Marmz

Funny that the 'Western values' are being claimed to be at fault. Which language are we all debating in? To say that one viewpoint is of less value than another is simply xenophobic. Shall we continue this discussion in a more Eastern language?

Simon P

Islamophobia is an interesting coinage that we've been hearing over the past few years and one that I totally reject. A phobia is an irrational fear of something however, religions, as belief systems, posit themselves well within the ambit of philosophy and human discourse. In fact Islam itself has traditions based on the long debate and deep discussions of the Greeks etc. My objection to Islam and all monotheisms are equally rational and thus -phobia is a deeply erroneous coinage.

The current Islamist mindset is an almost treasonous assault on the values of debate that lie at the religion's origins. Perhaps all religions become like this eventually though, hugely distorted through time, based , as they all most surely are, in supernatural fluff, insubstantial as opposed to transubstantial. Faiths just become a set of rules to follow for the dependent mind. Alas however you don't get at truths by pointing at things and saying"Do this" , Religious texts 'work' through discussion and debate, they are works of metaphor, allegory and simile. It is in this interpretative realm that their value, if any, lies. It would seem though, that our morality has evolved and far outstripped 2000 year old bronze age modes of thought. Enjoy your stonings and lashings. It's the women I feel sorry for.

VJ82

Kiai Carita:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Nice!

ChrisH

Sufehmi says:

I disagree with French gov't, by banning jilbab they are taking away people's right to belief.

---AND---

I have no problem with people sporting symbols that they like/belief - crosses, goth accessories, jilbab, etc. In any day, I WILL support my fellow humans right to belief in Jesus / Buddha / gods / etc; and to express it.

Again, the rule is only applicable at schools, and such, and applies to ALL students, so also to Muslims...

And they are definitely NOT taking away your right to believe

It is backwardness of people who tend to feel higher than this rule, because they feel a headscarf makes you a better believer.

I have yet to discover the Surah in which Allah tells women to wear headscarves.

Valkyrie

wak atan:

Just keep out of this discussion with your "peabrain" outburts.

Simon

wak atan, thanks for that. However if you have anything to contribute...maybe a fact or a considered opinion, I'd be keen to hear it.

wak atan

I TOTALLY AGREE WITH Sufehmi.

Golddust, Simon, and Jeanne Hachette, You all are Islamophobia. If you live in Indonesia right now,please close your mouth..

Simon

Oh, and the reason the bikini argument fails is simply because nowhere in the world is a bikini acceptable in an office. It's like saying it's not acceptable to wear socks only in an office. It is not, anywhere. So it's not a reasonable analogy.

But for that, and as much as I think all monotheistic religion is rather delusional I defend your right to believe in what you believe as long as it does not impinge in any reasonable way into my, or others' lives.

One thing that bothers me, and I guess I'm asking for a rational answer as to why this is, is the question why the most devout nations in the world seem to always suffer the most..why are they the poorest, why do they have the highest deathrates from disease, why are they the most polluted on the planet, why do their ferries and planes full of the devout, go down so often, why are they plagued with corrupt politicians, why do they get hit time and time again by horrendous natural disasters and so on?

And yet the least devout nations in the world...Scandinavia and parts of Europe, Australia and NZ, are amongst the wealthiest, have the healthiest populations, highest standard of living, long life, great enviroments etc. And China, which is about 80% atheist is dominating the planet economicaly at the moment.

I'm sure religion has an answer for this (they always do, even if it takes a while to find these things..waiting for the Pope to hear from god etc) but on the surface it would seem that either god is not as great as claimed, doesn't exist, or we're all worshipping the wrong one. Maybe we should all head back to Zeus for a while and see if he can sort this out??

Simon

sufehmi, the use of 'western values' remains a nonsense unless you want to exclude China, much of Africa and so on. I think you mean non-islamic values which is quite another thing. It's a common misuse of the phrase though.

One scientist that claims a faith hardly does anything but underline the exception proves the rule adage.

Your data about the US also was pointless unless overlaid with the educational data. It rebuked nothing at all. Please look at the data for western Europe, Japan, Australia and NZ. You should also find the data that out there that relates to the growth of under 30yr atheism in the US. All this is readily available.

Einstein...he was repeatedly clear that his use of 'god' related not to a cosmic god but the wider use of god meaning the power of nature.

Sorry but my arguments still stand.

sufehmi

Also, please do not throw the straw argument about 'Western values' into the mix. It's a nonsense

---------

That's very kind of you, but no, it's perfectly sensible and relevant to this discussion.

Here we got jilbab, a piece of Muslim belief and culture, judged with Western values. Example, you claimed that it's oppressive, Jeanne's comment which implies her Western standards, etc. It's, of course, your rights to have such opinion; and then I was simply pointing out that fact to you.

I'm intrigued by your bikini argument (which I think fails)

---------

It's an analogy, and if such simple analogy/example about "adherence to law/rules" fails, I'm at loss on how to explain it. Perhaps I'll try again later.

