I didn't know this and it was very interesting. But, honestly, not all that surprising.
The beauty of this country is that it's a melting pot of cultures, religions, ideas, colors, and ethnic classes. It's what makes us both different and great.
So, of course, Islam, like every other culture introduced us to some beautiful new ideas. At the end of the day, we're a better more diverse nation because of said influence along with influences from every other group.
Which is why recent events pain me so much. Why can't we just all get along?
> Which is why recent events pain me so much. Why can't we just all get along?
I know you're asking rhetorically, but the answer is that there's moral philosophies that are incompatible with each other.
An example: Islamic culture typically believes that women's sexuality can be a destructive and corroding force for herself, her family, and society if not muted and regulated. Progressive multiculturalism believes that any muting or regulating of a person's sexuality is oppressive and wrong.
Thus progressive multiculturalism believes Islamic culture is oppressive and wrong, whereas Islamic culture believes progressive multiculturalism is destructive and corrosive for society and the individuals in society.
The reason we can't all get along is because cultures have violently opposed moral philosophies. Western progressivism wants to liberate and break what they perceive as Islamic oppression. Being that leaders in Muslim society generally have less access to fight back in an information war (since they have less access to media and universities), they fight back in other, more base and primitive ways.
Note that this isn't a moral judgment on either side, just an explanation of why we aren't all getting along.
I wasn't asking rhetorically and I am, in fact, a proud Muslim myself.
I appreciate that you used the word 'culture' before your argument but it's still wrong to use the word 'Islam' before 'culture'. It's just culture. Not Islamic culture.
Our moral philosophies are not AT ALL incompatible. At it's roots, Islam is eerily reminiscent of its two previous Abrahamic influences (Judaism and Christianity). If the "West" is incompatible with Islam, then by that same logic it's also incompatible with Christianity and Judaism.
The practices that you mention are heinous and looked down upon by a lot of people, myself included. The places that practice them are either oppressive regimes or full of ignorance. If you read the texts of Islam (the Qur'an, Hadith, etc), women rights are a huge issue and women are very respected.
The problem today is with ignorance, in two ways:
1) Ignorance of people towards Islam. A lot of people have no idea what it is and they're afraid of the mystery. What's worse is that they let a lot (with private agendas) fill in that hazy picture for them.
2) Ignorance of some Muslims themselves that then do many of the problems you're referring to.
I think it's no surprise at all that many of the places that breed these problems (whether it's terrorism or sexism) have low literacy rates, high rates of unemployment, horrible schools, no government, etc. In other words, given these same environments, they would be a breeding ground for bad deeds anywhere. So, again, it's a problem with cultural problems. Not with Islam.
I'm Egyptian American myself. I'd invite you to take a look at some of the more modern Arab or Muslim countries. Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, some of the Gulf states. If I were to respond to your arguments with an example, it would be my homeland, Egypt, whose population is 85-90% Muslim. We have isolated pockets of such problems, often in some of the poorer rural areas, but for the most part you'll find beaches, tv channels, movies, literature that's as progressive as anywhere else.
> I wasn't asking rhetorically and I am, in fact, a proud Muslim myself. I appreciate that you used the word 'culture' before your argument but it's still wrong to use the word 'Islam' before 'culture'. It's just culture. Not Islamic culture.
Salaam. I'm not sure exactly what to call it, but yes, it is a culture of some places, not necessarily the religion itself.
> If the "West" is incompatible with Islam, then by that same logic it's also incompatible with Christianity and Judaism.
Indeed, a lot of modern thought positions itself as incompatible with any traditional religion, and there are conflicts between modern thought and traditional religion.
> The practices that you mention are heinous and looked down upon by a lot of people, myself included.
I don't think that way, myself - a close friend of mine in London is Muslim, and I've eaten at his home. The men eat in the dining room, just men, then they leave and just the women eat. I ate with my friend, his father, and his two brothers. Then the mother and two wives ate. I don't think this heinous. I also don't think a culture where women cover themselves a bit more than people do in the West is heinous.
> I'm Egyptian American myself. I'd invite you to take a look at some of the more modern Arab or Muslim countries.
I've spent time in Dubai, I'll probably be in Turkey, Morocco, and Egypt in the next 12 months. I think there's conflict between some modern thought and some traditional thought that's near irreconcilable, though I agree that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have more in common with each other than they do with modern philosophies that replace traditional religion with social causes. But I fear at this point I'm making friends with neither side of the debate - for what it's worth, I respect Islam quite a lot, particularly the hospitality, charity, and sense of duty in Muslims that I've met is rather incredible. Though, some Muslim practices are at perhaps irreconcilable odds with some modern philosophies that seek to replace religion in society. But perhaps not - in any event, I wish you well, and thank you for the discussion.
Thanks for the good discussion as well. It's refreshing to have a civil thoughtful engaging conversation about such topics, for a change. Thank you Hacker News and thank you lionhearted as well.
Two quick things. When I say "heinous" practices, I'm not talking about these simple cultural practices or the veil. I was literally referring to violence extremism.
I'll agree with you strongly on the fact that most of the modern thinking you're referring to will be at odds with very traditional religions anywhere. But, all in all, I really do think the two can coexist actually and I think the United States is a great example of that. That's why I love it so much ;)
People perceive an incompatibility between Islam and the West, not because of points of doctrine, but because Islamic countries still condone barbaric practices such as death by stoning for the crime of adultery. Wikipedia says it is not common, but the optics are very bad.
Even in Western countries a woman I know who had an Islamic father had to go into hiding after her male relatives beat her severely for dating a non-Muslim boy.
In other words, it is the practices of the Muslim community, not their doctrine, that makes it look alien to the West.
Terror organizations may primarily recruit from impoverished Muslim societies but they don't always. I have not researched this with any rigour, but there do seem to be quite a few Muslims from wealthy Western nations that have joined terrorist organizations. What draws these Muslims?
Well, the US government started a war for no reason in Iraq that exterminated a million people. Don't you think bringing about the deaths of a million Muslims for no apparent reason might enrage some people?
How many of your friends and family would I have to brutally murder before you said "screw it, I'm going to devote my life to revenge or maybe to just stopping you from killing more people"?
AFAIK sectarian violence has killed many, many more Muslims than the US.
And terrorist organizations existed before the US invaded Iraq.
EDIT: I gather from your comment that you believe terrorism committed against Western civilians is a reasonable response to the way the US has handled the war in Iraq. Correct?
Excess mortality figures derived from several published cluster sampling studies and then extrapolated to cover the period of greatest violence.
AFAIK sectarian violence has killed many, many more Muslims than the US.
Please read my comment carefully. I said the US government started a war that killed a million Iraqis. The sectarian violence of which you speak was not a significant issue before the war.
And terrorist organizations existed before the US invaded Iraq.
Very true. But it seems that various western countries have done other things to kill and maim large numbers of Arabs and Muslims before the war. For example, Mohamed Atta appears to have become radicalized by watching Israeli attacks against Lebanese civilians.
I gather from your comment that you believe terrorism committed against Western civilians is a reasonable response to the way the US has handled the war in Iraq. Correct?
No, that is incorrect. I think attacking random people associated with the government that killed your family is morally wrong. But I also think it is a very understandable response, one that almost anyone here might engage in. Because that's how human beings operate.
I marvel at your inability to distinguish between normative and positive statements.
You never answered my question though: how many of your friends and family would I have to kill before you turned to violent revenge?
Please read my comment carefully. I said the US government started a war that killed a million Iraqis. The sectarian violence of which you speak was not a significant issue before the war.
Your use of the word 'exterminated' makes it sound like you're arguing that the US is directly responsible for Muslims killing Muslims. Sorry if I misunderstood you.
You never answered my question though: how many of your friends and family would I have to kill before you turned to violent revenge?
This is quite obviously a rhetorical question. However, the answer is "not many", but randomly murdering people wouldn't be my response.
I also would like to see a source that says Israel intentionally attacked Lebanese civilians.
Your use of the word 'exterminated' makes it sound like you're arguing that the US is directly responsible for Muslims killing Muslims.
In general, wars tend to cause lots and lots of people to die. That means that countries that starts wars for no good reason are responsible for the resulting deaths.
randomly murdering people wouldn't be my response
I'm glad to hear that your violent revenge would stop just short of murder. Brave talk from a man who hasn't lost much.
I also would like to see a source that says Israel intentionally attacked Lebanese civilians.
I'm glad to hear that your violent revenge would stop just short of murder. Brave talk from a man who hasn't lost much
I never said I wouldn't kill you if you killed my friends and family. Murdering random people in response to your actions is not only morally wrong, but also stupid and throughly irrational.
You are apologizing for people who do this because you claim it's "a natural human response". Killing random people is not a natural human response; in my opinion, it's the response of a psychopath.
Perhaps. But I don't think you are very familiar with history. I've read many accounts of soldiers, including American soldiers, killing random people because their friends were killed. In general, such people do not face discipline. In fact, there are many Americans who urged the killing of completely arbitrary Arabs or Muslims in revenge -- many of these people are politicians.
My point is: this sort of psychopathy is quite common and very well accepted in society provided it is directed against out-groups.
Perhaps. But I don't think you are very familiar with history. I've read many accounts of soldiers, including American soldiers, killing random people because their friends were killed. In general, such people do not face discipline. In fact, there are many Americans who urged the killing of completely arbitrary Arabs or Muslims in revenge -- many of these people are politicians.
Soldiers are court-martialed and arrested for killing civilians.
Just because not all are found out and tried does not mean it is condoned by the military or US society. You clearly have your own dogmatic view regarding US foreign policy and attitudes towards Muslims and I can't really argue with someone who has an almost religious belief in a point of view.
Soldiers are court-martialed and arrested for killing civilians.
Sometimes they are. Oftentimes they are not. The fact that some are does not prove that regulations prohibiting the killing civilians are uniformly or frequently enforced. Anecdote is not the plural of data. Surely you see that?
Just because not all are found out and tried does not mean it is condoned by the military or US society.
I'd say that when high ranking political figures publicly advocate the killing of innocent people in revenge for the crimes of others without any sanction at all, then...yes, that does imply that American society condones their behavior.
You clearly have your own dogmatic view regarding US foreign policy and attitudes towards Muslims and I can't really argue with someone who has an almost religious belief in a point of view.
For someone with "almost religious beliefs", I seem to do a very good job justifying my arguments with evidence. Perhaps that is the main difficulty you face in discussions here.
Speaking as someone who almost joined the military and who who has read and studied a great deal in order to understand how military organizations function in practice, I don't think you're knowledgeable enough on the subject to effectively participate in discussion here.
Well, if you look at western terrorist organizations (e.g. Weather Underground, Red Army Faction, Baader-Meinhof) they recruited many members from wealthy Western nations, very few if any being Mualims. People everywhere (especially young people) are often susceptible to recruitment by charismatic leaders with extremist rhetoric. This is especially true when there is highly visible injustice to be exploited.
That's really a bad example to choose. There's a huge portion of America that would completely disagree with the idea that "any muting or regulating of a person's sexuality is oppressive and wrong".
Western progressivism wants to liberate and break what they perceive as Islamic oppression.
This is a gross oversimplification of the conflict, to the point of being false and misleading. "West" vs "Islam" had very little to do with 'freedom' vs 'oppression' and if you ask people in islamic countries why they oppose the west, you'll find that many if not most of them consider the West to be the oppressors.
