open Democracy News Analysis - ARE MUSLIMS BACKWARD OR ARE EUROPEANS DEGENERATE?, - Comments

cherif.rifaat on "ARE MUSLIMS BACKWARD OR ARE EUROPEANS DEGENERATE?"

cherif.rifaat — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 17:16:01 +0100

SUBJECT: NO SUCCESS WITHOUT PROCREATION Total Issues, Compliments for a good posting. "It just seems that modern life everywhere does not encourage people to have children. If so, modern industrial civilisation is not sustainable ..." Yes, and the birth rates are not just below but really far below the replacement value of 2.1 children per woman (not women per child which is a typo in your posting.) Therefore, for some, "modern life" means "degenerate life." They see the example of the West leading to degeneraton, shrinkage and eventual irrelevance or, in the extreme, collapse. Thus there are many in the Muslim World who resist calls by the West to "become modern like us." They see this as the path to doom: perhaps a deliberate conspiracy to weaken the Muslim world in the context of the "Clash of Civilizations". They try to maintain the traditional environment of stable families under the authority and guidance of the father, which works well when it come to procreation and eliminates the danger of collective biological failure. For this they are called backward by others. Which brings us to my title. Are they backward or are the others degenerate? "The whole birth rate thing is complicated...", and also quite simple: Wealthy societies engaged in "frenetically chasing more and more" material goods while failing with regards to procreation cannot be called successful.

Stanley_1 on "ARE MUSLIMS BACKWARD OR ARE EUROPEANS DEGENERATE?"

Stanley_1 — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:47:03 +0100

The whole birth rate thing is complicated, and affects the whole modern world, not just Europe. Birth rates in Japan and South Korea are even lower than in Germany or Italy. Birth rates in developing countries have collapsed in recent years, and are now below replacement level of 2.1 women per child in places as diverse as Brazil, China, Thailand, AND PARTS OF THE MIDDLE EAST, SUCH AS ALGERIA, TURKEY AND IRAN. Other places such as Egypt and India have declined from about 6 children per woman a generation ago, to between 2 and 3 today, and will doubtless continue to fall further. More about this at www.totalissues.blogspot.com. In developing countries, unlike Europe or Japan, the fall in birth rates is so recent that the population is much younger, and so population will continue to grow for another generation, because there are more young people of childbearing age - after that there will be the same problem as Europe. There is much speculation that religious faith (and thus belief in the future) encourages people to have children, unlike Godless Europeans, and also a more traditional role for women. It is true that fundamentalist American Christians have slightly more children than other Westerners, but I am sceptical for such a widespread trend. Iranians and Indians are pretty religious, and the Japanese have a very traditional (and decidedly low status) role for women. The main explanatory variables are urbanisation and levels of economic development. It just seems that modern life everywhere does not encourage people to have children. If so, modern industrial civilisation is not sustainable (it also screws up the environment). We have to rethink our lives and put children at the centre, not frenetically chasing more and more money. While overpopulation is a global problem, collapsing birthrates leading to population extinctions and not enough workers to support the old, is even worse

Dale Egee on "ARE MUSLIMS BACKWARD OR ARE EUROPEANS DEGENERATE?"

Dale Egee — Sat, 30 Sep 2006 17:30:29 +0100

Dear Cherif and Englishman, What can I add to your well stated discussions? A few notes on the womens' issues in the Muslim world: There are as many varieties of Muslim women as there are of Western women. some examples: My Egyptian friend Aziza-- ran her own company for years, first in Kuwait, later in London. Dressed in chic European style, modest but not cloaked. A Qatari royal: When I asked at an international womens' conference if there was any way we pro--Islam western women could assist, specifically concerning women having to cover up in her country, she replied haughtily: "May I suggest Mrs. Egee remember the old admonition "When in Rome, do as the Romans do". Women are only beginning to assert themselves in ways that count -- in the West as in the Arab world. But we are making progress. Slowly but surely. Cherif's mother is a good example. So is Angela Merkel. Let's have a positive attitude and try to help them, when possible. They are gutsy ladies !

