Clash of Civilizations?

[Cuchulain82]

Originally Posted by C Elegans

Oh, it is true. The custum died out very late at East Greenland, probably around the 1970's or so. Still though, it is viewed as polite to have sex with a visitor. The younger generation know it's not a custum in the industrialised world, and the men have learned that European women don't appreciate their straighforward offers of sex, but the elderly women have been less affected. A friend of mine who is in his 50's was constantly offered sex by women his age when we were in East Greenland 2 years ago, as a sign of welcome and friendliness.

That is quite the welcome! While the idea does have merit, it does strike me as far-fetched, and not even because of my American sensibilities- in the age before birth control, what happened when the son looked suspiciously like the milk man, if you get my meaning?

Originally Posted by C Elegans

Btw, my husband is Swedish but Sweden in quite liberal too, you know

Yeow! I actually come from a particularly liberal area of the US, and a particularly liberal area of that area! In my home state (Vermont), there is a lot of respect for privacy and rigths of the individual. For example, it was the first state in the US to ratify any sort of homosexual marriage/civil union provision.

See, this is a good clash of cultures. All this talk makes me think I should look for discount flights to Sweeden. I hear it's lovely this time of year...

[C Elegans]

@Audance: Since much of your last post refers to your misunderstanding of what I think you are generalising, it is difficult for me to reply, but I will comment on parts I'd like to clarify further.

Originally Posted by Audace

And here you state I am changing the subject because I don't agree with you on the fact that I am generalizing.

The reason I stated you were changing the subject was not because you didn't agree. The reason was, as I quoted, that you first talked about "religion entails that women should cover up every visible piece of their body just to not fire up the hot blood of men" (a description that include several different religions including some factions of islam) then said you "never used the word Islam" (which seems to implicate you were not talking about islam) and then said "Im talking about certain factions of Islam."

As for my "current indecisiveness": what do you want me to do?

I would like you to define exactly what you are talking about, in order to avoid unnecessary complications in the discussion.

This is were your beta background is failing you.

What is beta background?

There are dozens of different factions within Islam. There are dozens of different Islamic countires...<snip>So I stated:

And a a side note, if your religion entails that women should cover up every visible piece of their body just to not fire up the hot blood of men (get some self control) then that religion is very much repressive towards women. It has nothing to do with "respect" towards women. Not shaking hands is just an extension of this sort of repressive religions.

Yes, but this does not clarify anything for me since, as I posted above, this paragraph could include several different religions during different timepoints, including factions of islam. Regardless of what religion it refers to, it contains the same generalisation as I have critisised you for all the time:

C Elegans:
The reason I think you generalise in your interpretation is because you don't differ between discrimination and difference. We have two instances:
1. a religion contains elements of repression of women
2. a religion contain differences in social custums for men and for women

thus clearly indicated that I think you generalise when you take for granted that the handshake issue is repression of women.

Given the knee-jerk condescending holier then thou discussion tactics prevalent on these forums I could've of course have expected that this would be viewed as an attack on Islam and as generalizing.

I have now explained many times exactly what I found generalising from your part. There is no reason to attack the entire forums for prevalently using a "knee-jerk condescending holier then thou discussion tactics". Instead, I think you should try not to be so upset when people disagree with you. If something is very personally sensitive and provocing to you, it might be better not to discuss it at an open internet forum where people may disagree and even critisise your opinions.

You say I know, but appearently refuse to believe that I am not generalizing. I'm sorry but can I take this as anything other then offensive?

I am sure you know that it is quite unusual that muslim women cover up every visible part of their body, yes. It does not however matter how common or uncommon this is, your mistake is still that you automatically view the handshake issue as repression just because you view the body covering as repression. Do you understand now it is nothing offensive with this?

Appearantly you explicitly wish to misinterpret me here.

Please try not to read in any malicious intent into this discussion. You are taking this far too personal if you believe my intention is to misunderstand you.

You were indeed replying to a quote of mine here CE. But of course i wouldn't want to force you to do anything. Just wish you would stop putting words in my mouth.

But surely, even if I am replying to a quote of you, I must be free to choose whatever words I like to describe my own opinion, which was what I was doing? How can describing my own opinion be interpreted as "putting words in your mouth?"

I added the word unconscious on purpose, hoping you'd get the message about making assumptions. Too bad you didn't.