> That's really a bad example to choose. There's a huge portion of America that would completely disagree with the idea that "any muting or regulating of a person's sexuality is oppressive and wrong".
Right, that's why I said "Western progressives," as opposed to other people who live in the Western world who aren't progressive.
> This is a gross oversimplification of the conflict
It wasn't a description of the entire conflict, just one aspect of why people don't get along.
> if you ask people in islamic countries why they oppose the west, you'll find that many if not most of them consider the West to be the oppressors.
The vast majority of Muslims who oppose the West do believe that Western society is destructive/corrosive to traditional Muslim values. There's other things too - in the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, the borders of the new Middle Eastern states were drawn without paying attention to traditional loyalties. That's why modern day Iraq is mixed Kurd, Sunni, and Shia. More goes into than what I wrote down - it's just one illustrative aspect of why there's conflict between two groups - Western progressives and traditional Muslims - that won't get along. That's not the whole story, but it is a true story.
I really really don't like this sexism argument that keeps coming up. There are 1 billion Muslims on the planet, and this view that "Islamic culture typically believes that women's sexuality can be a destructive" omits large chunks of that population. It's as if someone were to judge Americans base solely on the cultural attitudes of the region from Utah to Nebraska. Hardly representative.
Are there elements of the Islamic world that have these attitudes toward women? Without a doubt. But lately the brush being used to paint "Islam" is far, far too wide. What's so wrong with that? Well, for one thing, the U.S. risks pushing away a very strategic military and close economic ally with these sorts of attitudes...
I see that you were careful to say "Islamic culture" rather than "Islam", but I'd highlight the distinction even further and say "some of the cultures often associated with Islam". To my understanding, most of the female-hostile ideas and policies are cultural rather than religious. Much as the female-hostile ideas and policies prevalent in Christendom[1] until quite recently (and still present!) were not at their core religious, though often justified in religious terms.
[1] Such a quaint term, but it's really the right one here, I think.
Progressive multiculturalism believes that any muting or regulating of a person's sexuality is oppressive and wrong.
This is obviously incorrect though. Progressive multiculterists insist on many sexual regulations: they prohibit sex with children for example and they tend to look down on people who cheat on their spouses.
Moreover, in the US, hatred of Islam and hatred of Muslims correlates very highly with Christian cultural beliefs that sexuality is a destructive and corroding force that harms individuals, families and society. Surely you have noticed the fact that cosmopolitan urban environments are far more accepting of Muslims than reactionary rural areas where cultural conservatism is far higher?
Actually one major aspect of the doctrine called 'multiculturalism' would hold that the sexism built into Islamic culture is legitimate and equal in merit to beliefs and practices in any other culture.
That's why multiculturalism as an ideology is pretty goofy. It actively denies the validity of value judgment with respect to culture.
Or it's not that goofy, and you see greater value in seeing a world at peace than imposing your parochial judgment on someone else. Man, we fought a war over skapegoatism; wise up!
How are you seeing a world "at peace" if you stand around smiling at people who e.g. forcibly circumcise their women and murder their own daughters and sisters as a punishment for getting raped?
I am very curious: what exactly do you think the US should do with countries whose culture you disapprove of? Bomb them? Invade them? Sanction them? Cut off all trade with them? Destabilize their government with covert action?
I mean, it seems like you don't consider "standing around and smiling" acceptable, so what alternative do you propose?
Nobody said it was our responsibility to cure the world's cultural ills. There is a rather large middle ground between refusing to judge another culture and bombing its practitioners, isn't there? Let's try speech first, and see how that works.
The beauty of this country is that it's a melting pot of cultures, religions, ideas, colors, and ethnic classes. It's what makes us both different and great.
So, of course, Islam, like every other culture introduced us to some beautiful new ideas. At the end of the day, we're a better more diverse nation because of said influence along with influences from every other group.
Which is why recent events pain me so much. Why can't we just all get along?