englishman on "ARE MUSLIMS BACKWARD OR ARE EUROPEANS DEGENERATE?"

englishman — Sat, 30 Sep 2006 12:35:14 +0100

Hi Cherif. Thank you for your full answers. On re-reading my original post I see that it could come over as a criticism of Islam itself, which was not the intention. I appreciate that most Muslims are, like yourself, moderate, reasonable and compassionate and that the religion itself can be interpreted in a way that allows (and even promotes) such behaviour. Any criticisms I may have of the religion itself would probably be common to criticisms of many other religions in the world, including Christianity. I have a dislike of any philosophy in which people can be led to believe that they are right (and others are wrong) because a book, priests, Imams or voices in their head tells them so. But this was not the aim of what I was saying in my last post. My main theme was to point out that life in the Islamic states, in which the majority of Muslims live in the world today, are not attractive to the majority of people living in the western world. To what extent this is due to these states developing their own brands of Islam, their poor economic situation, the countries' politics or mediaeval cultural traditions is open to debate. Certainly Islam is used to support and maintain these undesirable aspects of the status quo as can be seen in Iran, in particular, even in spite of considerable opposition. Most people would prefer to live in a country in which they were brought up, and would feel a deep seated affinity for the culture in which they were raised. Despite this, as I have said before, Iranians I know came to the UK when the Shah was deposed to specifically avoid the cruel and backward theocratic rule that followed Khomeini's reign. This is not to say the Shah was OK, but it seems to me that the change moved the country from one form of corruption to another. Ludicrous decrees about women not being able to watch soccer matches do not help people to see Islam, as interpreted in Iran, as an enlightened religion. Laws allowing marriage at thirteen (for girls) and 16 (maybe older) for boys is not right in most people's eyes and the assymetry in the ages reflects its exploitative nature. Although frowned upon it is still not uncommon for a deal between families that allows a girl to be betrothed to a much older man. This practice, the latter being more of a problem in Pakistan, maybe the result of traditions older than Islam, but it is certainly not discouraged adequately, if at all. It is this assymetry in the way men and women are treated within Islamic states that would not be acceptable to most western women and many western men. Your comment about a song by Purcell makes my point: Purcell was 17th century and we hope that we have moved on from those times when girls of thirteen may well have had to grow up quickly. There are problems with the influences that young people are subject to in the west, drugs and sex being two of them, but these are not condoned by the state and it is an unfortunate part of the modern western world that has to be dealt with. Part of the west's freedom is also its bane in this regard, and it is a problem. It seems that the world keeps coming across Pandora's boxes and is compelled to open them, in fact it usually can't be avoided given time. The consequences have to be dealt with; I think this is part of the way the human race matures. Trying to keep the box shut works only in the short term, and has undesirable consequences. I am not in favour of bombing anyone, by the way. I have tried to make the point that Islam may not be, in itself, "backward" (at least not in a way worse than other religions), but that the majority of states that practice the religion do not pose an attractive proposition to most people in the west. By the way, if you make a mistake in a post you just have to left click the pencil icon in your own post as displayed and it will let you edit it.

cherif.rifaat on "ARE MUSLIMS BACKWARD OR ARE EUROPEANS DEGENERATE?"