On internet message boards, it is usually best not to try to communicate with hidden messages in serious discussion. I still have no idea what you meant, so please clarify further.

Defend repression of women of course. And since you are still making assumptions about my character in your last statement, I shall ignore the middle part of this quote.

Where and how am I defending repression of women? Can you point what support you have for this conclusision? Also, how is my question "do you mean all differences are a sign of repression?" an assumption of your character? Could you instead please answer this question?

To CM as well: I could of course add Turkey, but as I tried to state before, this is not about countries, that would be oversimplifiyng the discussion.

How does this statement related to my statement:

"This is incorrect. The handshake exists in all of islam, from liberal Jordan and Tunis where the women dress the same as in Western Europe, to fundamentalist Saudi. If you claim otherwise, please present some evidence."

You claimed "the handshake issue actually doesnt exist in most of Islam, but only in the more orthodox factions".. I replied with statement above. So what is your evidence that the handshake issue does in fact not exist in most of islam?

[C Elegans]

Originally Posted by Cuchulain82

That is quite the welcome! While the idea does have merit, it does strike me as far-fetched, and not even because of my American sensibilities- in the age before birth control, what happened when the son looked suspiciously like the milk man, if you get my meaning?

They take care of the child, just as all other children. Children used to be more "community" raised than core family raised anyway even if the biological parents were known. Still, especially in the small villages, responsibility for the children is spread among all adults and if one couple have many children and another couple no children, they may share the children between them.

See, this is a good clash of cultures. All this talk makes me think I should look for discount flights to Sweeden. I hear it's lovely this time of year...

Hehe! It was about 25C today, unfortunatly I will be leaving for Greenland (!) in 5 days!

[Cuchulain82]

Originally Posted by C Elegans

They take care of the child, just as all other children. Children used to be more "community" raised than core family raised anyway even if the biological parents were known. Still, especially in the small villages, responsibility for the children is spread among all adults and if one couple have many children and another couple no children, they may share the children between them.

I guess this works fine, but my suspicion is that it has something to do with the relative size and isolation of Greenland historically. I can't imagine there was much threat other than pregnancy- limited disease, relatively small population to interact with, etc. Are all/any of the other "northern" cultures as sexually open? I once dated a girl (not the above-mentioned vegetarian) who had lived in Finland. All she ever said was that Finnish guys knew only one way of hitting on girls- getting ridiculously drunk and dancing poorly with them. Her impression was that it was a relatively introverted culture. I don't know if this is true or not, but I am kind of surprised to hear that Greenland had such an open sexual culture.

(Surprised, but heartened! I mean, people do so many things that are unhealthy because they feel good. Sex feels good and is, imho, anything but unhealthy when done safely)

Originally Posted by C Elegans

Hehe! It was about 25C today, unfortunatly I will be leaving for Greenland (!) in 5 days!

Out of the pan and into the fire! How long are you going to Greenland for, and are you going for business... or pleasure?

[Jaypee]

It's more like clash of religions and clash of religions and secularity. I know where I stand.

[Audace]

I'm just gonna skip over the discussion about our mutual intentions because it will just result in a very long drawn out trenched discussion which would serve no purpose whatsoever.

C Elegans:
The reason I think you generalise in your interpretation is because you don't differ between discrimination and difference. We have two instances:
1. a religion contains elements of repression of women
2. a religion contain differences in social custums for men and for women

Islam sprung forth from a culture. Spreaded amongst more and developed into a multi-facetted religion. Though it may not be custom to shake hands in Islam, in only the most orthodox factions(Like the Salafists) of Islam it is religious doctrine not to shake the hands of women (they do shake hands with men, just to be clear that it is not about custom but about religious doctrines). It just is not that big a deal in most of Islam. Especially not "when in Rome". Hence my "immediate assumption". There is a very thin line between a chastity custom(like not walking around naked in public) and customs that are part of a larger frame repression. We must be careful not to generalize. We must also be careful not to fall into a universal moral equivelance. This is not just about a handshake. This is not just about a custom. But since this is a religious issue there is not much room for discussion. If you think that this kind of, in my opinion, dangerous religious doctrine should be acccepted by your elected representatives fine. I just do not agree. Wether this should have been ironed out by diplomacy is another issue.

What is beta background?

In Holland that would be a background in 'exact' sciences, like physics etc. as opposed to an alpha background in the more muddier sciences like history and sociology.

