After reading the afterword from Tamim Ansari's book Destiny Disrupted: A History of the World through Islamic Eyes, I want you to think about and answer ONE (you can address more, but don't feel obligated to do so) of the following questions:
1. What does Ansari see as the underlining reason for some Islamic radicals ' hatred of the West? Is is that they "hate democracy and freedom?" From what aspect of Islamic history do you think this view might arise?
2. What does Ansari mean when he reflects on his conversation with an Afghani villager about the upcoming elections and says, "It struck me that what Western planners call "democracy" was an extraneous apparatus this man shouldered because he had to, under which load he carried his real life as best he could" (352)?
3. Having studied Islam, why would you think that Ansari sees the Western attempt "to atomize society down to the level of individual economic units"(353) as a bad thing? [hint: think about the Umma]
4. Does Ansari think that if the West and Islam simply sit down and really understood each other that all the discord, arguments, and acrimony would melt away as mere "misunderstanding?"
5. According to Ansari, what doctrine of traditional Islam makes giving a liberal or softened view of jihad difficult?
6. When Ansari writes "It can only be one or the other. It can't be both" (355), what is he writing about? Do you agree? Why or why not?
REMEMBER: No anonymous posts - please post under your first name and last initial. Refrain from using internet short hand (no 'lol' or 'u,' etc.). You do not have to create a completely new comment as your participation; you may respond to someone else's comment as your contribution and participation, BUT be courteous to other posters. No personal or ad hominem attacks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2. What does Ansari mean when he reflects on his conversation with an Afghani villager about the upcoming elections and says, "It struck me that what Western planners call "democracy" was an extraneous apparatus this man shouldered because he had to, under which load he carried his real life as best he could" (352)?
ReplyDeleteI think that Ansari is using the Afghani villager's response to the election to show that the villagers there don't really understand the idea of democracy or how they should choose which candidate to vote for. The villager simply elected Sayyaf because he comes from the oldest family with the biggest house, whereas under the Western system of democracy voters chose who to vote for based on his political views and his ability to represent the ideas/values of the person who is voting. The Afghani villager doesn't really care about the democratic process; in his personal life Sayyaf was generous and came from an old family so the villager voted for him because of that, even though he probably does not know anything about Sayyaf's political preferences.
1. What does Ansari see as the underlining reason for some Islamic radicals ' hatred of the West? Is it that they "hate democracy and freedom?" From what aspect of Islamic history do you think this view might arise?
ReplyDeleteAgainst popular western belief, Ansari observes the underlying reason for Islamic radical and their hatred of the west is not because they are against freedom or democracy, it is because the Islamic extremists believe that the west is “decadent” and “morally corrupt”. They believe that Muslims are the opposite of these making themselves disciplinable instead of decadent and morally pure instead of morally corrupt. The Jihadists are against the overbearing power of the west in their lives and the corruption of their families and society. These extremists oppose our entertainment industry rising in popularity over religion, easy availability to alcohol, and the widening gap between the poor and the rich.
I believe that Muhammad’s raids or razzias against Mecca and the battle of badr are direct influences for Islamic Jihadists. By doing this, he instilled the belief in Muslims that using military force is accepted when you are feeling oppressed. Muhammad gives a new meaning to the word jihad. Instead of a struggle internally, it now has a negative connotation because also means a struggle in battle in the name of Allah.
Well before I get to the question I want to say a couple things :)
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I really enjoyed this passage by Ansari. It seemed pretty unbiased (for the most part) and allowed a lot of insight on both sides of the story, which I appreciate greatly.
Second, I wanted to express how much talking about politics and religion together irritates me. It leaves me in a disgusted mood and I get so angry, it renders me silent (yes me!).
Don't get me wrong, I love (!!) politics (you can ask any of my friends, even my parents) AND discussing religion. And personally I think islam is a beautiful religion, that I would convert to if I had the desire to learn Arabic/if I believed in God.