cherif.rifaat — Sat, 30 Sep 2006 04:02:07 +0100

SUBJECT: CROCODILE TEARS ABOUT WOMEN IN ISLAM englishman, "...I don't like the point by point dismantling of discussion..." OK, I see. I was commenting on the building blocks of your argument to make my point. But that is apparently the wrong approach in this case, though it is sometimes useful. The point was apparently not made clearly. Sorry. Ill try again and here is my point: I do not believe that the concern whipped up by the powers that be in the West (and believed by many honest citizens) about Islam and women, is genuine. It is certainly not accurate. For your information, Muslim women who fight for womens rights say they want women to be treated like in the time of the Prophet, i.e. according to the original rules of Islam. (Over time, men have the propensity to introduce their own ideas for dominance and to incorporate tribal or pre-Islamic habits and traditions to suit themselves. An example is female circumcision, which sometimes occurs in Africa, but not Arabia or most of the Muslim world). It seems to me all this supposed compassion is simply another way to vilify "an enemy" in support of aggression against the Muslim world. Sort of in the same vein as "We must attack Iraq because they have weapons of mass destruction that threaten the whole world" or "We are helping them" or "We are bringing them democracy" and the older excuse - now discredited - formerly used all over the world "We are bringing civilization to the savages". Curiously, it would appear that concern for women in some countries we plan to attack or have already invaded is higher than in countries which are our moderate friends, even though they might be living under similar cults and their plights may be similar. For example we see hand wringing and great concern for women in Afghanistan. We dont see anyone wanting to commit military aggression against Saudi Arabia to help the women there who must be covered head-to-toe whether they like it or not, are not allowed to drive an cannot travel without permission of a male guardian. Does this have anything to do with the excellent friendship and lucrative business dealings between the Saudi Royal Family and certain American Royal Families? Another example is how I keep hearing how terrible Islam is because girls get married at age thirteen. (Never mind that in many cases it is simply a betrothal arranged by the parents in ancient and pre-Islamic traditions in some Muslim regions, usually rural, and which affects male and female youngsters equally). I dont hear how terrible the West is just because some 13 year old school girls are on illegal drugs, get pregnant and unable to be sure exactly who the father might be. (This kind of behaviour is not new in the West. I am reminded of a song for soprano voice, by Henry Purcell or maybe a contemporary if his: "I Am a Wanton Wench of Thirteen"). There are those who might say that this debauchery is worse than getting legally betrothed or married at thirteen. But never mind: Islam is still bad and Muslims are backward while the West is still good and not degenerate. So lets go and bomb them for their own good.

englishman on "ARE MUSLIMS BACKWARD OR ARE EUROPEANS DEGENERATE?"

englishman — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:17:17 +0100

Cherif, I don't like the point by point dismantling of discussion because it takes points out of context, gives unjustified weight to the criticism and also makes it very boring for others to read. However, I can see no alternative but to address each of the dismembered points back in a similar way. I understand that you did not actually make a judgement about superiority of men vs women but you did make the (incorrect) statement about men and women being as genetically different as humans and chimpanzees. You have got to have insulted at least half the population even if which half is left to the reader to determine. The fact that you are defending Islam which, by any normal interpretation of theory and practice, has women at a lower social status than men would imply that you regard women as a "lesser" being in some regard. As the report points out, it is in this area that the Islamic countries have been slow to improve according to the UN norms of equality for women. Women are treated, at least to some extent (and the extent varies from country to country) as property. Marriages are arranged as a negotiation between families. Although the woman usually has a right of refusal, this is theoretical only in many countries. The age that women can marry is as low as 13 in Iran. I do not consider this as reasonable as a girl of this age is not usually able to resist the pressure to refuse, even if this were practical. The penalty for adultery is much more severe, at least in practical circumstances, for women than men. Why this should be to do with any natural difference between men and women escapes me. My statement that women have no power in Muslim countries was meant to read as legal rights. Of course women have the power to argue or pursuade, but this is not what would be normally interpreted by the phrase I used when taken in context. I see that they do have the power to divorce, in some circumstances, in many countries. You also take out of context my comparison with slavery. I think it was clear that I was not comparing the treatment of women with the treatment of a slave. The comparison was more to do with Ancient Greeks being able to say that their democracy was happy with slavery when the slaves did not have the right to comment. Of course women are in public life in Iran, Egypt and elsewhere but it is not commonplace with the majority. You live in Canada; how many Canadian women would wish to be subject to Sharia law if given the choice? Putting family first rather that earning money is not a western issue or a religious issue. If you went back 100 years anywhere in the western world you would find that women were not expected to work once children arrive. This is an economic drive to be more wealthy and it is a choice people make. That choice is often not there in Muslim countries for economic reasons. My wife chose to give up work when we had children, and many do, so it is not compulsory. It is the paper that cites that many of the Islamic countries are still feudal societies. I am unsure of the formal definition but it seems to me that Islamic societies bear a closer relation to social structures of 14th century Europe than with the western world today: influence of the church/mosque, power of the local lord/shiekh, lack of women's rights, family-contractual nature of marriage. I am sure not everything was worse then, but most of us prefer the world today. I am sorry if this comes over as me not resisting "looking for esoteric ways to denigrate Islam", but I thought I was addressing the title of your thread fairly accurately. To answer directly, Muslims, as demonstrated through much of the world, do appear to be backward. This may have nothing to do with the qualities within Islam, but my post was addressing the issue of why people would wish to become Muslim when the examples in the world are basically not very attractive. And especially not attractive to women! Comparison with Islamic states in the distant past are not good examples for people of today. And are Europeans degenerate? NO. This implies a fundamental flaw in the people which I do not see. There are many aspects of western society I would like to see improved but if most people were asked which society they would rather live in, Britain or Pakistan for example, most would choose Britain. And many Pakistanis do! You may say this is economically driven, and it may be, but it is at least a fact to be taken into account.