[Lestat]

As a Belgian who has travelled and worked in countries & regions with significant muslim populations, I have a few comments to make.

Regularly in this thread the words diplomat, diplomacy and ambassador crop up. None of the parties involved in the incidents are part of the diplomatic corps. Herman De Croo is president of Chamber of Representatives, Anne-Marie Lizin is president of the Senate, the visiting Iranians were delegates of the Iranian Parliament. So stop the talks about diplomats not doing their jobs: these were politicians doing what they do best: politicking.

Apart from that, concerning the lunch: if a religion (or an interpretation thereof) imposes limits on what people of other religions or non-religious convictions can do or not do, especially in their own country, I think that religion has problems. One person's freedom ends where another person's freedom starts.
And concerning the handshake: I must say I find Ms Lizin at fault, in this case. Here it is she who imposes her value and belief system on the visitors.

Alas, the incidents should also be seen within the light of interior Belgian politics: Mr. De Croo's party stands to lose to the extreme right Vlaams Blok (campaigning on a Flemish-Nationalistic and Islamophobic platform) if he is seen to be caving in to what to most of my countrymen seem to be exaggerated demands (do not come between a Belgian and his beer!). Yes, this is politicking of the basest kind, but it has played a role...

[boo's daddy]

Very interesting story, and a good read on this thread!

Originally Posted by Lestat

Alas, the incidents should also be seen within the light of interior Belgian politics: Mr. De Croo's party stands to lose to the extreme right Vlaams Blok (campaigning on a Flemish-Nationalistic and Islamophobic platform) if he is seen to be caving in to what to most of my countrymen seem to be exaggerated demands (do not come between a Belgian and his beer!). Yes, this is politicking of the basest kind, but it has played a role...

Aha! The explanation at last.

A bit like Bliar and Chirac winding each other up to boost their domestic images, then. Poor show.

[Cuchulain82]

@Lestat

Excellent post- I actually meant to mention something similar in my previous post, but I guess I was distracted by other topics...

For anyone else who doesn't know, there is a bonafide clash of cultures* right now in the Netherlands between the "native" white/European Belgians and a very strong, vocal muslim minority. Most of this minority are immagrants who cling to their culture(s)- Muslim, Middle Eastern, North African, etc. The Belgian side says that the Muslims are actively threatening a way of life that, as immigrants, they should respect. The Muslim side says that they are treated as second class citizens, and that the Belgians say they are willing to welcome people, but only those who conform. This is a very rough paraphrase, but there is no shortage of articles about this. Recently this situation became violent with the killing of filmmaker Theo van Gogh.

*I suspect this is the clash of civilizations alluded to in the thread title- CM...?

[CM]

Originally Posted by Audace

Islam sprung forth from a culture. Spreaded amongst more and developed into a multi-facetted religion. Though it may not be custom to shake hands in Islam, in only the most orthodox factions(Like the Salafists) of Islam it is religious doctrine not to shake the hands of women (they do shake hands with men, just to be clear that it is not about custom but about religious doctrines). It just is not that big a deal in most of Islam. Especially not "when in Rome". Hence my "immediate assumption". There is a very thin line between a chastity custom(like not walking around naked in public) and customs that are part of a larger frame repression. We must be careful not to generalize. We must also be careful not to fall into a universal moral equivelance. This is not just about a handshake. This is not just about a custom. But since this is a religious issue there is not much room for discussion. If you think that this kind of, in my opinion, dangerous religious doctrine should be acccepted by your elected representatives fine. I just do not agree. Wether this should have been ironed out by diplomacy is another issue.

Factually incorrect but i am happy that someone else reads Foreign Affairs. The problem with the definition of "Salafism" and this discussion is that it is illogical, incorrect and absurd. "Salafism" is supposedly according to Foreign Affairs another form of Wahabbism. Problem here is that Shia's can not be wahabbis and by that they can't be part of the Salafist school of thought. We are dealing with one sub-sect of islam and secondly a school of thought conjured up purely in the minds of western "intellectuals".

Something people forget is that 99% of the words Sunni populations of Islam are wahabbis and thus a salafist. I am myself a wahabbi or a salafist. And sunnis are easily 60% of the muslim population. So you see you are dealing with nearly 650 million people which share the same faction or denomination as OBL, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the GIA.