Anyway, I disagree with French gov't, by banning jilbab they are taking away people's right to belief. That's pretty backward for a country which is supposed to be an advanced nation.

I have no problem with people sporting symbols that they like/belief - crosses, goth accessories, jilbab, etc. In any day, I WILL support my fellow humans right to belief in Jesus / Buddha / gods / etc; and to express it.

Why is a gov't having problem with it?

But I haven't got the whole story on the matter. Perhaps their intention was not on abolishing people's right, I don't know. Do feel free to clarify if you know.

note; burqa is different matter, it's cultural - not religious.

but I do thoroughly object to the force and indoctrination that causes so many young women to wear it

----------

Yes, it was the people that are oppressive - not the jilbab. It's just a piece of cloth.

So is the law - some people currently argues that US laws are oppressive for criminalizing marijuana. Some will argue about alcohol age limit. And so on.

But, laws are necessary to maintain order.

There is nothing immoral or immodest in doing so

---------

The Westerners themselves have started to back down on these - you may have read the ban on zero-size models.

You may claimed that they are not immoral, but studies have found and concluded that they oppresses female's psyche. Many became depressed, many developed disorders such as bulimia, and so on.

I won't quickly judge people showing off as being arrogant or such, but I ask that we reconsider it. By focusing on just the physical aspects, we're neglecting the substance. There are too much already the focus on beauty over brains in the media.

People should be able to be happy with what they are, not by how they looks. Humility & modesty is good and helpful to many in this case.

sufehmi, nobody is arguing with the fact that overwhelmingly the US population believes in god but try overlaying that belief with data on education and you have a very different picture.

---------

You said that "In much of the world there has been a slow but inevitable drift away from all religion", so I gave you the FACT on USA that single-handedly rebuked it.

This is not fun, believe me, but I just can't stand it when someone made claims, with no reference; while actually contradicting to the facts.

then it ain't many and rather underlines my original statement

---------

You said "no(ne)", not "many". So if I can present just one, then your statement is already rebuked. So I did.

Einstein was very much a non-believer in God as you know it

---------

You claimed : "no Nobel winners in the sciences ... believe in a personal (or any other) god"

Einstein believed in some sort of cosmic God - which falls into "any other) god" category, also especially when we consider his rejection of atheists.

Okay, let's say you still contested Einstein. Then, try Abdus Salam, Muslim Nobel Laureate in Physics.

By the way -- seems like some comments have went missing here, or was it just my imagination...? System error?

didikarjadi

Can I suggest that all who are spending so much time on this issue, direct a little attention to the story 'Court Throws Out Child Abuse Charges Against Controversial Cleric': it deserves your views. I am afraid mine may have been seen as rather too emotional and have not been posted.

Kiai Carita

I think the jilbab is very sexy and many others do to. Try googling the words jilbab + porn and you will get the picture.

Simon

Jeanne, no I'm not against it necessarily and mostly agree with you. My point was that I find that if sufehmi's rather silly argument over bikinis in offices was that people should be forced to adhere to the norms of a nation or work place, then he could not possibly argue with the French position.

Ying, I fully support your right to wear the jilbab. But the point of this article was that others, most notably Aceh’s Daya Ulema Association, were insisting that she should wear it. That is oppressive, objectionable and none of their business in my opinion. It is your choice and should be made by no other person (but most especially a bunch of morally suspect self righteous old men from Indonesia's stoning province).

Jeanne Hachette

Simon, it looks like you are against the fact that the French government is setting up a law against wearing jilbab in Schools. I would like to remind a few facts to everybody in this forum.

France is a laic country and there is separation of state and religion since around 1908.

Being a laic country, no religious sign is allowed in schools. This rule applies to everybody, Christians, Jews, Indhus , Muslims and Buddhists. My mother , being a Christian and a school teacher never wore a cross since she always followed the rule. The problems started when some Muslims coming from other countries ( a minority actually manipulated by some fanatic clerics) decided they were above the rule.

The French government tried by negociation and discussion to make them obey the rule which purpose is to have no difference between the children and avoid racial tensions. Same thing as the kids in Indonesia, in the UK,etc.. wearing a uniform. Since they were still not following this rule, the government had no choice than to issue a law. If somebody emigrates and I say emigrates (not visiting)to a country, he has to follow the laws , rules and customs of this country whatever his religion is, otherwise he will not integrate completely. As far as I know, no muslim has been forced to come to France recently since there is no more colonies. If some Muslims cannot follow the rules in France , there is a country where they can emigrate it is called Saudi but for sure they cannot expect the same welfare money from their Saudi brothers.

By the way , everybody is free to wear jilbab in the streets in France. The rule applies only in certain places. The only pb is now with Burka and niqab since nobody wants to talk to a curtain and since these outfits have been used in the past by terrorists to escape police like in the UK.

Simon

sufehmi, nobody is arguing with the fact that overwhelmingly the US population believes in god but try overlaying that belief with data on education and you have a very different picture.

And do you really want me to go through that adherents list? Start with the one first one:

Einstein was very much a non-believer in God as you know it.