(Sorry a little rant is going to happen)
BUT I hate when they are associated with each other. I do understand that Islam has politics incorporated in its base (Ansari says the same: "But Islam might just as validly be considered as one item in a class whose other items include communism, parliamentary democracy, fascism, and the like... an idea for how politics and the economy ought to be manages, a complete system of civil and criminal law"). But I feel like any government should rule as they see fit. Now I see the error with this, of course, if this was the case Hitler, Saddam Hussein, and others would still be in power. I know what I'm saying is very iffy and flawed and slightly impractical/selective, but in dire conditions, I think, are the only times that other nations should involve themselves in other nations' business. Hitler killing 6 million Jews/trying to take over Europe--not cool, Saddam Hussein being a ruthless dictator/severely oppressing his people--not okay, the US invading and occupying a country that did nothing--also not okay... (just saying)
Even so, Ansari also says that "secular and Western are not synonymous." I agree completely. THOUGH our government isn't ruled by the papacy, the Church has so much to say on things involved in politics (I've said this before, but things like same-sex marriage and abortion).
Now again don't get me wrong, I think America is a wonderful place, but I think we are like a parasite at times. Look at the mess made in Iraq (let me not get into that :/)... Buy hey that's just me (well some people agree too).
Sorry about that... end of rant.
5. According to Ansari, what doctrine of traditional Islam makes giving a liberal or softened view of jihad difficult?
ReplyDelete(I figured I'd pick a question I could answer in less of a rant)
According to Ansari, the Qu'ran/life of Mohammed is really the issue... let me explain. He said that "[He] often hears liberal Muslims in the United States say that 'jihad just means 'trying to be a good person.'" I agree when he retorts this statement with, "suggesting that only anti-Muslim bigots think the term has something to so with violence."
In the Qu'ran, jihad was used to describe how the Muslims acted at (the WAR) of Badr. They "strove in the way of Allah."
SO basically, the term "jihad" is created FROM the Qu'ran ABOUT a violent act... Seems like jihad is supposed to be used to describe violence, just saying how it appears to me, an outsider :/
I completely understand why liberal Muslims would say this, because personally I've been in a predicament like this. Me, I LOVE Eminem. I love everything about him, his humor/sometimes very dark and sick side. People view him as misogynistic and homophobic, which I can completely agree. His lyrics are very very controversial, and though he himself might not be (he's not, or so I've read in his book), he BASED his success on faulty ground. He's rich BECAUSE of those twisted lyrics. So I can say "oh he's great" and "oh you're not supposed to take the lyrics literally silly!" but regardless, how he made his money is on misogynistic and homophobic lyrics. Do you see what I'm saying.
So what we have learned about Gari is: She likes politics, religion (though not together), disapproves of the war on "terror," and she adores Eminem (though he is controversial.)
Did I mention that I love controversial topics and usually supprt the more less favorable side? Hehehe, that's how I am :/
Sorry i had to separate the rant and the answer to the question, it surpassed the characters again... Sorry.
ReplyDelete2. What does Ansari mean when he reflects on his conversation with an Afghani villager about the upcoming elections and says, "It struck me that what Western planners call "democracy" was an extraneous apparatus this man shouldered because he had to, under which load he carried his real life as best he could" (352)?
ReplyDeleteThis question stood out to me because it reminded me of a scenario that took place in Malta in the 1960s. An election was taking place and in short, the church would not allow the people to vote labour, only nationalist (the two political parties in Malta- labour and nationalist). The church threatened the Maltese (who are strictly religious) with excommunication and, in fact, the labour party was under interdict for a period of time during those elections. Although my example is very different in some senses, it is still just another variation of a scenario where democracy is interfered with by other non-political (in Malta's case- religious, in this case- personal) things. This Afghan chose to vote for Sayyaf based on the fact that Sayyaf lived in his town, gave children sweets, adults money and has a sister-in-law married to this man's cousin. Whether Sayyaf has good policies, ideas or would be a good leader were thoughts that did not even cross this man's mind. He voted because he had to and he voted for who he did because he thought he was a good Muslim.