I posted a thread along time ago Cuch on assimilution and integration and discussed this very concepts. Muslims do not move for social or cultural reasons. They move for economic reasons and thus they do not need to assimilate. They need to integrate. That means they should learn the language and mingle with the host citizens. That does not mean you give up eating halal meat or going to prayers. It does not mean you start drinking and adopt every single cultural aspect of the host society.

I personally will never assimilate into another society because i am proud of my cultural heritage and i don't feel the need to. However i will integrate. I will learn the language or try atleast. You can bump up the thread if you want.

Additionally i was alluding to the thesis by Samuel Huntington and his notion that Islamic society and Western Society will always be at odds.

Just a point to note i do truly love it that western "intellectuals" define the conflict between Islam (religion) and western ideals (freedoms). Its such an uneven and biased comparision its amazing. These same people of course forget that western society is responsible for racism, slavery and nazism. (this is not directed anybody on SYM. It is just a comment on the way these others think).

[Audace]

Originally Posted by CM

Factually incorrect but i am happy that someone else reads Foreign Affairs. The problem with the definition of "Salafism" and this discussion is that it is illogical, incorrect and absurd. "Salafism" is supposedly according to Foreign Affairs another form of Wahabbism. Problem here is that Shia's can not be wahabbis and by that they can't be part of the Salafist school of thought. We are dealing with one sub-sect of islam and secondly a school of thought conjured up purely in the minds of western "intellectuals".

Something people forget is that 99% of the words Sunni populations of Islam are wahabbis and thus a salafist. I am myself a wahabbi or a salafist. And sunnis are easily 60% of the muslim population. So you see you are dealing with nearly 650 million people which share the same faction or denomination as OBL, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the GIA.

I posted a thread along time ago Cuch on assimilution and integration and discussed this very concepts. Muslims do not move for social or cultural reasons. They move for economic reasons and thus they do not need to assimilate. They need to integrate. That means they should learn the language and mingle with the host citizens. That does not mean you give up eating halal meat or going to prayers. It does not mean you start drinking and adopt every single cultural aspect of the host society.

Which is exactly why I refrained from naming factions and made comments like these.

"As for my "current indecisiveness": what do you want me to do? Generalize? This is were your beta background is failing you. There are dozens of different factions within Islam. There are dozens of different Islamic countires. There are dozens of different factions in these countries. There are different religious streams within these factions. There are different ways in which religious people within these streams and factions act on and with their religion (passive - active, moderate-conservative, public-private, aggresive-reflective etc. etc.). "

My point being that within Salafism some people think they are a bit more "rightly guided" then others. If I keep my posts vague I am indecisive, If I do not, I am factually incorrect. Makes it impossible to say anything about this subject.

[Audace]

Originally Posted by Lestat

As a Belgian who has travelled and worked in countries & regions with significant muslim populations, I have a few comments to make.

Regularly in this thread the words diplomat, diplomacy and ambassador crop up. None of the parties involved in the incidents are part of the diplomatic corps. Herman De Croo is president of Chamber of Representatives, Anne-Marie Lizin is president of the Senate, the visiting Iranians were delegates of the Iranian Parliament. So stop the talks about diplomats not doing their jobs: these were politicians doing what they do best: politicking.

Apart from that, concerning the lunch: if a religion (or an interpretation thereof) imposes limits on what people of other religions or non-religious convictions can do or not do, especially in their own country, I think that religion has problems. One person's freedom ends where another person's freedom starts.
And concerning the handshake: I must say I find Ms Lizin at fault, in this case. Here it is she who imposes her value and belief system on the visitors.

Alas, the incidents should also be seen within the light of interior Belgian politics: Mr. De Croo's party stands to lose to the extreme right Vlaams Blok (campaigning on a Flemish-Nationalistic and Islamophobic platform) if he is seen to be caving in to what to most of my countrymen seem to be exaggerated demands (do not come between a Belgian and his beer!). Yes, this is politicking of the basest kind, but it has played a role...

If it were an isolated incident I'd might agree. But like I said the same happened in Holland a week earlier. Wether they were politicians or ambassadors is a non-issue. When one PM or MP visits another PM or MP the diplomates always prepare and smooth the way. Or do you reckon they just jump on a plane and ring the door bell once they arrive?

[Lestat]

Originally Posted by Audace

If it were an isolated incident I'd might agree. But like I said the same happened in Holland a week earlier. Wether they were politicians or ambassadors is a non-issue. When one PM or MP visits another PM or MP the diplomates always prepare and smooth the way. Or do you reckon they just jump on a plane and ring the door bell once they arrive?

