Forest and Mote
See http://darwincatholic.blogspot.com/2006/09/uncivilized-conduct.html about the hostile reactions in Islamdom regarding Pope Benedict XVI's recent criticisms of Islam.
Whatever Islam as an ideal is supposed to be, there have been, as with Christianity, problems in how it has been practiced, and some of these problems operate today on a large scale. Some have definite specific local cultural and historical underpinnings.
First of all, regarding Islamic "rage" of the kind showed by demonstrations, riots, strident rhetoric from leaders and sometimes terrorism or even large-scale military actions: These are generally orchestrated by cynical, manipulative leaders. Just recently the fuss about the cartoons about Islam is a good example. The cartoons came out FOUR MONTHS before the "spontaneous" riots and demonstrations. A number of the specific leaders who decided to go ahead and use the cartoons as a pretext for anti-Western activities have even been identified in the West. And of course the "spontaneous demonstrations" etc. that happened regarding the U. S. Embassy in Tehran in the 1980s were a real joke. It was so cynical that I have read of witnesses who said the demonstrators could tell when the news crews had sound equipment along with their cameras. If they didn't, the demonstrators would shake their fists, make their angry faces, wave their signs, and mouth their slogans--without making any sound. I'm not saying the "Arab Street" don't have any hostility toward the West already. They sure do. But that's where some more of the promlems come:
Second. There is a sensitivity to "saving face" in most of the Islamic World, especially in the Middle East, which is so pervasive, powerful and important it's often totally missed by Westerners; just "off the radar." But it's terribly important. Dennis Prager, the morning conservative talk-show host (the most cool-headed and rational, to my taste) has said that for too many Muslims today, saving face is so important it takes precedence over the truth. There's the case of the Saudi pilot who committed suicide and took a whole planeful of people with him--I forget whether he crashed his plane on other victims. Well, the evidence that yes, he did this, and acted alone, is overwhelming and unequivocal. But that has not stopped the spreading of alternative explanations--that's right; of either the U.S. or the Jews, or both, really being behind it. They actually say that it could not have been a Muslim because Muslims never commit suicide because it's against their religion. Yes, they do, and millions of Muslims in the Middle East have openly accepted this as truth. These are not inmates of mental hospitals, but otherwise normal people who can dress themselves and everything. Then of course there are the majority of Muslims who now believe that no Muslims were involved in the 9/11 attacks on America. I remember a woman--very gentle-spoken she was--a Muslim woman who called in to a radio station to say solemnly that she wanted to explain that it was the Jews who did 9/11 because Muslims would not do that, since it's against their religion, and also that over 1,000 Jews stayed away that day because they were all warned. When the radio man told her that in fact hundred of Jews died in the attack she was taken aback. Note again that this was not a believe in a superficially plausible version of the facts. The idea that "the Jews" by the millions all over the world could conspire on such a thing and not have thousands and thousand running to the press to expose the thing is just ludicrous, in addition to being a shocking hate-belief. Also the statement that of course Muslims would never to this since they are not supposed to is so ridiculous that you would expect the people who held it to be mentally ill, and in fact they are not; they are the common people all over the place, who would be incredibly kind and hospitable to you if you met them on the street, and who are often very well educated.
3. This overlaps a lot of what I said in (2) above. There's a big problem with cultural paranoia. In "What went wrong?", Bernard Lewis argues as follows: Especially in the 20th Century, the Islamic world has suffered a great deal of humiliation at Western hands. Not only culpable activity by the West--of which there has been plenty, of course--but factors such as that nearly all scientific, medical and other developments come from the West. Even the oil wealth has been discovered and developed with outside, mostly western, expertise. Lewis says that when you have a problem, you can ask, "What did we do wrong?" and then when you have come up with the answer to that, you can then ask, "What shall we do to correct it?" However, too many Muslims, he says, have asked a very different pair of questions. First, "Who did this to us?" When you come up with an answer, if you have really committed yourself to the position that this was done by outsiders and is "not your fault", then the next thing to do is to decide who to attack. The truth is that too much of Islam is in fact burdened by archaic and often repressive cultural forms which are utterly hostile to modernization, and those who are beneficiaries of this are naturally resistant to any change that threatenes their position, and such very proud people are not going to easily admit that their cultural, economic and political problems are in fact their fault more thay anyone else's. Many Saudis and others have been sent to Western universities. Many have been sent to study physics, for ominous reasons which require a whole separate set of different posts. But I read a report that said that when left to their own devices the overwhelming majority want to take the kind of business education that will let them be bosses. It was explained that there's still a tradition of not a three-tiered but a two-tiered social system. There's the people at the top, the top dogs and their families, and the rest are their servants, with much lower status and income. The lower tier includes not only skilled laborers but physicians, scientiests, engineers, and so on. They still have the idea that you are either a boss or a servant. And, of course, don't get me started on the status of women...