cherif.rifaat on "ARE MUSLIMS BACKWARD OR ARE EUROPEANS DEGENERATE?"

cherif.rifaat — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 01:48:03 +0100

englishman, Cherif. Ho ho, are you going to be in trouble when the girls read your last comments Why? I said no superiority or inferiority, just different. Besides, deep down, of course I feel women are superior, but I dont want to discriminate against men.(How is that?) the only reason that the status of women is accepted in Muslim countries is because the women have no power . Women have no power? Ho ho, now you are going to be in trouble when the girls read your comments. Women always have lots of power. It is like having slavery and saying that there is not enough votes to change the situation but that the slaves don't get to vote. It is nothing like slavery, come on. Slaves and none slaves are both genetically human. Ill post something for cole_2233 which will try to explain why Westeners dont quite get it. I think we have to separate the discussion about how the Muslim world treats women for how little the west has done to help Palestinians, and by implication Palestinian women. I wish the West were just not helping. Actually it is actively assisting and is an accessory in tormenting Palestinian women, and all Palestinians. Actually, as far as I am aware, Palestinian women are more "liberated" than in most Muslim countries. Egyptian women too. However, the main point is that you cannot separate the plight of women in Egypt from their economic status. The paper may or may not be written by Muslims but I believe it is a fair and impartial view of how Muslim countries are approaching UN goals for women's rights, amongst other targets. You can argue that these are not good aims Right on. Just at the beginning, the paper says that productivity is negatively affected. Muslims put family life above productivity. In the West the concept of the family has practically been destroyed for the sake of creating material wealth. Some Western women are beginning to smarten up, and are beginning to prefer to stay home to bring up the kids and be home-makers: they are becoming more like Muslim women. By the way, many Muslim women, are professionals: engineers, doctors and really good business people. Very few will sacrifice their family life for career or money. Here is one way they do it. The woman finishes university. Then, at about age 21 or 22, she gets married and has a few children in quick succession. When the youngest begins to go to school, she goes back to college for refresher courses or a Masters degree. Only then does she starts on her serious, long term, career. My own mom did that. When we kids were old enough not to need her on a continuous basis, she resumed her career in art and became a known water-colour (acquarel) artist, and her works sold well in Canada and Egypt. Of course, as I said, it depends a great deal on the economic situation and the social standing. ..a feudal society. The term feudal society relates to the ownership of most land by a few, and not the war between the sexes.. Why do Muslims in the west see Islam as so wonderful when the real world examples are so bad? Because Islam is pretty excellent. But the Muslim World has been stagnant and in bad shape for some centuries. There was a time when it was glorious and way ahead of the West. But civilizations go up and down (if they are not unlucky and disappear completely.) Some say Islam might be on the move again. They also say the West does not want that, and acts accordingly. englishman, why do I sometimes get the feeling that you seem unable to resist looking for esoteric ways to denigrate Islam?

