Growing up in India, I think I might have a bit of perspective on this.

While Hindu-Muslim animosity was always a factor in India, the Muslim population in general was considered to be pretty secular for the longest time. However, over the last 20 years or so, the divide between the two communities (Hindu and Muslim) has widened. This is mainly due to the constant Kashmir dispute with Pakistan, the associated Islamic fundamentalism and the rise of Hindu fundamentalism. There is definitely more discrimination against the Muslim community in general, since many see them as a fifth column.

It is a situation that is very similar to Britain, except that India has been facing Islamic terrorism for decades before 9/11 or 7/7 or any of that.

This is anecdotal, but both me and people I know seem to attest that the number of hijab and burqa clad Muslim women have increased enormously in the last few years. Especially the all-black burqas, as opposed to the more colorful ones popular earlier. It might just be that we are noticing it more now.

As the British foreign minister Jack Straw said recently, many people in the majority community perceive this as a hostile act by Muslims, i.e. a way to keep away from the masses or a refusal to integrate into the larger community.

I just thought I should say this because again, it easy to portray this as a women's issue, but it is in fact, part of a wider and more serious issue for India (and Britain and US and Europe).

I was sort of thinking it's that, and to be honest, the muslim population all over the world needs to make an effort to integrate more, and western civilizations need to make more of an effort as well. I have been saying for awhile that these "moderate muslims" if they exists and indeed want to be taken as the majority of those who ascribe to islam, need to make more of an effort to be seen. of course, the media only focuses on extremists, so it doesnt help, but i think more could be done. if it isnt, people are going to continue to see muslims as generally extreme. this is NOT done by wearing more and more conservative clothing though.

of course, this is all easily said and done when the worlds actions against muslim countries only serve to breed the extremism we are trying to eradicate. honestly, i think this may be an unending vicscious cycle.

i think it's directly a women's issue because we're talking about discrimination against women based on their clothing.

but of course, no social issue is that simple. things are rarely just about gender...or race, or class, or religion.

while i don't entirely disagree with katie's point that the world's moderate muslim population needs to be more visible, the word "integrate" made me cringe a little. maybe i was associating it too closely with the word "assimilate"

any discussion about the burqa or the hijab tends to become a heated feminist topic because many western women see them as tools of oppression. but i think the broader issue here is that these women should be able to wear what they want even if we think they're acquiescing to ideas we disagree with... and they certainly shouldn't be facing discrimination as a result of their clothing.

and honestly, if i felt the whole world was attacking the religious practices that are central to my lifestyle (even if it's a different, extremist version), i'd probably have a really hard time stepping up to the plate and speaking the truth about my beliefs.

Um, how do moderate Muslims become more visible? Should we wear signs that say "I am a MODERATE MUSLIM!" or something?

It's a contradiction. Since we've "integrated" more, we're indistinguishable unless it's by colour, and those Muslims who are European in origin blend in completely.

And Colleen's last paragraph. My uncle was commenting on how if he had children now, he wouldn't even give them Muslim names, because of the profiling and red-flagging.

There's a new comedy up here in Canada, called Little Mosque on the Prairie, produced by a Muslim woman. I believe it was marketed to American networks and no one picked it up. This is going to sound a little crazy, but there's a good portion of the media that WANTS Muslims to look crazy and extremist, and ignores the moderates. We're not as interesting.

no, i didnt mean assimilate colleen. i wholeheartedly agree that the media wants muslims to look like extremists. and to be honest, i dont know how you become more visible (and i didnt mean in the literal way). either way however, i think its something that needs to happen, and it needs to happen in conjunction with our media getting its act together. perhaps the best way would be to have moderate leaders speak out, much like you have the extremists speaking out, issuing fatwa's on anyone and anything that is against their erroneous version of islam. i do believe that when you have muslims shown in the media burning things, rioting, and killing nuns in response to the pope saying something about islam being violent, its not doing much for any moderate cause. i know most muslims disagreed with any violence in response to that situation, but we didnt hear any of them. can this be blamed entirely on the media? i suppose its possible, but i doubt it. i would be willing to put about 80% on them though.

