Melanie Phillips once again turns her fire on the BBC, complaining that in a recent feature for Today on the recent violence in the French ghetto suburbs, the presenters "simply excised all references to Islam" from the piece. Shocking that, isn't it?
It presented the issue instead as a problem of ‘north African immigrants’, of the French banlieues, of the ghetto. It was said to be all about the way women were perceived to uphold the ‘honour’ of ‘the ghetto’ and ‘the family’. But which ghetto? Which family? And by whom? All immigrants? All north Africans?
Of course not. The issue of honour is a specifically Islamic issue. It does not apply to, say, north African Christians or north African Animists. It is specific to those North African immigrants who are Muslims. The women were rightly quoted as saying that this violence towards them is then also expressed towards the outside world. But the reason for this violence was simply left dangling. Listeners were left none the wiser. Yet ‘ni putes ni soumises’ translates roughly as ‘neither whores nor submission’. It is not ‘north African immigrants’ who regard women as either whores or having to submit – such attitudes are specific to the Muslims among them.
Well, soumises means submissive (plural), not submission. But the fact remains that nearly all north Africans are Muslims, except for Coptic Christians (and Egypt generally isn't thought of as North Africa anyway), there is a Jewish minority, and no animists there anymore. But as people who have done any serious research into the subject could tell Phillips, the people responsible for violence in the French ghettoes against women are not religious young men, but irreligious delinquents whose Islam is residual and who don't let it get in the way of their criminal activities, but who use it to justify their misogyny. In other places where honour-related violence is a problem, it is not confined to Muslims.
Good points. I suggest if the young Muslim youth of France were MORE religious the rioting would not have taken place at all.
Why have tribalistic attitudes (which cause such horrors as forced marriages, honour killings, tyrannical personalistic government) not been eradicated in the Islamic world as they were in the West?
Melanie Phillips is a jewish supremacist in the tradition of Benjamin Disraeli. What I mean by that is that instead of working for general equality/justice in Britain for all minorities she'd rather redefine British nationalism so that it innately includes jews by means of this whole "Judeo-christian" concept.
My point is we shouldn't be suprised at anything she says. She's clearly a very deceptive character and I don't see the point in wasting time on her.
To George's point those things have been wiped out in some areas of the muslim world and in others they haven't. Just like in Catholic Latin America there you have those types of problems but not in Europe.
On the contrary, George, I think tribalistic attitudes still persist in many quarters in the West. There was a recent newspaper article in the Guardian, I think, about how two women a week are being killed by their husbands or partners in this country. There was also a piece in Q news about the Theo Van Gogh killing in Holland saying that his "concern" that Dutch Muslimas would be subject to domestic violence was misplaced because in fact the Dutch Morrocan were far less likely than their Dutch counterparts to suffer violence in the home, and when they did,were much more likely to report it to the police. Whilst forced marriage may be limited cetain ethnic minorioties and the aristocracy, it is the same callous disregard for women that informs both forced marriage and the killing/beating of one's spouse.
And there's another major flaw which is shared by Arab (I don't know about other Muslim societies here) and Latin American societies: showy militaries that are almost useless at real combat.
(Saddam 1991, Galtieri 1982, Nasser 1967, Santa Ana 1846)
I think military dictatorship may be the common denominator here. A military dictator often cripples his own army out of fear of coups: for example Saddam Hussein murdered all his good generals during the Iran/Iraq war.
George Carty,
Aside from other undesireable traits, some aspect of Jahiliyah will never leave Muslims. BTW honor is a very noble character trait. I wouldnt want to be with a man who didnt find honor within his woman and family and a deep desire to preserver it.
"Any deviance -- smoking, hanging out with boys -- is promptly reported back to their parents."
And the problem with this is?
Honour killings and Western crimes of passion are both violent manifestations of misogyny, but honor killings are committed for "family honour" and reflect a kinship-based society, while Western crimes of passion are committed for purely self-centred reasons and reflect an individualist society.
I wouldnt want to be with a man who didnt find honor within his woman and family and a deep desire to preserver it.
By force if necessary? What about men's honour? How come a man's virginity/chastity is not seen as important? Hypocritical or what?
Old Pickler,
"By force if necessary?"
