from richard russell, in his 80s and still writing a daily stock market letter… Dow Theory Letters
I watched the film, “Babel” last Sunday. What interested me most in the film was the sections about Japanese girls. What was so fascinating was that these girls acted exactly like US teen-age school girls – dancing, flirting, dope, hanging out at the malls. Then yesterday I read that the Chinese kids are doing the same thing. They all want the latest in clothes, accessories, shoes hipness, etc.
This from an article in the March 18 Los Angeles Times – “Chinese kids, especially in the cities, have a cocky, smart urban edge to them. If they see something that doesn’t match their lives, they’re going to lose interest fast. . . At first glance, Beijing’s twenty-somethings could be easily transplanted to an American college campus or skate park. Walk the streets in northwest Beijing, the city’s university district, and you will see young women window-shopping in tight jeans and knee-high boots and guys with spiky, dyed hair bopping to their iPods.”
It struck me that the US’s greatest export is not necessarily democracy, it’s the US culture, which has become very open, very open to sex and money, very celebrity-conscious. This is the supposed “dangerous” culture that is traveling around the world, and it’s this culture that Muslims fear. It’s the very opposite of the sexually-oppressed culture of Islam.
As I thought about it, I realized that if anything is going to undermine the strict conservative culture of Islam, it will be American teenagers promoting their openly-sexual orientation and culture, thereby threatening other cultures the world over.
As subscribers know, I believe the great change we’re living through today is the empowerment of women. First that empowerment was social and a force for social and political equality everywhere, including in the work place. But now it’s become more confrontational – it’s women’s empowerment in sex. Women now demand equality in sex, and this terrifies many men. Women who are openly sexual arouse men’s fear of inadequacy. Thus, the rise of Viagra and Cialis and the widespread fear of impotency.
How long, I wonder, will it be before the women of the Middle East take off their black hoods and demand equality. No wonder Muslims denounce the West as jaded menace. The real menace for traditional Islam is the world trend for women’s equality. And even more terrifying – equality in sex.
The ultimate act calculated to crush sexuality in women – the practice of female castration so prevalent in area of Africa and also among Muslim nations (look it up in Google).
I wonder how many people know that during Muhammad’s time, any woman would have wanted to be Muslim… or at least I know I sure would have.
They were the most liberated, and Islam strived to create equality. Women could inherit, own property, be educated… which were things hardly any woman in the western world could do.
There was NEVER the question of “do women have souls?” in Islam.
It’s the culture – the things that are OUTSIDE of the Koran, that have created the injustice and inequality. The traditions that came BEFORE Islam, and the people who are doing things in the name OF.
That said – it’s an interesting theory, though one I don’t necessarily agree with, but still intriguing.
Female empowerment is a very interesting subject. Sexual liberation is certainly one way to go about it. Taking away sexuality completely is another – which is where hijab comes in for many women who CHOOSE to wear it.
Has anybody ever worn hijab? It’s quite comfortable, actually, and many find it liberating. This coming from women who are not in or from opressed countries, of course.
In the end, choice and freedom is so important, no matter how that person chooses to express it, sexually or otherwise.
I read an Op-Ed piece that came out of Time or Newsweek by a Muslim commentator that said basically the same thing - those elements in the Muslim world who hate us hate us for our “freedoms” which they see as an affront to Allah and hence their religion. The rest of the message stated that if we would “reign ourselves in” they might not hate us as much …
So gee, if everyone in the US just acted like they were very conservative Muslims, everything would be fine.
I guess the real message is that until and unless Islam changes internally - ie moves away from the conservative and/or “radical”, we will always be hated.
I’m not sure if this applies to Muslim society in general or not, but I know it applies to many societies in the world who have a problem with us. The root of their problem with us is our consumerist culture. Our culture is very individualistic whereas most other non-European (even European, but not as much so) cultures are very collectivist in nature. If you look at the ideals for each culture they are exactly what the other is striving to move away from. Couple this with the ultimate individualistic entities, American corporations, and you have nothing but conflict ahead. Corporations have no ‘moral’ guide, the corporate leaders are legally immune from liability, and the leaders have a financial responsibility to shareholders to make the corporation as profitable as they can (check out the old Ford Corp. vs. shareholders legal case). Anyway, I’m not trying to be a proponent of collectivism or individualism or of Muslim culture. I just think that Americans as a whole are not nearly as educated as they need to be in world affairs.
Cue the night I got so bloody angry I nearly walloped a guy from Wisconsin who asked at my friend’s 30th birthday party which part of England he was in - at a nightclub in GLASGOW!!
Scotland, England, Northern Ireland, Wales. = FOUR countries. WE in Scotland now also have our own damn Parliament! UK = Britain.
Now get this too, for those who DON’T know…
Want to REALLY annoy a Scot?
Here is a How-To:
Tell them that you are “Going to see your penfriend over in Britain.”
Watch as the Scot (with a sinking heart because he or she has already anticipated the answer) asks you “Which part of Britain, as in which country?”
Be a very confused American and say, "Isn’t Britain JUST England?
Watch as Scot turns apoplectic with ill-concealed rage, holds his or her hand in a tight ball controlling the urge to pan your damn lights in, and bellows.. “THERE ARE FOUR BLOODY COUNTRIES - NOT ONE!!!”
Yeah… I have had to physically hold “The Man” back several times over this common, but REALLY unacceptable misconception by many of our friends “Across the Pond..”
See, I was under the impression that it was very insulting to refer to a Scot or Irishman as “British” or from “Britain”, even though the UK is technically also called Britain…I thought that it was a horrible insult to use the word “British” to lump you all together, because it would imply that you were all of the same nationality.
Intellectually I know that United Kingdom=British Isles, but I would never use the word “British” to describe anyone other than an Englishman/Englishwoman. I would make sure to specify “Scot”, “Scotsman”, “Irishman”, “Welsh lady”, what have you, and if I did lump you all together I would make sure to say “British Isles” or “United Kingdom” to avoid insult.
Interesting thread. As an american/bermudian dual citizen. I can technically live in england. not sure if I can work there which would be helpful to know soon. I’ve never been but would like to try it out. Would like to spend time in all four countries. In my rugby club I got very close to many different groups of people. Irish, scottish, welsh, english, canadian. I was the only yank and I would have and figuratively ran through a brick wall for any of these guys. I’ve been on many sports teams in the states and you get alot of backstabbing and stuff I don’t care for. Of course that is probably the same anywhere but I got the impression that if the cultures these men came from even fractionally exhibit the traits my rugbymates did these are places I need to spend alot of time in. It is my goal to do just that. I can truly say these are people that you saw their hearts and personalities and not things like color or where they were from or what class they came from. Especially after I really fully understood the wonderful accents they have. The joys of experiencing the world beyond the 50 states. Love it!!
I agree with the above post. One of the things I have always found fascinating with the world is culture. There have been so many vast differences from country to country in everything from ideas, dress, beliefs, and cuisine. It’s what makes each country unique and interesting in their own ways. The idea that these things may be gradually given up in favor of a single uniform cultural expression makes me sad.
The last thing I want to see when I travel abroad is more gangsta wannabes, Starbucks, and references to Britney Spears’ shaved head. But it is what it is, I guess.
Islam is a beautiful religion…but it enrages me to read shit like this about “Hygiene for the Muslim Woman” where the imams talk about the “necessity” of female genital mutilation. Female Circumcision
This page about Shari’a law states that while males only have their foreskin removed, the law mandates that the entire clitoris be cut out (excised). Islamic Law on Female Circumcision
They even discuss the “benefits” of female genital mutilation. Give me a break. That is so awful. It makes me so angry to think about women and girls suffering like this.
The clitoris has eight thousand nerve endings, more than anywhere else in the male or female body. That is more than in the eyelids, fingertips, tongue…and it is TWICE the number of nerve endings in the penis.
Have you read Tyler Cowen’s work on culture and globalisation at all? I think he makes an interesting and provocative point. Here is an extract from one of the Amazon review’s on 'Creative Destruction"… (nice summary even if he has trouble spelling).
The concept of cultural diversity has multiple and divergent meanings.
Cultural homogenization and heterogenization are not alternatives or substitutes; rather, they come together.
Cross cultural exchange, while it will alter and disrupt each society it touches, will support innovation and creative human energies.
Cowan begins with the concept definition of cultural diversity as it can be understood in multiple contexts. He explains that diversity is not a single concept. First, “diversity within a society refers to the richness of the menu of choice in that society.” The most fragile cultures, with respect to technology, also tend to respond in an explosive fashion to the introduction of new ideas and technologies. They have proven to adapt these technologies and innovations in ways their trading partners never anticipated.
Secondly, Cowan states, “Many critics of globalization focus on diversity across societies comparing whether each society offers the same “menu of choice” and whether societies are becoming more similar,” through the process of globalization. He notes that generally, “diversity across societies is a collectivist concept because it does not consider the choices faced by an individual.” A libertarian would allow “individuals to create their own meaning.” For the purpose of Cowan’s argument, libertarians foster individual creativity which is agreed by most to be the backbone of culturally diverse arts.
Limitations placed by government, or activists for that matter, on the market of exchange can significantly alter the outcomes, possibly even the survival of, poorer cultures. Cowan believes that poorer cultures especially, should be allowed to participate in cross cultural trade, even at a social cost, in order to experience the “gains from trade” with outside cultures. As Adam Smith argues in his, Wealth of Nations.., “the best vehicle for innovation is a free market system.” Cowan’s argument borrows from Smith’s ideas and appropriately applies this concept to his claim that cultural diversity requires innovation for the survival of those poorer cultures which would otherwise cease to exist in the long run. As the adaptation process of the new technologies an innovations occur within a poorer culture; it becomes interwoven with aspects borrowed from foreign cultures. Cowan defines this concept later as “synthetic culture.”
Synthetic culture refers to the fact that pure societies are mostly obsolete. For example, "The original ideas and inspirations of tribal groups of Zaire have been commodified, and shaped into new synthetic forms, for the purpose of courting outside markets Cowan retorts that the same “defenders of diversity decry the passing of previous cultures and implicitly oppose diversity-over-time,” without regard to the necessity of innovations for survival. Cowan’s argument has remarkable semblance to that of Cass Sunstein’s “Paradoxes of the Regulatory State” where Sunstein argues that “redistributive regulation harms those at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder.” Here, Sunstein points out that often times regulations have “perverse effects” which serve opposite to the activist intended agendas. Likewise, Cowan argues that those who defend cultural diversity for the sake of “creative purity” will, if successful, risk eliminating the cultures they claim to be defending.
Cowan’s final “primary lesson” states that “Cross-cultural exchange brings about value clashes that cannot be solved scientifically, in the short term. In the long run however, any “disruptions and alterations will inevitably support innovation and creative human energies.” The whole world has a broader menu of choice (from participating in cross-cultural exchange) but older synthetic cultures must give way to newer synthetic cultures.” Cowan states, “As we might expect from cross cultural contact, it supports greater diversity of identity, or ethos, within each society while limiting diversity across societies. As identities move closer together, they cease to make artistic production distinct in varying locales.” Cowan claims however, that these ethoses are replaced inevitably by a greater number of partial “niches.”
Cowan concludes that “Modernity allows us to enjoy the diversity of the world to a very high degree, relative to the previous ages, even when it undercuts that diversity in some regards. The mere fact exists that change will produce serious disappointment for individuals who seek to preserve particular markers of cultural identity.” Cowan states “that it is not obvious (nor reasonable) why markers from the past should have more normative force than other possible markers.” So, “Are market exchange and aesthetic quality allies or enemies?” Cowan believes that not only are market exchange and aesthetic quality allies, but they are also interdependent and make the whole world better off. Cross cultural exchange broadens cultural diversity across cultures and its influences within some cultures may even save them from extinction.
you could always live in London - which isn’t really part of the UK at all…
Identity is a complicated thing these days… white English people see themselves as English but also as British. (It’s interesting that nobody really celebrated St Patrick’s day, and for example display of the English flag is frowned upon in many office environments). Non-black ethnic minorities in England tend to see themselves as British more than English. But then in Scotland and Wales there seems to be more of an identification with the country rather the Union. This is from a government survey and broadly fits in with my intuition. But of course at ground level it’s much more complicated…
Two Theories of Ijtihad
As tensions between the Muslim and Western worlds continue to grow, there is one largely overlooked area of activity that may play a role in building bridges: ijtihad. While ijtihad can be a tool for understanding Islamic principles in a way that fits the needs and challenges of individuals and societies, there is no universal agreement on its proper role.
