Islamophobia:
This phenomenon - despite both being disputed by some or used in multi-contexts by others - started to rise after Sep. 11, it is a phenomenon that I consider due to ignorance and Racism at the same time.
Islamophobia has been the target that whomever planned for 9/11, was wishing to enlarge the gap between the East and West, and we may have lengthy sessions to try to explore the motives behind it which can be convoluted, complicated and inter-related at the same time.
Prince Charles has been in many instances a big advocate of Anti-Islamophobia, and lately his visit to Egypt and to Al-Azhar further proven that.
I am a very strong commender of what Al-Azhar did: granting an honorary Doctorate for the prince, and I think - regardless of the motives - it is a great step.
One Interesting notice was that the Prince was holding "Sebha" during his visit all the times..!!!!!!!!!, the Princess sitting shoe-less is a great impact picture in the world of media if we knew how to use it.
The other interesting notice is that this royal visit has been largely under-expressed in most of the western media which gives us an idea about the real motives of this media.
"fear, and accompanying hostility, towards the religion of Islam and its adherents, or by extension to predominantly Muslim cultures"
This phenomenon - despite both being disputed by some or used in multi-contexts by others - started to rise after Sep. 11, it is a phenomenon that I consider due to ignorance and Racism at the same time.
Islamophobia has been the target that whomever planned for 9/11, was wishing to enlarge the gap between the East and West, and we may have lengthy sessions to try to explore the motives behind it which can be convoluted, complicated and inter-related at the same time.
Prince Charles has been in many instances a big advocate of Anti-Islamophobia, and lately his visit to Egypt and to Al-Azhar further proven that.
I am a very strong commender of what Al-Azhar did: granting an honorary Doctorate for the prince, and I think - regardless of the motives - it is a great step.
One Interesting notice was that the Prince was holding "Sebha" during his visit all the times..!!!!!!!!!, the Princess sitting shoe-less is a great impact picture in the world of media if we knew how to use it.
The other interesting notice is that this royal visit has been largely under-expressed in most of the western media which gives us an idea about the real motives of this media.
4 comments:
The reasons of the visit can be many, some declared, some hidden. But this is not the issue, I guess the Prince visited Al-Azhar as a side activity along the visit that included Saudi Arabia and India.
Besides, Prince Charles is known by his interest in Islam, and ha gave many lectures about bridging the distance betwen civiliztions, so it is natural from that kind of a character to visit the oldest Islamic university , probably the oldest university in the world when he is visiting its country.
I guess you are right to some extent, but why do you think those "fighters for freedom" use this fatal language? Are we to blame for their existence? if so what reasons may be behind that?
Rehaam,
I do not think that people representing Islam blow themselves out. I think it is just being shown that way.
There are lots of Moslem , far more than those who blow themselves that are reasonable and successful. But who cares. "Zewel, Baradei, and here in the US , thousands of successful examples "
It is an over-simplification to assume that it is just because of people blowing themselves there is Islamophobia
Suicide itself can be portrayed as a noble act, e.g. "Tale of two cities" by Charles Dickens, when Everemonde basically committed suicide as a noble act.
Another example is the Kamakazi fighter in world war two, they were Japanese, had nothing to do with Islam, and they are considered noble, never considered as terrorists. Even more, if you see the movie V for Vendetta, V also goes on a mission that he knows that it will end up dying....
I am not trying to defend or advocate those behaviours, but I am trying to shed light on the fact of biased media and the global steroetyped ideas that being fed to people's Brain. Even more, I am not sure at all about the motives of Bin Laden or his followers.
Yet, there one thing right about our responsibility in Islamophobia which is our INDIFFERENCE , we are retarded, not a single Islamic state that is considered as a developed country, everybody see us as a bunch of violent primitive non-civilised people and still, we do not care.
Finally, there are lots of fighters for change that are being abandoned or killed everyday, for known reasons those fighters of change u r alluding to are the only one that we hear of and I will give you an example from the movie that you did not like "Syriana"; the prince who was highly educated, had a PhD in political sciences, wanted to give freedom for speech, wanted to give more women's rights was killed by Americans cause who would not work for their best interest.
Our challenge is a duty challenge, we need to work, we need to prove that we are not less than those "civilized" people.
It is a game of Power, we need to be powerful to set the rules , that is it.
