Many question why there is hostility towards the Western/American culture. Dr. Stadelmann summarized this in a few key points.
- Viewing the Western/American culture as corrupted/satanical
- Sucessful/Effective teaching of Communism
- Muslim claims to the territory of Israel
- Reaction against the modern world (women gaining power)
- Being aware of poverty and inability to do much about it (Americans are seen as wealthy)
- Islamic Apocalypse
And now we see more and more people following the Designer religion: picking your own doctrine.
"I believe in this, but not that, but I'm still ______________"
A good quote that ended the seminar -> "With additional knowledge of world religions may save your life." This was right after Dr. Stadelmann shared his stories about his son.
There were so many other points that Dr. Stadelmann covered, but I'll let the other AFIL members comment on what they learned.
This was actually one of the most difficult seminars we have had yet. Very thought provoking but I felt like we would have benefited from having specialists from different religions as a way to have different view points.
ReplyDeleteOne of the things I had a hard time following and I wish I could have had an opportunity to ask about it was definitely the reaction against the modern world especially women. I still feel like all religions and all countries are still sexist, and women are looked down upon because of their gender. I definitely see this going on in the US especially with some of the presidential candidates. Something that my Mordern Middle East class discusses frequently (especially after looking at Ayatollah Khomeini's regime in Iran and the crack down on women's rights in other areas) is that for some reason, some of the candidates seem to have a stand that is firmly against women's rights and the betterment of women. We often ask ourselves what the difference would be between a Christian male-dominant, women oppressing American society and a fundamentalist Islamic/Iranian (emphasis on Iranian) that suppresses it's women? I worry that sometimes all of the women's struggles during the Women's Rights Movement and all of the progress we have made will be lost. However, I think that the more women are educated, the more power they will have and the more they will be able to fight back.
I also don't think that the Apocalypse view is just limited to Islam. I can't can't remember if Dr. Stadelmann commented on this, but this is happening more and more in Christian societies as well, so we definitely should not limit it to Islam.
Lastly, I think that we should re-evaluate the statement of "The Muslim claims to the Israeli/Palestine territory." This is a particularly difficult topic to discuss simply because it is hard to remain neutral and unbiased. If you look at it from an Arab or Palestinian side, the land of Palestine was inhabited by Palestinians long before the Jewish Israelis began to emigrate there during the early 1900's. Native Islamic Palestinians, Christians, and Jews lived in harmony up until after WWI with the secret treaties (Balfour Declaration, Sykes-Picot, and the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence). After WWI, the Zionists began looking for a place to call their own, and they looked to Palestine because it was it validated the statement of "people for a land with no people." Obviously, ignoring that Palestinians inhabited this area was morally and politically wrong. One of the main issues that triggered this conflict is and was the Jewish Question. No one wanted the Jews in their countries, and they were looking for a safe haven of their own especially after the Nazi regime. The Jews were persecuted and killed and kicked out, and many turned a blind eye. However, this is what is happening to the Palestinians. There is no easy way to solve this conflict, but trying to create harmony and balance and peace is a good start. I disagree with Dr. Stadelmann's comment that the Palestinians should be absorbed be by other Arab countries. This is completely unrealistic because of the historical context of the Palestinian refugees and because every Arab country has it's own culture. Islam and the Arab world is NOT monolithic nor homogenous, which is something that a lot of people forget. It would be like Mexico taking over Texas, having the persecuted Mexicans (victims of the drug war) take over people's homes and land, and telling the Texans to go integrate into other parts of the country simply because they are American and they are all Christian and speak English.
Like I said, this is very difficult topic, but having more knowledge and establishing more tolerance and a less biased approach is one way to help society understand the depth of this subject.
I agree with the above comment (is that you Pualina? I feel like we talked about this a little bit) with the part about gender role in religion. The problem with all religions is that they came 2012 years ago for Christianity, 1433 for Islam, and even way longer ago for Judaism (google says 5772). During those eras, people had different traditions and believes some of which are unacceptable for us today. Therefore, religions were accused of promoting those habits, such as, women's postion in churches or their obedience to their husbands. That's why I think It's very important that religion get updated, in some sense at least, especially when it comes to issues like this gender role. People are becoming more and more open and women are getting more rights and privileges. Are they going against religion then? This is something I find very common in all religions.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you Norair (and yes that was me, Paulina). I think that religions do need to modernize because otherwise, women will be in this awkward place where they are either "against religion" or "against themselves" or "against society." It should be a choice for each woman and each family what their roles are, it should not be defined FOR them. Great insight Norair!!!