6. When Ansari writes "It can only be one or the other. It can't be both" (355), what is he writing about? Do you agree? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteAnsari believes that one must live in a Western way or a Muslim way of life. A very telling quote for me was on page 355, "From where I stand, I don't see how Muslims can live in the West, under the laws and customs of Western societies, if they embrace that divided-world view, nor how Westerners can live in the Muslim world as anything but visitors, if they embrace that genders-shuffled together view." There were many things about Ansari that I personally disagreed with because he has a very conservative view on the role of women in society. As a woman (well a girl), and as a student, I feel that without my education I would not be as prepared to be a contributing member of the community and the society I live in. I guess Ansari doesn't think that women need to contribute, because in the time of Mohammed, women had less rights, and the radical Muslims want to emulate that time. But even not in an issue of gender, in a Westernized society where so much is commercialized, electronic and artificial is not an ideal place for someone to try to relive the age and lifestyle of Mohammed.
I understand that he feels they do not mix, but I feel that these cultures should be able to mix, because each has much to learn from the other. It's just a matter of sacrifice, like what would I as an American have to give up to learn and live in a Muslim society and what would a Muslim have to give up in order to experience a Muslim culture.
6. When Ansari writes "It can only be one or the other. It can't be both" (355), what is he writing about? Do you agree? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteAnsari is saying that it is impossible to live in both the western and muslim way. I agree with what Celia has said about disagreeing with much of what Ansari believes about women. He states that in the muslim style, women are not really a part of the society in the same way that they are in the western societies. Therefore, if you have women being an important contributor then, according to the way things were in the time of Mohammad, that is not a muslim community.Although I do understand where the views on the role of women come from for Ansari and other muslims, I have trouble agreeing because the acceptance of the involvement of women in society seems only logical for me.
Question #6
ReplyDeleteHe is talking about the clashing of ideas and values of Western Societies and Muslim ones. He give the example of one wanting women and men to be mixed in society and one wanting them to be separate, so they can not possibly coexist, it doesn't make any sense - how could they? I want to believe that everyone can coexist, that all societies can be mixed into one so that we are all equal, but I don't think this will really happen, nor am I sure that that would be a good thing. I think that the most we can ask for is for societies to be accepting of each other, not to bash each other or try to stop each other from practicing their beliefs, to a certain extent (meaning that as long as it's not dangerous, and that they should be knowledgeable about each other's societies. They don't have to live together, mixed, but they should live in harmony and coexist in the sense that they can communicate and understand each other and really let each other be, but they don't have to be forced into anything. No one should be forced into anything for that matter.
Haha Gari that was very amusing, as well as insightful. When you expressed your dislike of the combination of religion and government it got me thinking about the history of religion and politics(or what I know of them). Some people say that religion was originally made to bring order to society, or set up a code for people so that they can be united through common beliefs and rituals. I see this as a valid possibility. It is much easier to control a people if you can rely on their obedience to a higher power(or the simulation of one). I mean this like how some leaders claimed devine right to rule or feigned revelations from God in order to assure compliance of the people. Politics and religion have been very intertwined since they have began... look at the book of Leviticus... laws and laws for preists, look at Dharma in Hinduism (the worlds oldest religion), and the Caste System which serves a political, religious, and social purpose.
ReplyDeleteIn the U.S.A. since there are so many different religions and beliefs present in the population, and since we are a relatively new nation, it would be impossible to base the politics here on religion. Obviously religion makes impressions on every person including the officials who make laws, but The United States is just not set up to be a religious nation. In other Countries, such as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the people have been practicing the same religion for years and years and the vast majority of the population is Muslim. In a country like this (which is an Islamic Absolute Monarchy) it makes sense to combine state and religion since faith is the main thing by which the people are united, therefore making it easier for the government to control the people, and for laws to be made, since they are predominately based on Islamic teaching. Well, anyway, i feel that the combination of state and religion is all relative to the time and nation.