Islam has the Sharia for that.
"What about men's honour? How come a man's virginity/chastity is not seen as important?"
Are men not subject to the confines of the Sharia? It may not manifest itself in todays Muslim society but that says nothing about Islam and everything about Muslims.
I want to know if Ms. Phillips is talking about Islam or Muslims?
"Hypocritical or what?"
It reflects the differences between men and women. You may believe they are eqaul but dont believe that they are the same. A womans virginity is prized more than the mans. It isnt rocket science. If you want the details OP you can read your own scriptures for that. Opps my bad, Jesus abrogated everything.
>>How come a man's virginity/chastity is not seen as important?
Good question George,
Why have tribalistic attitudes (which cause such horrors as forced marriages, honour killings, tyrannical personalistic government) not been eradicated in the Islamic world as they were in the West?
Ignorance
A lot of us are still ignorant of our religion. And that's life, humans will always be ignorant of one thing or another. Just as the vast majority of people I see are ignorant of their christian principles, muslims are no exception.
Allegiences.
Muslims still have a lot of cultural allegiences. Mind you Islam did not come to violate people's cultures, infact one of the source of ruling in jurisprudence is "the culuture of the people to which the ruling pertains". However, cultural practises that contravenes divine guidance are considered "batil" (invented falsehood, darknesses. like gay marriages, fornication, etc).
Little knowledge.
Little knowledge is dangerous. Some of us are not ignorant, but have very little knowledge. Should you come from darkness and then experience a bit of light, you would think that is it! You are in the brightest spectrum. This may lead to catastrophic judgements & conclusions. Islam is a vast ocean with a vary deep and dizzying depths. Some will swim on its shores (never really getting wet) others will plunge to its depth, etc.
The ones on the shores are quick to return to others thinking they have a good bath, yet they return with nothing but stench.
The other general factors are plain arrogance and disobedience. Some muslims just careless what the religion stipulates and they will rather act according to cultural whims and desires- regardless.
Basically, having knowledge and not acting to it.
George wrote: "...but honor killings are committed for 'family honour' and reflect a kinship-based society, while Western crimes of passion are committed for purely self-centred reasons and reflect an individualist society."
And how is this bad? I'm not defending honor killings, but I am suggesting that you need to look beyond your cultural prejudices. Much of African, Asian and (probably) Latin American culture is "kinship-based," and these societies work very well, thank you very much. Individualistic societies are not the goals that all other (read, kinship-based) cultures work toward becoming.
A much better comment by you would have read: "Honour killings and Western crimes of passion are both violent manifestations of misogyny."
That I can agree with.
womans virginity is prized more than the mans.
Straightforward, vile, hyocritical double standards that's all. That's why Muslim countries are stuck in the dark ages.
My reading of the situation in France is that the young men doing a lot of the "moral vigilance" are themselves no paragons of virtue themselves. They are delinquents who use Islam as an excuse to dominate women. Their attitudes may well be a mixture of residual Arab "honour" and American gangsta misogyny. So the girls are called bitchez and hoez (or their French equivalents) as well as Arabic and Islamically-derived insults by men who probably do far worse things themselves.
"Straightforward, vile, hyocritical double standards that's all. That's why Muslim countries are stuck in the dark ages."
Do you actually take anything you say seriously or are you just looking for fun?
Why is it that the issue of prostitution today is focused solely on women when there are also male prostitutes.
How is it that when Britain basically controlled the world it also had high expectations of women's modesty.
It's all very well regurgitating these cliches but all it shows is that you have no real understanding of history and prefer to resort to pre-packaged slogans.
Shamil,
You ever tried calling a man a slut? Its like calling a baby a giraffe. Old Pickler thinks it is in the best interest of society to view men and women the same when it comes to sexuality. Unfortunately that expiriment has been tried in the USA yet women are still whores in this country and men and just men.
No, men are whores too, and free women call them whores. It's just people like you who are stuck in a time warp who accept the old double standards.
Shamil - if the muslim double standards are so good,how come Muslim countries fare so badly compared with free, civilised countries in the West?
Colonisation (which saw the closure of universities),oppressive regimes and economic sanctions in the the third world and Islamic world probably had as much to do with the stalled economic growth as the prevailing attitudes in these countries toward their womenfolk.