ReplyDeleteThank you Paulina and Norair for raising up these issues.
ReplyDeleteFirst issue:
--women roles: From a woman perspective, I think that we should not mingle religion policies and political (national) policies. And yes, I do support separation of church/mosque/temple and state [ ofcourse, religion and politics cannot be COMPLETELY separated because people will always believe in some sorts of religion, even atheism, and will be influenced by those basis standards for everything else--morality issues, politics, etc]. However, with the more tolerating trends toward religions, the majority religion that got elected into nation-state positions should consider the rights and benefits of the minority religion. Thus, I agree that a nation should not have laws or rules that are limiting women the power and the resources to choose for themselves. (marriages, educations, basic rights, etc)
Religious policies toward women, however, is another issue. As I shared with Norair last Thursday, I visited a mosque ( it was a cultural opening experience for me) and chatted with the women there after the sermon. I asked them ( in the most polite and respect way that I could) that if they felt oppressed by their culture and religion ( wearing veils, being socially and economically dependent, etc?). Surprisingly, both the college-age and elder women told me no, they can see the reasons behind all this and they are actually glad being "oppressed" (using the Western standard). Furthermore, being a Christian woman myself, I am not in favor of certain women positions/roles in church, ie: pastor. My point is: we can only see other religions that are not our own, in a cultural-outsider perspective, trying to change or judge a relion's concepts and policies about women would not be beneficial (in my perspective).
Conclusion: Women and men should be given the will to choose what religion they will comply with. And the nation state should protect the basic rights of both.
Second issue: Palestinians. On the moral side, I agree with Paulina on the starting of creating peace, harmony and balance between Israelites and Palestianians, which is always a right thing to do. However, realistically, Dr. Stadelmann stated some very valid problems with the two groups living together. First, there is a disparation of the number of people and the amount of land that can support them. For Israel to agree to become..let say a country similar to India or Bangladesh, where everything is so crowded, this would take a very long time and/or a very strong drving factor. Secondly, the Palestians want more than just land to live in, they want recognition and if posssible, the land's right. Thus, Dr. Stadelmann's plan for the Palestians to migrate to different Arab countries is not a perfect plan, however it is a more feasible plan. ( still up to the Arab countries though)
ReplyDelete--I also agree with Dr. Stadelmann on the contraceptive issue, that contraception is different from abortion. Dr. Stadelmann did not discuss much about Hinduism and Buddism( they do seem quite "peaceful" compared to the others ;P) What are their roles in world religions and international issues. Is communism a religion?
Nga, thank you for your points. You bring up a lot of valid statements and well-thought out reasoning. On the issue of women and oppression (especially in Islam), I still hold my ground that women should decide how they want to live their personal religious life with no interference from the government. However, I think the opinion and answers of women will vary depending on what country they come from, what kind of government they have, and how they are treated. We read and conducted research in my class about this specific issue--whether or not women in Islam consider themselves oppressed. What it boiled down to was that educated women tended to believe that they opposed the veil and felt that they had limited rights in the workforce, but these women also had more say in their marriages, in education, etc. Women who did not have access to education did not say they were oppressed and saw nothing wrong with the system they lived in. If you ask a woman in Iran, they would probably say that the government, while it has gotten a little bit better since the Velayat-al-Faqih and Ayatollah Khomeini, they are still oppressed. Ask a woman from Jordan, Tunisia and Egypt, they probably won't agree and would say they have more freedom. However, countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia require that women veil, while Tunisia and Turkey have outlawed the veil. This is where I see the problem. First of all, dating back to the colonial period when Europe was carving up the Middle East, the idea that Islamic women were "oppressed" was born from the Europeans, not the people. It is similar to the things that our speaker yesterday was talking about the stereotypes that Africans face. Thanks to colonialism and a white male dominance, the Middle Eastern men and women were said to be lesser human beings, were completely degraded and deemed "savages" that needed to be helped. Ironically, these same white males and white females were under Victorian rule, which was equally "oppressive" to women at the time. Therefore, the idea that people are oppressed is not entirely seen by Islamic women. What they want is equal opportunity and equal rights, and the veil is not as big of an issue as Westerners make it out to be. All of this info comes from Leila Ahmed's books and research. But again, my point is that women may not be "oppressed" but they are still struggling for equal rights (which all women are doing all over the world), and their view points depends on class, education level, etc.