Anyhow. In conclusion, it's all too clear that there's no way Benedict XVI could make his very timely remarks without getting a violently hostile reaction. There is a huge power structure--more a cultural phenomenon than a united behind the scenes group or "conspiracy"--who are going to use every opportunity to inflame hatred of the West; to further their agendas and expand their power bases. There is going to be a lot of people taking the Pope's remarks as an attack. Now that I think of it, due to this "face saving" thing they have, the fact is that a lot of them are going to assume that the Holy Father intended this as an attack, since they will assume he knows being criticized is a loss of face to them. There is the sensitivity based on the underlying sense of doubt and humiliation about their own culture. Again, these last two will be used and inflamed by the really manipulative types.
I am horrified at just how uncaring some of these people can be. I remember a video with Osama Bin Laden laughing with some of his cohorts as they spoke of how a number of the hijackers on the 9/11 planes did not themselves know that they were on a suicide mission. Ha ha, what a thigh slapper.
The Holy Father was of course quite right, regardless of the gross overreaction. The excesses of Islam have to be confronted, and every effort has to be made to do so through dialogue and the attempt to be helpful. It's not like many others, except for George Bush and his all-too-few supporters, are doing this.
There's always the possibility that, if the Holy Father continues to speak reason and if enough others join him, that reason will prevail. But recent events show that this is very uncertain, and an uphill battle at best.
This is alarming, because Islamic violenc can't go on the way it has. It will either be contained--or it will get far, far worse.
LogEyed Roman
See http://darwincatholic.blogspot.com/2006/09/uncivilized-conduct.html about the hostile reactions in Islamdom regarding Pope Benedict XVI's recent criticisms of Islam.
Whatever Islam as an ideal is supposed to be, there have been, as with Christianity, problems in how it has been practiced, and some of these problems operate today on a large scale. Some have definite specific local cultural and historical underpinnings.
First of all, regarding Islamic "rage" of the kind showed by demonstrations, riots, strident rhetoric from leaders and sometimes terrorism or even large-scale military actions: These are generally orchestrated by cynical, manipulative leaders. Just recently the fuss about the cartoons about Islam is a good example. The cartoons came out FOUR MONTHS before the "spontaneous" riots and demonstrations. A number of the specific leaders who decided to go ahead and use the cartoons as a pretext for anti-Western activities have even been identified in the West. And of course the "spontaneous demonstrations" etc. that happened regarding the U. S. Embassy in Tehran in the 1980s were a real joke. It was so cynical that I have read of witnesses who said the demonstrators could tell when the news crews had sound equipment along with their cameras. If they didn't, the demonstrators would shake their fists, make their angry faces, wave their signs, and mouth their slogans--without making any sound. I'm not saying the "Arab Street" don't have any hostility toward the West already. They sure do. But that's where some more of the promlems come:
Second. There is a sensitivity to "saving face" in most of the Islamic World, especially in the Middle East, which is so pervasive, powerful and important it's often totally missed by Westerners; just "off the radar." But it's terribly important. Dennis Prager, the morning conservative talk-show host (the most cool-headed and rational, to my taste) has said that for too many Muslims today, saving face is so important it takes precedence over the truth. There's the case of the Saudi pilot who committed suicide and took a whole planeful of people with him--I forget whether he crashed his plane on other victims. Well, the evidence that yes, he did this, and acted alone, is overwhelming and unequivocal. But that has not stopped the spreading of alternative explanations--that's right; of either the U.S. or the Jews, or both, really being behind it. They actually say that it could not have been a Muslim because Muslims never commit suicide because it's against their religion. Yes, they do, and millions of Muslims in the Middle East have openly accepted this as truth. These are not inmates of mental hospitals, but otherwise normal people who can dress themselves and everything. Then of course there are the majority of Muslims who now believe that no Muslims were involved in the 9/11 attacks on America. I remember a woman--very gentle-spoken she was--a Muslim woman who called in to a radio station to say solemnly that she wanted to explain that it was the Jews who did 9/11 because Muslims would not do that, since it's against their religion, and also that over 1,000 Jews stayed away that day because they were all warned. When the radio man told her that in fact hundred of Jews died in the attack she was taken aback. Note again that this was not a believe in a superficially plausible version of the facts. The idea that "the Jews" by the millions all over the world could conspire on such a thing and not have thousands and thousand running to the press to expose the thing is just ludicrous, in addition to being a shocking hate-belief. Also the statement that of course Muslims would never to this since they are not supposed to is so ridiculous that you would expect the people who held it to be mentally ill, and in fact they are not; they are the common people all over the place, who would be incredibly kind and hospitable to you if you met them on the street, and who are often very well educated.