Well I see that we got many points:
people blow themselves up for what they believe
successful examples of Muslims people
biased media
some people dream about changing the global scene
developed – so-called civilised – countries
undeveloped – so-called uncivilised – countries
Islamophobia
There are Jihadists blow themselves ups frequently. But the point is that every bombing or even fight is related to Jihad by some accounts – let me say that they are mostly Western accounts. The other point is that in a way or another those bombings are related tightly to religious matters often discarding any other relations. For example, those “brave” who defended Palestinian heritages in 2004 – they defended mostly Christian heritages - were expelled and they will never be allowed to return home. The interesting thing that they weren't imprisoned! Tell me why? I tell you because they were considered heroes by many people and by many Christian people. Then, the lights were shed away! I really believe that if they f aught for Islamic heritages the West would have considered them terrorists. But the West weren't so lucky really...it couldn't make its favoured link! But look at them now...tell me if they are even remembered. I tell you not. Why? Because if people had the chance to consider them heroes for long time it would have become hard for the West to make its magical links between violent and Islam. So the best solution was to keep them alive but also unknown. I consider them heroes myself.
Radical Islamic terrorist dwell. And they really distort any image of Islam like any other manic radicalists. They believe that Islamic authorities must rule and the whole society must obey. I consider this to be Fanaticism. Any way to rule people by a sole set of thoughts represented by some authorities without tolerating any differences or by tolerating differences while making them useless through lots of procedures is Fanaticism. But on the side I instantly remember some systems which in someway fit my definition. What about the USA?!
But why in the first place do those radical Islamists exist? Well, I think it is basically twofold . The first is the changes that have taken lace in the middle east. From Islamic authorities of al khalifa who ruled lots of Islamic country to parted countries with different systems. In Egypt it was pretty a mix of both religious figures and civil ones. In Saudi Arabia it remains a mix till now but a very distorted one. The Saudi king relies heavily on religious regulations to run the country but at the same time he is technically not a religious authority. The point is that while it remains fertile the Saudi Arabia for terrorists to grow up it differs in Egypt for example. The Egyptian society has passed the transitional period of civil liberty that extended for about forty five years to reach the 1952 revolution – well I don't consider it to be a revolution but let's keep it simple and focused for now. Since the revolution the society has been through vast changes for better and worse as well. Religion's role was overtaken by civil organisations in the beginning. The killer point comes now, religion's role was partially eliminated while those civil organisations kept a part for themselves to use...for what? For exercising more power on people. I can remember how Nasser talked in different matters while kept religious keywords to give his speech an enthusiastic fashion! Religion interference with civil rights was not eliminated it just took a different form. Anyhow, what has been happening in Egypt can be called social bottle neck. Many changes have been happening while people's awareness has been limited. Different examples in history can easily show us that in any such a bottle neck there are two different extreme trends; one copied the past in the try to colour the future and another that longs for already developed countries' views to reach the portrayed future. There is also a trend that keeps in between, some times it takes over and other times it dies away. Longing for past usually would bring Islamism to focus because it was our most thriving period in the relatively recent history. Another point is about religion reasoning which I strongly believe that it can't be reasoned. The another fold is the West. Keep them low keep them week. They have our energy so let's drain the peak! The anti-colonisation movements in the Middle East yielded many thoughts along the side. One of them is that of civil rights. The West is smart as it is known. Involve the East in an internal bloody conflict and they will ever remain our sissy pet. Radical Islamism was their tool to feed conflicts.
There is another point, unity needs common cultures. And in uncivilised world these cultures normally implies religions! (Don't talk much about that because it is out of our scope for now, OK)
But what about the successful Muslims examples? First they mostly live in the west. And without the Western support they would never have existed as figures. It is also the norm to talk about them as originally Egyptians, or whatever nationality. It is not the norm to talk about them as Muslims. But you know the West consider them to be good people. They serve their interests. I imagine that they now want to return home, what will happen to them?!
I am asking whose media teaches the globe? Is it ours? No no it is theirs. Here comes power. It is rarely stated in the media that the US supported Jihadists who were fighting for Islam against the USSR. And I strongly doubt that the case of Radical Islamists was much different in the Arab world. Even al Sadat supported them. Anyway, from hierarchical prospective the West has more power than that of of the East. Even if we assume that power roams and the smart make use of it...they are more powerful...they have our rulers to guard them...some form of slutty power really. So why should they help us to develop using our own resources that they need? Keep it biased and teach the civilised Westerns that those people in the middle east bite. But make some friendships with them to avoid their anger.
They want us where we are because we serve them as we are. They talk a lot about the role of civil organisations that separate life form religion while they surely know that our state lead to nothing but sticking to religion.
Yes there are some rational voices but let the dogs keep barking...the collar is tight, don't worry!
I second El3en Elsehrya, but I bear in mind the "picture" drawn by Reeham. What we need is to evolve not to say that we are not civlised while they are.
Post a Comment