically mean that any behaviour is permissible.
Only Anarchy allows such tenents, which is to what I am ascribing the authors mistaken views on liberalism.
As to the offence taken by those who are complaining about her behaviour, democracy, liberalism and secularism are all based in the 'rule of the many'. If she is, as it were, 'outvoted' by those around her, it is her responsibility to comply with that vote or leave, or find another way of getting her own way, just like everyone else in society.
As to who has died and therefore has the right to decide, the majority of people have the right to decide, and are doing so.
As to taboos, there are very many in western or British society, just as there are in all the others. On my first visit there I committed the grave offence of talking loudly on a train. On the one hand it seems like a joke, but it is in fact deadly serious. Britain is riddled with taboos, and I rather suspect is developing another one, whether you or I or anyone else likes it or not.
And finally, logic is not a factor in the way societies behave, or we'd all live in a much quieter world. Just because the British public are apparently not getting upset about the deaths in Iraq is not going to stop getting them upset about this. Until Mz Aziz and her advocates understand this, they're not going to get anywhere. Calling them hypocrites only makes them more obstinant.
My experience, in the more restrictive muslim states, like Saudi Arabia, is exactly the opposite. A Western woman alone on the street would be acosted and harassed by the flower of Arab manhood, who consider that she must be available to them.
When I was working on a stupid idea for a Saudi National Park (Abulazizland???) near Taif, we were told there coulds be no public toilet blocks. The flower of Arab manhood would hang outside the ladies room to harass the women. This was told to us by our Saudi client.
So, if they project their own perverted values onto us, I can see where they would believe that.
I daresay not! The former would get you two years in prison. You do not want to be in a Saudi prison. The latter would get you deported.Like if I were to go to Saudi Arabia, I sure would not start drinking in a public place or criticise their ways of life.
You don't LIKE the idea of being driven into the mosque with a whip? Or having exposed women's hair spray painted? It's all for your own good!And anyway what about their Moral Police? Can I say that it should not be there and that it is archaic and silly?
The problem is, that islam CANNOT change. Minor aspects of its interpretation, perhaps, can. Witness the relatively progressive nature of Jordan and Lebanon in the good old days. But islam's intolerance, its perverse repression of sexuality, its aggressive conversion by the sword, and its repression of other faiths, is written into the Koran. It is black letter law. It is immutable.Unless they open up their eyes to reality, they will be a retrograded section of humanity and to their own peril.
That is islam's fatal flaw. It is trapped in the Seventh Century.
If they want to live like that over there, I have no problem. They have the right to be barbarians, I suppose. If I go to a muslim country, I observe their mores. When they come to my country, I expect them, to observe ours, particularly in terms of tolerance for our ways, obeying our laws, and not demanding we conform to their barbarity. If they can't do that, they should go back to whatever pesthole they came from.
- Dennis
--
Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.
-Sir Winston Churchill
To give the lie that all Muslims are fanatical, over-sensitive nutcases.. they are not. No matter what the reactionary few say - this debate is healthy and largely being conducted sensibly.Debate about veils is 'healthy'
MPs and Muslim leaders have said the debate surrounding women wearing the veil is "healthy".
They said honest debate helped to break down barriers between Muslims and other sections of British society.
Government ministers were also right to give their views on British Muslims, they said.
Their comments came after the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) said recent pronouncements by ministers had "demonised" Muslims.
Muslim human rights campaigner Ahlam Akram said the MCB was being "too sensitive".
"This debate is good and healthy," she said.
"Muslims are feeling very alienated at the moment. We are worried about what is happening in this country. But we, and organisations like the MCB, are getting too sensitive.
"Generally we Muslims are afraid of having debates. Anything out of the Muslim norm and we get afraid.
"We live in a country which guarantees our freedom and freedom of speech and it's about time we used that to have a debate."
'One dimensional'
The government is facing criticism from Islamic groups over the issue of whether Muslim women who insist on wearing veils are hindering integration.
The controversy was sparked two weeks ago by Commons' leader Jack Straw when he admitted asking Muslim women if they would remove their veils when visiting his Blackburn constituency offices.
Over the weekend, the continuing row focused on Muslim teaching assistant, Aishah Azmi, who was suspended for refusing to remove her veil in class.
Government minister Phil Woolas angered some Muslim groups by calling for the 23-year-old to be sacked.
But Ms Azmi's MP Shahid Malik said ministers had been right to give their views and said it had resulted in helpful debate.
"The thing that stigmatised Muslims in this country was the events of July 7, last year.
"This is another example of the one dimensional perspective that organisations like the Muslim Council of Britain have all the time.
"It is unhelpful. The government has a right and responsibility to intervene. The government is here for everyone.
"It is government intervention that can act as a catalyst to get people thinking about different issues.
"If we don't talk about these things they are stored up for the future. It's best sometimes to get them out."
The debate, surrounding the veil and other issues, should take place within the Muslim community but there isn't a neutral platform
Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui
Keighley MP Ann Cryer, whose constituency contains a large Muslim community and who came out in support of Jack Straw, said: "Any debate is healthy.
"But the sad part is that there is a very large silent majority of Muslims who do not speak out.
"I have no doubt they agree with Jack Straw and also with what I've been saying about issues such as forced marriages."
Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, leader of the lobby group the Muslim Parliament of Great Britain, said ministers had provoked a debate which was needed.
"My opinion is that this debate should take place and ministers are right to voice their views," he said.
"The debate, surrounding the veil and other issues, should take place within the Muslim community but there isn't a neutral platform.
"All of them are religious and sectarian. Everything is coloured by the front they take. As a result the only platform left is the wider society. So I welcome the debate."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk/6055340.stm
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit - Scottish Motto
"They that approve a private opinion, call it opinion; but they that dislike it, heresy; and yet heresy signifies no more than private opinion” Thomas Hobbes - Leviathan
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: