[hermit22]

ok, after almost a year of silence, I figure I might as well weigh in on this...since this is my master's thesis, after all. I'll admit that that may lead me into territories of bias, although I attempt to remain fair.

Undertoad, I respect you, but you are grossly oversimplifying things. Are there huge Muslim communities throughout the world raping girls everywhere? If I recall correctly, that article attempted to show that Muslim animosity toward Jews was ripe in the ghettos of Paris, where a large number of Algerian and Lebanese have sought a better life. It's about culture shock, on one hand, and basic human carnage on the other. And it's about the youth soaking up the worst parts of their heritage, mass culture and ignorance, relying on the words of extremists for guidance.

But nevermind that for a second. Islam, as interpreted by some, is actually very tolerant - much like some Christian sects are way more tolerant than others. It doesn't teach that "those that are different from you are bad" - it leans more towards tolerating their differences. (For example, the sop for Muslim empires in the Arab world was to allow different religious groups to thrive, albeit with fewer rights. Hence, the formerly huge and influential Jewish community of Baghdad, and the sprinklings of Maronites and Coptics throughout the Arab world.) However, I've never really bought the line that the rules about women are meant to protect women from men. An example would be the coverings, which are theoretically worn to protect women from men's instincts - if the men don't see those sexy legs, they won't automagically think with their dicks and set up for the grand rape scene.

Uryoces, what you're talking about was built pretty clearly in Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations - and then discredited pretty quickly. It seems intuitive that people who only view Western culture from the outside would see it as either a pinnacle of desire, a threat, or somewhere in between. Following this, it would seem that jealousy would turn into animosity and merge with the latter situation - thus leading to the Clash Huntington talked about.

If that was the case, though, there wouldn't be a burgeoning middle class in Lebanon and Syria. And every Arab (or, in the gross generalities espoused pretty much everywhere these days, every Muslim) would be touting a gun, a grenade, and a burning American flag. It's not like that, despite what the media makes it seem. There <i>have</i> been female leaders of Muslim nations (Pakistan and Bangladesh come to mind), but not enough. And of course, everyone's rights need to be expanded, as long as the general cultural sensibility is protected (or else it will be fought every step of the way; see the fight over gay rights in the US and the Anglican church).

The real problem here is the generalities. Calling it an Islamic problem doesn't actually address the problem, but offloads it onto something simpler and easier to grasp. It takes detailed examination to actually understand society, or what drives a social group. Take this example: Strains of anti-Israel that have morphed into anti-Jewishness in an economically stagnant immigrant, minority community that is basically shut out of society (no melting pots in Europe) has ended up in violent acts and thuggishness. Ridiculous, indefensible, non-condonable - but none of that matters if the motivations aren't understood and eliminated. And that means punishment; that means rehabilitation; that means prevention.

And Maggie, I've said it before, but that word is one of the worst misuses of terminology I've ever heard.