6. When Ansari writes "It can only be one or the other. It can't be both" (355), what is he writing about? Do you agree? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteIn this specific instance, Ansari is writing about how he doesn't believe that a Muslim can live under the laws of Western society, 'if they embrace that divided-world view' and how Westerners can live in a Muslim world in they hold a 'gender-shuffled together' view. I would like to believe that every one may someday be able to live together in peace and happiness despite their beliefs or cultures. However, I would not be able to live in a Muslim society, simply because of some of the restrictions placed upon women. So even though I would love for people to be able to combine their cultures and societies together, if there is too vast a gap in their beliefs I do not think that they will mesh well. For example, if one group of people strongly believe that slavery should still be in place while another opposed it, these two groups will not be able to coincide without one submitting to the other. This may be a bit extreme. However, If a society believe that women do not have the same rights as men and you place someone who believe the opposite of this in said society, this person will have trouble living in a society that goes against everything they are for. So despite that fact that I wish two societies could come live side by side and accept one another, I don't think at this point in time that it's possible, just because humans as a people have a hard time living with and accepting something that is foreign to them or different to what they believe. Note: This doesn't mean that I believe that everyone should accept each others beliefs. For example, the Nazi's held highly different beliefs than that of those who fought against them. There are certain belief that are simply unacceptable.
6.
ReplyDeleteTamin writes that there are two realms of social behavior that cannot coexist in the same place at the same time due to their fundamental diferences. These two realms are the one in which women and men are together and given the same opportunities in every aspect of life, they "walk the same streets, shop the same shops" etc. the other realm is that in which men and women are completely separated except in the home (between husband and wife).
He says that our world cannot be both, which i do not really agree with. I see that he says that the two cultures cannot be combined and i definitely agree with that... the realms are opposite, and they cannot be merged without losing their significance. I do believe though, that these two realms can coexist harmoniously in separate parts of the world, as long as both are educated about the other and that there was freedom of motion between the two, so that each person could find the realm that was best for them.
2. What does Ansari mean when he reflects on his conversation with an Afghani villager about the upcoming elections and says, "It struck me that what Western planners call "democracy" was an extraneous apparatus this man shouldered because he had to, under which load he carried his real life as best he could" (352)?
ReplyDeleteWhat I feel he means is that the Afghani villager sees democracy as completely different then how we see it. The way he saw it reminded me of how caliphs were elected- any good Muslim could have the job. That was the same reasons the Afghani villager gave for electing his candidate, he was generous and the villager even says the candidate was a true Muslim. This completely contradicts the west’s politics and election process of debates etc. to the Afghani villagers, from what this man said, it seemed it was something that he had to do, as he did not seem very passionate about the election as a whole, and it was more like acknowledging a good Muslim and well-liked person in the community. for this villager, giving his candidate his vote was more as giving him an award for being a good Muslim, as opposed to if he agreed on his policies etc as it is in the West. what he meant was he shouldered the burden of taking part in the voting, but for him it was a personal part of his real life, this local hero. overall, it emphasizes that it is the opposite of the West, as we take democracy as our right and not as a burden but as a part of our whole philosophy towards life.
. Does Ansari think that if the West and Islam simply sit down and really understood each other that all the discord, arguments, and acrimony would melt away as mere "misunderstanding?"
ReplyDeleteLike I mentioned in class today, I do understand the radical Muslim's point of view and how they see us Westerners. Our idea of giving back or helping out others is more something for propaganda instead of sticking to what the real significance is, serving God.However, I know that in our belief and probably as well as in Islam, we know that God has made us all different. Not one of us are the same, and this was his plan in creating the Earth. If we were indeed all identical, what would separate the riteous from the non-ritous? If the radical Muslims acheived their goal to kill all blasphemous people commiting shirk and other sins towards Allah, the whole world would be full of saints and is that what they want? Isn't Islam supposed to be a challenge as in aren't they supposed to prove that they are better than the other sinners of the world? If they're are no other sinners of the world, how can they do so? In conclusion, I do not believe that understanding other people's religion would solve anything because in my opinion God or Allah decided to make everyone different and this great motley is what we call the world.
6.