Katie I think it is definitely a good idea for moderate Muslim leaders to come out and denounce violence, but in that particular case it would have been a much better idea for the Pope not make that stupid comment. What was he thinking for gods sake? And did he forget the crusades, the inquisition and colonialism all justified in the name of Christianity?

On the other hand, in occasions when Muslims do speak out you‘re not gonna hear about them in mainstream media. For example there where prominent Muslims who spoke out and denounced the Holocaust denial conference in Tehran, I learned about that through Tikkun, but not a word anywhere else.

While I think I understand what you mean by integration, Katie, I wonder if you would consider asking conservative Christians to integrate also.
Maybe they could make more of an effort to be more Muslim, or at least less confrontational with all their Cross necklace wearing ?
I'm joking, of course, but see how odd it sounds the other way around?

Raj, what do you mean by the 5th column?
I am an ignoramous!

Also, over here, after those images of riots were shown in the media, the media was quick to find moderate Muslims to denounce the violence.
So I reckon it is almost always the painting by the media.
Thats what the media does, it mediates information.
We get Fox News channel here on cable, and for the first wee while I thought it was a satire. Really.
You know, like the Daily Show...

From Wikipedia:

Fifth column: A fifth column is a group of people which clandestinely undermines a larger group to which it is expected to be loyal, such as a nation.

In case of a nation, also called 'Traitors'.

Muslims are routinely perceived by many, in India, to be loyal to Pakistan, or to the larger Islamic cause in general. There are definitely extremist elements of that sort, and this causes suspicion of the community in general.

I agree with the dilemma that moderate Muslims face, and also the fact that the media wants to portray the more extremist depictions. No quick solutions to the problem, except that moderate muslims need to continue condemning both extremists as well as taking the MSM to task.

Nope, 'integrate' is not 'assimilate'. But I think that as a minority or an immigrant, the least one can do is not make overt gestures of distancing the majority.

well, you are right about the comment the pope made (although he was quoting someone else) but really, all those extremist muslims did was prove the point. also, while i am no pope fan, for once i somewhat agreed with him. i mean, i dont think its necessarily reasonable for people not to make certain comments just so the people they are directed at wont get angry, or um, riot and kill people. these are the same people that rioted and killed over a cartoon, so, i am not exactly sure if its right to stop criticizing them just to appease them. can you image if we did that with the nazis? (extreme example but nonetheless an example of what enabling can do).

i am almost certain he has not forgotteen the crusade, but it is that same past that is what makes him able to criticize the present in terms of other religions. alot of what the church did is wrong, so its perfectly ok if he acknoledges when another religious is making similar mistakes.

and YES i would ask conservative christians to integrate more lol. although, a cross around the neck is a tad different then covering your entire body based on religious laws that are inherently misogynist ya know!

Um, what Pope Bendeict said was that Islam is inherently illogical and violent . “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached� I don’t see how that bears any similarity to criticizing Nazi’s or how it is in any way productive.

As for the cartoons, the issue is a lot more nuanced than “these are the same people that rioted and killed over a cartoon� and I am not gonna get into that.
“a cross around the neck is a tad different then covering your entire body based on religious laws that are inherently misogynist ya know!� You know, because Christianity isn't full of misogynist teachings (see the quiverfull thread for example).

Nope, 'integrate' is not 'assimilate'. But I think that as a minority or an immigrant, the least one can do is not make overt gestures of distancing the majority.

Integration is positive like being socialized and fitting into society. Assimilation is like acquiescing to dominant forces like patriarchy. Acculturation is positive too because it creates the possibility of give and take between cultures.

"I will not be assimilated!"

the fact is muhummad DID bring that. of course, it all depends on how you interpret the koran just like any other religion of the book. he was commenting on extremism i believe, and extremists DO indeed believe that is muhhammads teaching. while i dont particularly think it was productive, i still dont think people need to censor themselves for something that IS true when it comes to extremists, just so they wont retaliate. my point about the nazi's was talking about how anyone who criticizes islam is often fearing for their lives in the end. (salman rushdie, theo van gogh, etc etc etc) and that just bc the reaction is bad, doesnt mean that the criticisms should stop. thats all.

of course christianity is full of misogynist beliefs, but none are quite as obvious to the outside world as a burqua. even if you ARE walking around with 8 kids, you still arent sending the message that a woman in a burqua is. i am not trying to say who is more misogynist, i am trying to point out that some symbols of that misogyny are more ostracizing then others. thats all.

ohhhh acculturation is a great word donna!