Oh, probably the diplomats did prepare the ground and such, but then politics kicked in... And frankly I think that the diplomats where cringing when this happened. They will have to work overtime to patch up things. What I want to say is that this is not principally diplomatic blundering, but mainly well thought-out use or abuse of cultural conflict for interior political reasons.

Anyway I remember, the Belgians still had a bone to pick with the Iranians: some time ago Iran was not all that cooperative in repatriating two Belgian children abducted by their Iranian father after custody was given to their Belgian mother (Belgian courts had jurisdiction BTW).

[winter rose]

First of all from the original link

Strict Islamic teaching instructs Muslims to avoid looking at alcohol, as well as to avoid drinking it.

What a load of bs. The person who wrote this article needs a nice big kick. There is absolutely nothing in Islam that says we can't even look at alcohol. How ridiculous.

But true that Islam forbids drinking alcohol.

As for the hand shake. I will try explaining that situation. In Islam it is stated that it is best to avoid physical contact with the opposite gender, unless that other person is closely related to us. In other words, we are allowed to shake hands, but it would be "best" to avoid physical contact as much as possible.

Now Islam doesn't ask the impossible. In no place is it "haram" (against Islam and stirictly forbidden) to shake hands.

Originally Posted by Audace

If the Iranians want to cancel then that's completely up to them. But religion can not be the highest standard for social conduct. Conservative believers just arent fit diplomates. It is western culture to shake hands and it is part of European culture to have a drink during dinner/lunch. If it is aginst your believes to wear shoes shoes to a restaurant does that mean nobody in the restaurant should be allowed to wear shoes? Get real. This sais more about the intolerance and rudeness of the Iranians then about the intolerance and rudeness of the western diplomats.

And a a side note, if your religion entails that women should cover up every visible piece of their body just to not fire up the hot blood of men (get some self control) then that religion is very much repressive towards women. It has nothing to do with "respect" towards women. Not shaking hands is just an extension of this sort of repressive religions. To each his own, and a clash this may be but not one of civilizations.

From this post of yours, I get the impression that you do not know much about such religions. And you do state you did not use the term Islam, but we are clearly talking about Islam in this thread, and by your comment, I can only say you still did mean Islam.

We , Muslim women are not oppressed, its very simple actually. People for the most part misunderstand the role and lives that Muslim women live.

Yes we avoid physical contact with strangers, men that is. Yes we cover up and modesty is an important issue in our lives. But we are able to work and interact and such with men . Covering up or not shaking hands has not stopped me or all the other Muslim women from living normal lives. Shocking isnt it?

Covering up properly is a sign or symbol what have you, of respect for our bodies. We feel that not any tom **** or harry has the right to ogle our bodies when they please.

As for the hand shake, it is better to avoid, but if it cant be , we are free to shake hands.

I have met a few politicians and such, and honesty about 80% of them asked politely if I would mind a hand shake. I said I did not.

Back to what this thread was originally about, its very simple. We have to respect each other. True the Muslims "could" have shaken hands. But its also true that the other party "could" have served the dinner without alcohol.

[Cuchulain82]

Originally Posted by CM

Additionally i was alluding to the thesis by Samuel Huntington and his notion that Islamic society and Western Society will always be at odds.

I figured you were talking about Huntington. the "Clash of Civilizations" theory has made him a living legend in IR circles, but my impression is that he is regarded actually as a sensationalist more than a true scholar. "Clash of Civilizations" was criticized for being heavy on bombast and relatively light on social science work when it was originally published, but 9/11 has given it new life. Huntington's recent work is "Who Are We", a book about (as near as I can tell) why anyone who isn't White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant/Cathloic isn't a true American. Maybe I'm mistaken, but that is actually the impression I got from reading book reviews.

Originally Posted by CM

Just a point to note i do truly love it that western "intellectuals" define the conflict between Islam (religion) and western ideals (freedoms). Its such an uneven and biased comparision its amazing. These same people of course forget that western society is responsible for racism, slavery and nazism.

Tastefully done Fas, I agree. This comparison is made in the media and by politicians, I think to create an "us-against-them" frenzy.

(However, as I mentioned before, Islam never had a renaissance/reform period where ideals were seperated from religion, so maybe there is a comparison to be made between middle eastern religion and western ideals...)