ReplyDeleteWhen Asani says that it "can only be one or the other", he is referring to how Muslims cannot live in a Westernized world with the point of view that men and women should be separated in society, and Western people cannot live in Muslim societies under the opposite view. I think this is very true, and can reach further. Muslim beliefs are too conflicting with those of Western society in general for Muslims to live under its practices. And I cannot see myself living in a Muslim society, having been raised in the Western world and under its practices. The two differ too much to coexist in the same place, and therefore must exist separate from eachother.
i think that in the world you can have both. I do not believe that you can have both within the same society, there would be way to much confrontation. The idea of the medinans going against the meccans would again come back and fight because they believe that the west is corrupt, and they could not live if that was within their society because they would feel as if they were corrupt as well if they were living there. They would feel the need to change if they were in a corrupt society, therefore they couldnt live together.
ReplyDelete3. I think Ansari is referring to importance of the Islamic community and family-based belief system. Obviously, people are individuals, but segregation according to one's economic status is a sure-fire way to break up a community. It creates friction and resentment; but I also think that Ansari is commenting on the astonishing prevalence of self-interest in our society. More and more, people have the tendency to only think for themselves, and although that is a good thing is some ways, it creates a distance between people, even if they share history, culture, and language. Personally, I think this problem is most prevalent in the West, because although our society has progressed (just as countless others have), we seem to be falling behind in the category of seeing ourselves as a whole community. People have been turned into money-making machines, family has been left behind (in some aspects), community has fallen a part, and everything is now all about instant gratification. Islamic culture is so centered around family and community, that "westernizing" it would almost be taking a step backwards. There is constantly a want for "stuff", and the younger generation (unfortunately being my own), is becoming horrifically focused on "stuff". I realize I sound fairly "anti-West", but I think Ansari makes an extremely valid point on the way Western Civilization is headed - and that's not a very good place.
ReplyDelete3) Having studied Islam, why would you think that Ansari sees the Western attempt "to atomize society down to the level of individual economic units"(353) as a bad thing? [hint: think about the Umma]
ReplyDeleteIn our studies of Islam, we have always focused on how it is based on the community and Muslims follow Allah to make it a better place. Through things like alms, Muslims are able to take care of widows and even poor children. It's a religion really based on helping others, unlike the West. Here, i do think that we are obsessed with being rich, we are selfish and only do things for our own self-interest. We should also be trying our best to help the needy and our main goal in life shouldn't be " how can i help myself" but "how can i help others". Even here at Sacred Heart which is supposed to be a "community school" and has goals devoted to helping others, we still HAVE to have prizes or dress down days for us to actually bring in items. Our society transforms us into self interested individuals which is completely opposite of the Umma which is what Islam holds to a high standard.
This actually really reminded me of Hard Times and how there was a division between the cold, hard calculating capitalists and the religious, kind people. The charatcters that represented capitalism only cared about buying things cheaply and selling them at a high price to make profits. The christian characters had none of these beliefs and always put others needs before their own. I think that Islam is definetely right and i think that we have to stop being so selfish and only making money for material goods that don't acually matter. What actually matters is family, friends, and neighbors and we should try to emulate the Islamic societies in this aspect.
1. What does Ansari see as the underlining reason for some Islamic radicals ' hatred of the West? Is is that they "hate democracy and
ReplyDeletefreedom?" From what aspect of Islamic history do you think this view might arise?
Ansari, thinks that the reason why islamisc radicals or at least jihadists have a hatred of the west is because they think that the west is morally corrupt and that the people in the west are not just keeping their corruption isolated among themselves, but that they are spreading their corruption to other parts of the world and to muslim children through entertainment, like television shows for example, which don't uphold "islamic social values" or even the idea, usually, that religion is important.
Based on islamic history, i agree with Danny in that this reminds of how the muslims didn't like the meccans, who they thought were pagans and also "morally corrupt", and therefore they raided the meccan caravans and then went to battle with them as being the minority and then won, in which they eventually took over the meccans. This, along with the idea of spreading peace through guns, might give muslims the impression that they might be able to stop the west from being morally corrupt or even take over the west, like they did with the meccans, through violence.