englishman on "ARE MUSLIMS BACKWARD OR ARE EUROPEANS DEGENERATE?"

englishman — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 18:19:52 +0100

Cherif. Ho ho, are you going to be in trouble when the girls read your last comments :-) I am not a biologist but I don't think the difference between men and women is genetic, at least not in the sense that species are different. You are correct that there is no reason, from a biological point of view, why men and women should be treated in the same way. There are many examples in biology where the behaviour differences between the sexes is very pronounced. However, I cannot help but feel that the only reason that the status of women is accepted in Muslim countries is because the women have no power to change it. It is like having slavery and saying that there is not enough votes to change the situation but that the slaves don't get to vote. I think we have to separate the discussion about how the Muslim world treats women for how little the west has done to help Palestinians, and by implication Palestinian women. Actually, as far as I am aware, Palestinian women are more "liberated" than in most Muslim countries. The paper may or may not be written by Muslims but I believe it is a fair and impartial view of how Muslim countries are approaching UN goals for women's rights, amongst other targets. You can argue that these are not good aims, although I disagree, but either way the research seems of good quality. The feeling I get from reading this paper is that most of these countries have a long way to go to get out of a feudal society. Why do Muslims in the west see Islam as so wonderful when the real world examples are so bad?

cherif.rifaat on "ARE MUSLIMS BACKWARD OR ARE EUROPEANS DEGENERATE?"

cherif.rifaat — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 17:54:27 +0100

englishman! What a huge question, worthy of at least one Ph.D. thesis! Can't read this whole thing, analyze it and respond to each point. Will try to think of another way, such as searching for existing answers to these points. In the meantime: - It doesn't look like it was written by Muslims. So is it the usual "If it is not like us, it must be inferior or unfair and disturbing," (assuming it is even true)? - There is a genetic difference between men and women roughly of the same magnitude as the genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees (I am not saying either is superior or inferior, just different). Should there be a difference in social and legal matters between humans and chimps? - In Canada, only two percent of CEO's (Chief Executive Officers of companies) are women. Is this due to genetic differences or to injustice in the workplace? If it is genetic, then differences in legal and social matters are normal, not to say desirable. If it is injustice, let us worry about ourselves in the West before we start with compassion and concern for other cultures. - From your ideas, I believe you personally are a compassionate person, and your concern is genuine. But it does not seem that some Western countries care two hoots about women among the "Untermenschen" in the Muslim world. They dont seem to care about children or anyone among them either. If they did, would they not help Palestinian women living under the jackboots of you know who? On the contrary, they cut off compassionate funding to a captured people living in big concentration camps called Gaza and the West bank. Why? Because these inferior peoples voted for a overnment we dont want. In other words we want them to have democracy but they must vote like we want. There are similar stories in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. So, before we engage in the laudable aim of worrying about the legal rights of Muslim women, I think it makes sense to start by not killing them. Also we should refrain from destroying their towns and homes and contributing to the hunger of their children. Do you agree?

englishman on "ARE MUSLIMS BACKWARD OR ARE EUROPEANS DEGENERATE?"

englishman — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 21:09:36 +0100

Cherif, I found this site informative about the customs and practice regarding family law in major Muslim countries. It is rather disturbing that change is so slow to take effect in these countries and that how a second class position for women is written into the law. I would be interested in your views on these matters. I appreciate that Islam may not prevent change and modernisation from the feudal rules that seem to abound, but I find it hard to reconcile this with any desire to associate with a religion where the main practical demonstrations of its application are so awful. http://makeashorterlink.com/?H13B256DD [Edited by: oD Forum Moderator. Shorter link created.]

cherif.rifaat on "ARE MUSLIMS BACKWARD OR ARE EUROPEANS DEGENERATE?"