I would respectfully argue that they are just as obvious but that American culture is so used to them we don't automatically red flag them as misogynist.

i personally know many people who have many children because they want them, outside of any religious reason whatsoever. i would also argue that to say wearing a cross is misogynist would be personally offensive to many feminist christians who would not take it that way in the least. wearing a burqua (i should point out some feminists muslims have tried to reclaim it) is based on the idea that women should not be seen or heard, and continually have to be covered in order to keep mens sexual desires under control. a cross, on the other hand, represents the belief that you believe jesus died for your sins, and there is NOTHING misogynist about that (even if its not my personal belief).

I was not referring to any of the above things you mentioned.

What I was referring to was the fact that until recent decades, Catholic women could not enter church with their hair uncovered. Additionally, in many Protestant churches, the women are not allowed places in church leadership. I would also point out that traditionally, Christian marriage vows are somewhat misogynistic. I would also point out much of the Christian literature that we have discussed recently depicting women as virgin/whore and responsible for much of "men's" sins.

My point is simply that, in a culture where headscarves are unfamiliar, we of course see them in a different light. Simply that.

Yes, I totally agree that people should be able to legitimately criticize and the response to that shouldn’t be flag burning. That wasn’t legitimate criticism. That was painting all Muslims with a wide brush. The cases of Van Gogh and Rushdie are entirely different than this. Rushdie is a novelist; he got in trouble for writing fiction. He is not the Pope. He does not represent the Catholic Church. I just think when you are the Pope you shouldn't make stupid meaningless comments or quote things that someone pulled out of their ass in the 14th century, especially with the kind of history that the Catholic Church has around the world. It’s the pot calling the kettle black.
"the fact is muhummad DID bring that." Well, Katie that doesn't leave anything for discussion because I see where you're coming from and this is pointless. And on that note, I am outa here.

Actually jrav, I think you'll find women are responsible for ALL sin in the world, Eve, I'm looking at you!

How on EARTH did I miss that one?

Thanks for pointing out how evil we all are, anorak! :)

Hey, that's what I'm here for! ;)

ahhh gotcha jrav-makes sense and you are 100% correct. but a head scarf AND a burqa are again, not the same. a headscarf was worn to show deference to god, while a burqa, again, is about using women to avoid men being sexually aroused. two different things.

sojourner, to extremists, that is what muhammed brought that was different then the other religions of the book (in addition to other things). i thought that was obvious when i said

"the fact is muhummad DID bring that. of course, it all depends on how you interpret the koran just like any other religion of the book"

of course, to any moderate muslim, that is not what he brought at all, and that is not what they follow. my point is that i believe the pope was addressing the amounts of extremism that we are dealing with right now , he wasnt saying all muslims are violent. i could be wrong, and it still wasnt the best thing to say, but you cant blame the pope for their reactions. thats like saying women who dress slutty and get raped deserved it, or somehow were responsible for the mans actions.

none of that is the point. the point is that somehow, someway, there needs to be a change. but i guess that is obvious.

If 13% were a sufficiently large minority to avoid discrimination, we'd never have heard the phrase "driving while black."

katie, I see it in the opposite sense. What the Pope said about Muslims was like saying that women who are raped are slutty and deserve it, because there's no way it won't be taken badly, and it shows a shocking amount of ignorance from someone who should really know better. I'm pretty sure that what he said amounted to, "Nothing good has ever come from Islam because it is inherently evil and always has been." Quoting someone from the 14th century is just implying that people have known that for hundreds of years.

Have you seen Syriana? There's a pretty good portrayal of what makes a suicide bomber in there.

I remember that when they arrested those people in Toronto for a terrorist plot, there was a lot of discussion up here about how extremist leaders prey on fragile young people. Apparently one of the minors involved became withdrawn and vulnerable after his mother's death.