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the Palestinian/Israel conflict, I still disagree with Dr. Stadelmann. His views are not necessarily realistic, because in reality, if you look at the population of Israelis versus the amount of land, there is more land than Israelis. The Israelis are continuing to expand into areas to have further control of the land not because they need it, but because they want it, they have the money, the government provides subsidies, benefits, and discounts, and it's all to prevent the Right to Return. The fact the world turned a blind eye to the Israelis when they were taking over land that was not theirs is wrong, but we cannot expect to boost these same Israelis out of the land either. However, the West Bank was given to the Palestinians by Jordan so that they would have a place to return, but Israel appropriated it. They are extending their settlements into the West Bank to prevent Palestinians from coming back. Like I said, from a geographical stand point, the Israelis are beyond comfortable in their people to land ratio. If you look at the Gaza Strip, which is the most densely populated area in the world, more Palestinians live in that area than any Jews living in Israel combined. Also, the Israelis took over the best lands, are cutting off water supply to these people (as we all know, water is a HUGE issue in the Middle East), and are still boosting these people out of their lands and homes by means of terrorism. There was talk in 2005 (and it is still being discussed) of a really fantastic deal that would give the West Bank back to the Palestinians without uprooting the Jewish settlements. However, the current Israeli president keeps overlooking these peace talks and further encourages land settlement in the West Bank. The people to land ratio there is the equivalent of individual Texan families owning ranches of 100+acres, and that area is not properly being cultivated and it is still uprooting the Palestinians who chose to stay after the 6 Day War. The Palestinians cannot and will not be accepted into other countries. As I have mentioned before, the Arab world is not monolithic or mono-cultural, so they would not be easily integrated. Also, Palestinians refugees are still poor. They are not welcome in Jordan (they were kicked out by King Hussein after the PLO began to create problems) and they are not welcome in Lebanon because of the PLO and Hamas. Syria and Iraq are in turmoil internally, so where are these people to go? The only solution is to create a two-state plan, and have both the Israelis and the Palestinians learn to respect the dignity and human rights of one another.
ReplyDeletethank you for all the information and clarification above. How much I have learned on a Friday afternoon.( whisper: I think we are the only two that on here on a Friday. hahaha)
ReplyDeleteNow first, I apologize for my misuse of word: should not have said realistically on the part of Dr. Stadelmann's plan as to imply other plans as being unrealistic. Thank you so that i won't make the same mistake in the future...hopefully.
Secondly, your two-state plan ( I am sure many people would agree with you on this plan) is a good, even the best scenario that could and should have happened. And you have successfully convinced me that there is enough land for everybody. ( thank you for correct information).
The remaining reason for my concern is that again, for both of these groups to learn how to live peacefully among each other is a huge task that would take years or even centuries AND a very very strong driving or push/pull factor ANd strong leaderships.( like Europe underwent 2 big wars, India and Bangladesh separation after independence from England). I believe that Dr. Yarak ( on Issues Facing Africa) would call this factor "luck" in history. Like the cases of Vietnam and Korea, in 1975 when the Northern Communist Party take over the South ( They violated the Geneve Treaty (in 1954 or 1960)that neither would march over the 17th Latitude. Most southern Vietnamese refugees fled and taken by third countries (US, France, Canada, etc). Korea, however was able to remained separate. Given the current situations in the Middle East, with Irag/Iran/Israel tensions, there are less possibilities that Palestine will remain neutral/peaceful if it becomes an identity ( though Singapore did it during the Cold War under Lee Kwan Yew's superior leadership, so this could happen)
Nevertheless, I think you are right. If the UN+US+China+Russia+Latin A+ Middle East countries agree on this issue (achieve near total concensus like it is very closely being done in the case of Syria), they can some how diplomatically pressure Israel to accept this AND maintain a peaceful transition. This could very well be achieved. (hmm..is that why I see AggiesForPalestians campaigning around campus and facebook recently). Great job Petitetexane! the power still lies with the people.