3. Muslims sees the Western attempt "to atomize society down to the level of individual economic units" as a bad thing because they see it will eventually cause every person against each other as a competition for material goods since the Western World is all about Materialism rather than being a good person. Also they see that the Westerners create this facade that what they are doing is for the greater good, such as: human rights, gender equality, legal equality, equal punishment, freedom of speech etc. Since the West is all about capitalism, the Muslims feel that "individual economic units" are created by making decisions based on self-interest. They see that the goal of the West is to get rid of the class structure of society into just economic units. In order to achieve this the Muslims feel that the West is polluting the world with their ideas to achieve this goal, so they just want to get rid of the Western ideas completely. And in order to do so both cultures will have to fight to the end of one of their cultures.
ReplyDelete#6 when Ansari writes “It can only be one or the other. It cant be both” (355), what is he writing about? Do you agree? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteHe most obviously he means the statement to refer to the way women are treated: women’s and men’s realms can be completely separate or completely combined- a nation can not sustain both beliefs. Women must be separate or equal not separate and equal. Less obviously he take this one example of western and Muslim differences and connects them to a whole: when he says “it can only be one or the other,” he means that the socio-cultural differences are so vast there is no way to compromise in the middle.
It has to be noted that this conflict does not only involve Christians and Muslims as is often generalized, it is more an issue between liberal westerners and conservative Muslims. For example there is a huge tension between the Jewish population of the world and the Palestinians regarding the conflict on the Gaza strip. The fact that Islam is a lifestyle composed of all encompassing ideas (“for how politics and the economy ought to be manages, a complete system of civil and criminal law,” p. 356) it is against not only the Americans but the majority of the west’s religions and even general cultural beliefs that are instinctive to us, just as we are opposed to general cultural beliefs that are also innate to them.
Because of all these differences I agree with Ansari that there is no really middle ground compromise to be made. All that we can do is try to address a different angle of the situation and prejudice that we never had before. I believe that this will begin with education, and not as my mother says ‘sending in troops to teach the women democracy’, but OUR education. We should be taught the history of the relationship of the world from all angles and without any bias views. If this is not achieved than our attempts to “war on terror” will have been futile.
6. When Ansari writes "It can only be one or the other. It can't be both" (355), what is he writing about? Do you agree? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteAnsari does not understand how true, dedicated Muslims can live in Western society. He is saying that you can either live in the east and be real Muslim or you can live in the West and practice whatever you choose; however, you cannot be considered a true Muslim. He claims that it's not possible to be both because the west and east have such different views on the world. They also have extremely different customs. It just so happens that Muslim beliefs and customs are very similar to the east's customs and beliefs. Therefore, Ansari thinks that a true Muslim can only be considered a visitor in the West, because they morals and customs are so different. I strongly disagree with this statement because the United States, which is the focus of the West believes in freedom of Religion. It may be harder to become a true Muslim in the west because there are no Zakat taxes or people that ring a bell from the Muezzin that calls all people to prayer. However, it is not impossible. If someone is a staunch believer of Islam; then, it should not matter where they live. The only qualification to becoming a Muslim is to say the creed in full belief. Therefore, to claim that people in the east have a stronger connection to Allah/ Islam in general is an huge problem because it's completely inaccurate. The only way I could actually agree with this statement is if there were statistics to prove that Muslims in the west are less religious than those in the east.
1. Ansari says that muslims are "trying to restore what was originally meant" and that is the reasoning behind the anger towards the west. Muslims are going back to their definition of "pristine original". The violent aspect comes from when Muhammed encouraged his followers to raid the Meccan caravans. I think that the Muslim community can to a certain extent protect themselves from Western influence with out using violences, especially extreme sporadic attacks, which dont seem to be converting many people. If anything these attacks are drawing more attention to the west in Muslim communities, through the media and news.