cherif.rifaat — Sat, 23 Sep 2006 16:42:00 +0100

Hello Dale Egee, "I have to confess to a personal bias..." So do I: There are many things about Europe find to be just great. However, due to the continues and mainly ignorant attacks on Islam and Muslims, I find myself having to try and redress the balance by pointing out some horrible and cruel aspects of European history. "Any ideas, short of buying tickets to all the countries for all the people?" It is difficult because there are too many powerful individuals and groups who have a great deal to gain from the hostilities. For example the title of this thread is not meant to be offensive, as has been suggested. It merely points out that members of every culture can internalize negative ideas about another. It is very easy for the leadership to foster hostility, especially when there is something to be gained by rivalry or conflict, a common occurrence in human affairs. At this time, the West is militarily more powerful. There are Western armies in Muslim lands but no Muslim armies in Western lands. Therefore Islam is engaging in self-defense against foreign invaders. Sadly, the mentality of many Westerners is so influenced by their colonial history and their leadership that they neither realize they are aggressors, nor that denigrating Muslims is in part support for said aggression. Through the title of another thread, "Should Islam become a bigger "threat" for the sake of peace? I seek to exmine whether the only way to make Western aggressors back off, is for Muslims to be able to threaten to inflict a high enough cost upon the West if it continues with the old ruthless colonial mentality and actions. If that is the case, I very sincerely hope that such a threat can be achieved through non-violent means. (Though some Muslims believe the only language the West understands is violence.)

Dale Egee on "ARE MUSLIMS BACKWARD OR ARE EUROPEANS DEGENERATE?"

Dale Egee — Sat, 23 Sep 2006 15:49:40 +0100

. [Edited by: oD Forum Moderator. Double post.]

Dale Egee on "ARE MUSLIMS BACKWARD OR ARE EUROPEANS DEGENERATE?"

Dale Egee — Sat, 23 Sep 2006 15:48:17 +0100

I have to confess to a personal bias: I love the Muslims. I have lived in Lebanon, Dubai, and Libya and travelled to all the other Arab countries except Algeria, during the 35 years I lived and/or worked there. They are all different, first of all ---to the same degree that European countries are all different. If you are open minded, you enjoy what makes Lebanon or France different from Syria or England. It pains me to see Europeans and Americans bad--mouthing Muslims. They should know better. So what can we do about it??? Any ideas, short of buying tickets to all the countries for all the people Internationalist?

man4mtns on "ARE MUSLIMS BACKWARD OR ARE EUROPEANS DEGENERATE?"

man4mtns — Sat, 23 Sep 2006 05:19:42 +0100

The terms didn't really get specific, just don't be offensive. The title of this thread is more offensive that what I wrote. And since when are Muslims a race? I did generalize but I don't consider that offensive. Again the thread title set the standard here.

Jessica Reed on "ARE MUSLIMS BACKWARD OR ARE EUROPEANS DEGENERATE?"

Jessica Reed — Fri, 22 Sep 2006 14:36:20 +0100

Dear man4mtns, Hello and welcome to openDemocracy's forums. Please consider having a look at our Terms and Conditions. In the interest of open debate, racist comments and generalisations are not welcome. Your adherence to the terms of membership will be much appreciated. Regards, Jessica - forum moderator.

ARE MUSLIMS BACKWARD OR ARE EUROPEANS DEGENERATE?,

cherif.rifaat — Mon, 06 Feb 2006 19:27:52 +0000

SUBJECT: ARE MUSLIMS BACKWARD OR ARE EUROPEANS DEGENERATE? It depends on whom you ask.. Europeans can point to their internal combustion engines, their excellent weapons that can kill from a distance on a grand scale, their advanced environment which fosters scientific progress, their fine democracies and freedom of speech which go far in protecting the individual from tyranny and reducing the chances for major errors in national decision making. They can point to the Muslim Worlds disarray, division, poverty and illiteracy, unjust governments, vulnerability to attack from the West .. Read the rest of this post...