"Shamil - if the muslim double standards are so good,how come Muslim countries fare so badly compared with free, civilised countries in the West?"
This is exactly what I mean. You're not actually addressing any of the points I made. You just go back to the slogans.
Colonisation? Don't make me laugh. Colonistation was actually good for countries like Egypt - for the first time they came into contact with an advanced culture. And these countries haven't been colonised for decades, so what's the excuse now. Even South East Asia, also colonised in parts at one time has surged ahead.
No, what holds Muslims back is unwillingness to look critically at themselves and a tendency always to blame others and never lear.
And how is this bad? I'm not defending honor killings, but I am suggesting that you need to look beyond your cultural prejudices. Much of African, Asian and (probably) Latin American culture is "kinship-based," and these societies work very well, thank you very much.
What cultural prejudices? Africa, Asia and Latin America are just as "Third World" as the Islamic lands.
Colonisation? Don't make me laugh. Colonistation was actually good for countries like Egypt - for the first time they came into contact with an advanced culture.
Didn't Muhammad Ali in the 19th century try to bring Egypt into the modern age, only to be squished by the Ottomans with the connivance of the Western powers?
And these countries haven't been colonised for decades, so what's the excuse now. Even South East Asia, also colonised in parts at one time has surged ahead.
I think the real reason why the Middle East is so screwed up is not Islamic culture, but the fact that the Middle East has almost no natural resources except oil. Oil provides fabulous wealth for the ruling elite, without any accountability.
George wrote: "What cultural prejudices? Africa, Asia and Latin America are just as
'Third World' as the Islamic lands."
Please, George, I know you're smarter than that! We both very well know that while many countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America are "third world" (an outdated phrase), not all are and, moreover, those that are not (e.g., Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, etc.) have cultures that are kinship-based.
Yes, you still have cultural prejudices (we all do). Otherwise, you wouldn't have reacted so at the woman who wore the niqab, as you've related to us.
We both very well know that while many countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America are "third world" (an outdated phrase), not all are and, moreover, those that are not (e.g., Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, etc.) have cultures that are kinship-based.
What are the obstacles to the Muslim world modernizing in the same way as Imperial Japan modernized?
(Most of the other "Asian tigers" you mentioned were built up by the West post-WWII for Cold War purposes, while Japan's modernization was truly independent.)
I suspect one of the main problems was the danger of outside aggression. The Western powers had a much more negative attitude to the Middle East (due to aggression by Ottomans, Moors in Spain and pre-Islamic Middle Easterners such as the Persians and the Carthaginians) than they did to pre-WWII Japan.
Yes, you still have cultural prejudices (we all do). Otherwise, you wouldn't have reacted so at the woman who wore the niqab, as you've related to us.
I'm not denying my own cultural prejudices - I was suggesting that there was a concrete case against kinship-based societies.
People who carry out honour killings are mentally disabled in my opinion.
Excuse me: That should read as 'mentally unstable'.
Why is it not an "honor killing" when crimes of passion take place in non-Muslim countries? Hypocrites!
Why is it not an "honor killing" when crimes of passion take place in non-Muslim countries? Hypocrites!
As I already mentioned above, crimes of passion in non-Muslim countries are committed for purely selfish reasons, whereas murders referred to as "honour killings" are committed - as their name suggests - for reasons of "family honour".
Both "honour killings" and crimes of passion are murderous expressions of misogyny, but they differ in that "honour killings" reflect a kinship-based society while Western-style crimes of passion reflect an individualistic society.
What we really need is a generic term for murders of women by men who desire to control them - one which would cover both Eastern and Western versions of this crime...
Someone else in the blogosphere had suggested we look at them as crimes of possession since the perpetrators see themselves as having ownership over their victims.
..As I already mentioned above, crimes of passion in non-Muslim countries are committed for purely selfish reasons, whereas murders referred to as "honour killings" are committed - as their name suggests - for reasons of "family honour"...
I think its based on selfishness regardless. If the stats are compared, the west easily beats the Islamic world in this area.
...What we really need is a generic term for murders of women by men who desire to control them - one which would cover both Eastern and Western versions of this crime...
Absolutely.