ReplyDelete1. What does Ansari see as the underlining reason for some Islamic radicals ' hatred of the West? Is is that they "hate democracy and freedom?" From what aspect of Islamic history do you think this view might arise?
ReplyDeleteAnsari thinks the reason for why some Islamic radicals have hatred towards the west, not because they "hate democracy and freedom", but because they believe the west is corrupt. They see our way of living as immoral and simply wrong. Some Islamic radicals not only think we are immoral but are spreading this immorality through entertainment and many other forms. I think this view arose from the Battle of Badr. I think they view the west as Mecca, corrupt and chaotic and themselves as Medina. In previous centuries Medina and Mecca fought so some Islamic radicals think fighting is the answer. I think a solution to this, as Claire said is for some Islamic radicals to ignore and reject influences from the west if they feel so strongly about this. I don't think that violence is the answer in this situation
3.
ReplyDeleteFrom what we have learned this year about Islam I tend to believe in one thing about Muslims, and that is their unity and oneness of them. Although they obviously may be different because every individual cannot be the same, they also as a people adopt customs that create a uniformity among themselves. Umma is the reference to the Islamic world as one and unified. With this definition of Umma it can be understood why Ansari sees the Western attempt "to atomize society down to the level of individual economic units"(353) as a bad idea. Atomize means to separate and to divide into individual units or in this case, people. We learned this year also that there are certain attributes to religions that make them appealing to outsiders or to those that accept the religion. In Islam I think that one of the attributes are their uniformity and idea of Umma. Take for instance the tradition of hijabs that the women wear in society. We had an entire debate as to whether or not this is suppressing women or freeing them. Either way all women are required to do this and, looking at the freeing sense of the clothing, alleviates the pressure on women to look a certain way. Looking at the west and the U.S for example, we see a great difference in our culture. To me I find that the American culture in general is very diverse with its ethnicities, fashion, education, etc. But things like the Umma and the hijabs that Muslims embrace is something I think is sacred to them. Western influence can destroy these in some way and therefore, offers solid reasons for Ansari to think harshly on the West’s influence.
6. 6. When Ansari writes "It can only be one or the other. It can't be both" (355), what is he writing about? Do you agree? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteHe is saying that he does not believe that Muslims and Westerners could coexist given their traditions and customs. A true Muslim could not be able to live under Western customs, and a westerner would not be able to be able to live under Muslim customs. I would like to believe that two very different cultures would be able to coexist in this modern world, but I have doubts. To be practical, I don't think that I would be able to live under Muslim customs. I physically and technically WOULD be able to, but I wouldn't agree with many of their customs. For instance, their rules concerning women in society is something that I would not want to live under. I'm also sure that a true Muslim man would not want to live under Western customs because of the customs that contradict their own. I also think it depends on how much of the religion you believe in- such as, if a Muslim man or woman disagreed with some parts of Islam, such as the role of women, they would not have a problem with that part of Western customs. I think that if you agree with both, you can have both. But if one certainly disagrees with one religion/custom, they cannot have both.
I also think this relates to Quesiton 4 because these two worlds are so different, I dont think they would be able to just come together as a 'misunderstanding'. They are so different and do not agree with one another, there are always different points of view. So if different ways of life are separated from one another (west & Muslim), they COULD come to agreement on certain things, but if they have different views, they should keep to themselves.
4. Does Ansari think that if the West and Islam simply sit down and really understood each other that all the discord, arguments, and acrimony would melt away as mere "misunderstanding?"
ReplyDeleteI personally believe that all religions are connected on a very basic level. Obviously the traditions and teachings and texts are contradictory and wildly different, but I wonder if it is wrong to believe that what Hindus believe in is just a way to look at the Christian God. I don't know if this makes any sense at all, obviously Hinduism is incredibly different from Christianity. But like who can honestly say that any religion is the RIGHT religion? I am a strong believer in God and Jesus, but how am I to know that Krishna is not some face of God? Haha I feel like this is completely wrong to say, but that's how I think of it. I think its an easier example to look at Judiasm, Islam, and Christianity as definitely worshiping the same god - God, Allah, whomever. But all of this is not so relevant to the question. The main point is that as nice as it is to believe that all religions are the same, in this case Islam and Christianity, and maybe they are, the differing traditions, texts, and beliefs are too contradictory to ever mesh. The fundamental beliefs go head to head, the Christian belief in Jesus and the Koran. So its really an unrealistic idea to believe that such two religions could ever admit that it is all misunderstanding, because that would be denying basic beliefs.