3. This overlaps a lot of what I said in (2) above. There's a big problem with cultural paranoia. In "What went wrong?", Bernard Lewis argues as follows: Especially in the 20th Century, the Islamic world has suffered a great deal of humiliation at Western hands. Not only culpable activity by the West--of which there has been plenty, of course--but factors such as that nearly all scientific, medical and other developments come from the West. Even the oil wealth has been discovered and developed with outside, mostly western, expertise. Lewis says that when you have a problem, you can ask, "What did we do wrong?" and then when you have come up with the answer to that, you can then ask, "What shall we do to correct it?" However, too many Muslims, he says, have asked a very different pair of questions. First, "Who did this to us?" When you come up with an answer, if you have really committed yourself to the position that this was done by outsiders and is "not your fault", then the next thing to do is to decide who to attack. The truth is that too much of Islam is in fact burdened by archaic and often repressive cultural forms which are utterly hostile to modernization, and those who are beneficiaries of this are naturally resistant to any change that threatenes their position, and such very proud people are not going to easily admit that their cultural, economic and political problems are in fact their fault more thay anyone else's. Many Saudis and others have been sent to Western universities. Many have been sent to study physics, for ominous reasons which require a whole separate set of different posts. But I read a report that said that when left to their own devices the overwhelming majority want to take the kind of business education that will let them be bosses. It was explained that there's still a tradition of not a three-tiered but a two-tiered social system. There's the people at the top, the top dogs and their families, and the rest are their servants, with much lower status and income. The lower tier includes not only skilled laborers but physicians, scientiests, engineers, and so on. They still have the idea that you are either a boss or a servant. And, of course, don't get me started on the status of women...
Anyhow. In conclusion, it's all too clear that there's no way Benedict XVI could make his very timely remarks without getting a violently hostile reaction. There is a huge power structure--more a cultural phenomenon than a united behind the scenes group or "conspiracy"--who are going to use every opportunity to inflame hatred of the West; to further their agendas and expand their power bases. There is going to be a lot of people taking the Pope's remarks as an attack. Now that I think of it, due to this "face saving" thing they have, the fact is that a lot of them are going to assume that the Holy Father intended this as an attack, since they will assume he knows being criticized is a loss of face to them. There is the sensitivity based on the underlying sense of doubt and humiliation about their own culture. Again, these last two will be used and inflamed by the really manipulative types.
I am horrified at just how uncaring some of these people can be. I remember a video with Osama Bin Laden laughing with some of his cohorts as they spoke of how a number of the hijackers on the 9/11 planes did not themselves know that they were on a suicide mission. Ha ha, what a thigh slapper.
The Holy Father was of course quite right, regardless of the gross overreaction. The excesses of Islam have to be confronted, and every effort has to be made to do so through dialogue and the attempt to be helpful. It's not like many others, except for George Bush and his all-too-few supporters, are doing this.
There's always the possibility that, if the Holy Father continues to speak reason and if enough others join him, that reason will prevail. But recent events show that this is very uncertain, and an uphill battle at best.
This is alarming, because Islamic violenc can't go on the way it has. It will either be contained--or it will get far, far worse.
LogEyed Roman
posted by LogEyed Roman at 8:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home