His words:

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

and:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

I note their are no biologists in that list and the vast bulk of the scientists from a pre-Nobel era come from the time before Darwin, before we knew as much as we do now. Newton also believed in Alchemy.

If that's the sum total, from all those who've been awarded Nobel Prizes in the sciences, given too that many of those in that list are added fraudulently to it, then it ain't many and rather underlines my original statement.

ying

I started wearing jilbab few years ago against my parents' will. They thought I was too young too handle the responsibility. Nobody oppressed me, and just like Sufehmi's wife, I wear it with pride. I still have a career and everybody in my office, mostly expatriates, not once ever told me that I was a victim of a religion and I sincerely believe that none of them think less of me just because of my head scarves. They simply respect me for my competence and personality. Sure there are a lot of women who were forced to wear head scarves and many restraints come with the territory. But it was their parents, their societies, and their government who oppressed them, not Islam. If you don't believe in Islam and it's rules, hey.. fine by me, but thinking that all Muslim women are miserable for being obliged to cover their hair is just wrong.

Ps: I'm not the only one, there are hundreds of my friends who wear jilbab without any force, and no, it does not necessarily make me a better person, but at least the attempt counts, and it's a reminder for me to keep on trying.

Simon

sufehmi, I am very sure that the further up the tree of science you go less and profess a faith. "your friends" are neither here nor there. A survey two years back in the US concluded that only 3% of members of the National Academy, the preeminent body of scientists in the US claim a religion. This in a land where 85% of the public say they believe in god. Similar figures can be found across the world.

In developed societies, including much of Asia, there is a direct correlation between education and religious belief....the higher the level of education attained by a person the less likely they are to believe in any god.

So much of what we have, in less enlightened times, accepted as religious teachings or dogma fails when we look at it rationally that the only way a scientist can possibly allow religion and science (at any reasonable level) to co-exist is to partition off, to close off, part of your mind for the irrationality that is religion.

I'm pleased that your wife enjoys her cloth, it is her right to wear it if she does so from free choice, but I do thoroughly object to the force and indoctrination that causes so many young women to wear it. There is also a great beauty in the human form and any woman should be free to stand tall without it if she wishes. There is nothing immoral or immodest in doing so, and indeed, to shame someone or to claim that it is immodest is the height of evil.

Also, please do not throw the straw argument about 'Western values' into the mix. It's a nonsense and does you no favours. It's a minority of peoples all over the world who ask or, in many cases, force their female members to wear this cloth.

I'm intrigued by your bikini argument (which I think fails). Are you saying you back the French government in their attempts to remove the jilbab from schools etc? It seems so.

th.sigit

This is an interesting thread.

Sufehmi, my fellow Indonesian (apparently), and others, who seem to also love Indonesia and made positive critiques on Indonesia.

Not like Sufehmi, I am not a Muslim. This is not a big problem where I live. And like Sufehmi does, I guess, there are many Christians and Muslims and a few Hindus and even fewer Buddhists in my family.

We have a saying here in Indonesia: "Put things in their own context". Sufehmi did it very well.

We all know the story of an elephant, taken from every different perspectives, and yielded a false picture of the animal. Luckily the three blinds within that story doesn't have to act based on their perception of that elephant.

Yet the discussions of those blinds have brought new perpectives toward all. Still blurred for every one of us, but better than before. Coincidentally I stand near Sufehmi, that is why I would agree every single thing that he said. While for others: Yes, I see some lights there. Different here, but still some lights.

Enough about different lights, different religions, different background, etc.

Now back to the elephant.

If Aceh doesn't feel represented by Qori, then Qori can not say that she's a representative from Aceh. It is that simple.

If Qori didn't say that she represents Aceh, there might be no chance for her to join the contest. If Jakarta or any other provinces did not give her a chance to join the competition, where would she say which province she is from?

There is a saying "Like water on a taro leave". The water always pour down, except if some energy moves it upward.

Better than wasting energies over debates, I'd rather sit and watch where the water flows and if some energies --either good or bad-- will change its path to the earth.

sufehmi

In much of the world there has been a slow but inevitable drift away from all religion

---------

Funny, the US census disagree with you :

http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/06statab/pop.pdf

(search for "protestant", you'll find the statistic comparison for all religions in USA between 1990 to 2001)

sufehmi

Actually Johorian there are very few scientists who adhere to a religion. Virtually no Nobel winners in the sciences ... believe in a personal (or any other) god. We know this simply because it's been researched.

--------------

Right ...

http://www.adherents.com/people/100_Nobel.html

Simon, some of the brightest minds on Earth have open enough mind to accept the possibility of coexistence of science and religion.

That's a fact. There's no use denying it.

Sure, most of them are hostile & unhappy to how a religion is being implemented. But they are not hostile to the religion itself, nor to the concept of God.

For example, Einstein is not known for obeying religious authorities, but he humbly expresses his respect for religious values and "cosmic being". And, he's actually offended by the arrogance of some atheists.

Now it's up to us, whether we'll be wise like these men & women - or be arrogant, or worse, bigoted about it.