6. When Ansari writes "It can only be one or the other. It can't be both" (355), what is he writing about? Do you agree? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteI agree with many of my classmates who wrote their comments agreeing with Ansari when he makes this statement. In this quote, Ansari is addressing the way women are treated in Western societies versus the treatment of women in Islamic societies. However, on a wider spectrum, he brings about a great question: can Islamic societies and modern Western societies coexist? I think that a devoted Muslim would be willing to live and worship anywhere. However, the difference in customs and traditions between the two societies might be too large for some Muslims to handle. In Islamic countries, women are treated completely different than I, a westerner, am used to. Muslim customs are very foreign to westerners and vice versa. Living in a culturally diverse place like New York City, I see women dressed in burqas and head scarves quite frequently. This proves that devout Muslims are indeed able to live in a modern Western world.
6. Ansari is referring to Western ideas about women and Muslim rules contrasting that. I can definitely agree with what he's saying. A lot of Muslim laws speak directly against several American customs. One example is that Muslim women and men are often separated in the social aspects of life, such as work. Another example of this is modest dress because often girls (especially teenagers) in America dress provocatively or at least not modestly. I don't think that a Muslim woman could be treated totally equally in typical American society if she was wearing a burka or an outfit of that type. However, I do believe that she could dress modestly by wearing shirts with higher necklines and pants that covered her ankles. This would allow her to follow her religion and to not feel outcast in American culture. I know that some people will be opposed to this statement, but we as humans do judge based on appearance. When somebody doesn't fit in or sticks out, we will naturally notice. Back to the main point, he speaks about the customs in Muslim society vs. customs in American society especially socially. I don't think that it would be possible to fully embrace both societies and follow both equally. There will almost always be a leaning one way or the other.
ReplyDelete#4.
ReplyDeleteHe doesn't think that could happen, the conflict is too deep. On page 353, he says, "Unraveling the vectors of those two crowds is the minimum precondition for sorting out the doctrinal bases of today's disputes. The unraveling will not itself produce sweetness and light, because there are actual incompatibilities here, not just "misunderstandings." He means that even if they did sit down and discuss it, the problems are due to a clash of beliefs, so they would only argue about it, about who is 'right' or 'wrong'. It's not a situation where the problems are just misunderstandings, and they can work it out by talking; incompatibilities and misunderstandings are two completely different things.
Also, on page 356, he says, "Many points for discussion, even argument, simmer between the Islamic world and the West. There can be no sensible argument, however, until both sides are using the same terms and mean the same things by those terms--" So, before they sit down and discuss the problems, they need to first agree on what the problem is, what the cause of the problem is, etc.
#5. When Ansary says on p. 355 "It can only be one or the other. It can't be both," he is referring to the two very different sides of society in which men and women are separated and they are equal. He is saying that their is one world with one general society. He doesn't believe that this world can be separated into two smaller societies in which people see gender equality in a different way. I do not agree with this comment. Wherever you go, whatever happens you will always find people who don't agree with certain things. Every person has their own personal opinion, continuing to differ from others' every day due to the emphasis on education and awareness spreading worldwide. It is absolutely impossible to satisfy everyone's beliefs or wishes. What if a Muslim is fully aware of and respects the laws and customs of the Western world but simply chooses to follow the laws and customs of his/her society? There is nothing wrong with that. Society has always been divided, proving that it IS possible to have two different societies based on gender roles and beliefs. Yes, these divisions cause problems but there is nothing we can do to fully solve all of them. People choose the way they want to live their life, so it is impossible to have one society in which everyone agrees to live the same way.
ReplyDelete