The Islamic tradition has two conceptions of ijtihad. One is a very narrow, legalistic notion of it as a process of juristic reasoning employed to determine the permissibility of an action when primary sources, namely the Koran and Sunnah (Tradition of the Prophet), are silent and earlier scholars of shari’a (Islamic law) had not ruled on the matter. For those who hold this view of ijtihad, who can perform ijtihad is often more important than the need for ijtihad.
In reality, this view is designed to stifle independent thought among Muslims and to confine the right to understand and explain Islam to Muslim jurists. It is also opposed to reasoning, because it essentially says that reason shall be employed only when the texts are silent and no medieval scholar has addressed the issue under scrutiny. Reason, according to this viewpoint, is the last resort for understanding the will of God. For those who hold this view, opening the doors of ijtihad would make no difference, since their very conception of it is impoverished and limited.
If you wish to comment on this article click here.
The second view, often espoused by non-jurists and particularly by those who advocate some form of Islamic modernism and liberalism, envisions ijtihad more broadly. For modernist Muslims – and I believe that Islamic modernism deeply influences all “moderate” Muslim thinking – ijtihad is about freedom of thought, rational thinking and the quest for truth through an epistemology covering science, rationalism, human experience, critical thinking and so on.
When modernist Muslims claim that the door of ijtihad has been closed, they are lamenting the loss of the spirit of inquiry that was so spectacularly demonstrated by classical Islamic civilization at its peak. They are, in a sense, nostalgic for Ibn Sina’ (Avicenna) and Ibn Rushd (Averroes), for al-Farabi, al-Biruni and al-Haytham – scientists, philosophers and jurists of Islam’s “Golden Age”. Thus, modernist Muslims see ijtihad as the spirit of inquiry and desire for all forms of knowledge, not just religious and juristic, that needs to be revived to revitalize and restore Islamic civilization.
As long as a majority of Muslims equates Islam with shari’a, Islamic scholarship with fiqh (jurisprudence) and real knowledge with juristic knowledge, ijtihad will remain a limited jurisprudential tool and closed minds will never open. Islamic modernists have been trying, since the time of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, the great Muslim reformer of the 19th century, to re-instill a sense of the value of knowledge and an appreciation for science and philosophical inquiry. Yet, as a Muslim, I acknowledge that there is no research institution worthy of recognition in this way in the entire Muslim world.
Muslims must go back and read Ibn Rushd (Fasl al-Maqaal, The Decisive Treatise), and learn how he bridged science and religion, in order to understand that Islam has nothing to fear from reason and so to open their hearts and minds to rational thought. This is the goal that Ibn Khaldun, the great 14th century Arab historian and philosopher, would have called the “engine of civilization.” Modernist Muslims subscribe to and advocate this spirit of Islam.
Islamic reformation can be understood in two different ways. It can mean the reform of society to bring it back to what have been considered Islamic norms and values: most Islamic and Islamist reformers are pursuing this type of reform. The other reform strategy is to question the existing understanding of Islam and seek to articulate a reformed understanding of Islam: this is where Islamic modernists and rationalists have always plied their trade.
Here, ijtihad is employed as an instrument to critique prevalent understanding and articulate a more compassionate, more modern and, perhaps, even a more liberal understanding (which some would call the truly-traditional understanding). The rethinking of Islam vis-à-vis democracy is an area in which Islamic reformist thinking is taking place.
In my opinion, Muslims can modernize without de-Islamizing or de-traditionalizing. India and Japan have shown that societies can modernize without losing their traditional cultures. Muslim societies today have to distinguish between Islam and culture, retain their Islamic essence and reform dysfunctional cultural habits that hinder development, progress, equality and prosperity.