I'm suggesting that not all extremists are even that extremist. Some of them are probably just confused kids, sucked in the way confused kids get sucked into cults. That makes the problem way more fixable.

you cant blame the pope for their reactions. thats like saying women who dress slutty and get raped deserved it, or somehow were responsible for the mans actions.

No, but you can blame the Pope for being an insensitive, insulting, asshole.

There's no comparison to make, here. A woman isn't harming or insulting anyone by wearing reveiling clothing. The Pope quoted an obscure 14th century Christian emperor and targeted Islam as violent faith. He wasn't just targeting radicals and extremists. And, quite frankly, if you think that Islam is the first religion to have extremists... gah.

i would also argue that to say wearing a cross is misogynist would be personally offensive to many feminist christians who would not take it that way in the least.

Right, but characterizing Islam as "evil and inhuman" not to mention "violent"... that's not at all offensive, and we can't hold the Pope to that, because he might have just been talking about the radicals.

Gah and gah again.

What the Pope said about Muslims was like saying that women who are raped are slutty and deserve it, because there's no way it won't be taken badly, and it shows a shocking amount of ignorance from someone who should really know better.

And the response was like if a bunch of feminists decided to randomly murder men over that.

You can't always take sides. Sometimes people on both sides are assholes. It happened all the time in fights between communists and fascists, and it's happening now in fights between Christians and Muslims.

Um, how do moderate Muslims become more visible? Should we wear signs that say "I am a MODERATE MUSLIM!" or something?

In countries with large umbrella organizations for Muslims, like Britain and Canada, liberal Muslims can exercise pressure on these organizations not to participate in gay-bashing or woman-blaming. The Jewish analog of that is liberal Jews pressuring AIPAC to be less hawkish, which actually succeeded at one point.

You can't always take sides. Sometimes people on both sides are assholes. It happened all the time in fights between communists and fascists, and it's happening now in fights between Christians and Muslims.

I didn't say they weren't both assholes. I said the Pope knew better. Everyone knew what would happen. It wasn't like there wasn't a clear precedent. It wasn't like there was any benefit to him saying something so inflammatory that it even upset moderate Muslims (albeit not enough to riot and kill anyone.)

And exerting pressure on the large Muslim organizations (like in Canada, where I have lived for the majority of my life) isn't visible. Those organizations condemn terrorism all the time, but hearing someone say "we condemn the actions of terrorists" gets very little attention. It's not as interesting, and it sounds like political posturing.

Since it's not going to come from the media, the kind of visibility needed has to be in everyday life. However, since moderate Muslims are not wearing signs to label themselves as such, it often doesn't even register with people that they ARE Muslims, especially nowadays, when it kinda sucks to be a Muslim.

everyone knew what would happen, so it basically proved his entire point. i still think it was dumb of him to say, but you know who came out looking worse? not the pope. i dont know anything about the koran, so i really cant say anything, but the fact is, islam WAS the first religion to say that you can indeed kill the infidels in order to spread the prophets word. if anyone here doesnt think that that is a HUGE distinction from the other two religions of the book, then you are just fooling yourself. of course, just like any other faith, moderates dont take it that way. just like moderate jews dont take leviticus seriously . why fundamentalist christians seem to take the OT more seriously then the NT is beyond me, but whatever. and of COURSE islam isnt the first religion with extremists, its just that in this day in age, it is the one with the most violent ones. however, christianity had its time too, and it passed, so alot of people would say this is something that all religions go through. unfortunately, colonialism and imperialism is only making is harder.

as far as what goes into making a suicide bomber, i know all about it, and frankly prairielily, you will find me arguing that point with anyone who just thinks violent muslims are created in a vacuum, and that somehow its some sort of flaw in their character. you will also find me on the side, generally, of the palestinians, bc after taking a history of the modern middle east class, i was horrifed at what had actually happened and fully support two state to anyone who will argue that the israelis can just kick anyone out without thinking that their will be consequences to their actions.

i say this so you know, i am not on the side of the pope, or anyone else, just calling it like i see it in this particular case.

Prairielily, Islamism doesn't equal Jihadism. The integration I'm talking about isn't about terrorism, but about cultural issues, like women's rights.