Orientalism

So I read and viewed several of the websites from the syllabus. I like the idea that the term "east" becomes synonymous with idea of different or foreign. Yes the Europeans did base the term on location with the Europeans of course being the place to start from. However, even those "in a the east" could continue to look east and see the US or Europe and define them in the same way that he Europeans defined those in the east, they are different. With all of these ideas of the exotic, sensual, and violent culture of the east I cannot help but wonder where these ideas came from. Yes, the Europeans did tell themselves that they were behaving selflessly, but still the ideas of the unknown and the different being viewed as less accurate seem to be present in both cultures. It is often quoted that people fear that which they do not know. This most likely has something to do with the way foreign society was classified but perhaps not everything. I like Said's idea that instead of defining what the "west" actually was, they compared it to its opposite and defined what it wasn't. This makes me think that perhaps none or only very little of the stereotypes of Islamic people were accurate and the rest of those stereotypes were just things opposite to what the west wanted associated with them. It did not really matter what the east was but rather what the west wasn't. Of course since east and west are opposites the would naturally have opposite cultures and one would be right and superior and the other wrong and inferior (sarcasm). This dualistic notion of a or b is present in many aspects of the western or European life, Ex: black and white, day and night, hot and cold.

I found the counter argument to Said's a little confusing, but I think I got the gist of it. Hope everyone had a good weekend.

The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam

Based on the Wikipedia article I really like Rumi. It is hard for me not to like a person who, despite claiming to be of a specific religion, finds other religions to be powerful and compelling.

"He does not offend anyone, and he includes everyone. The world of Rumi is neither exclusively the world of a Sufi, nor the world of a Hindu, nor a Jew, nor a Christian; it is the highest state of a human being — a fully evolved human. A complete human is not bound by cultural limitations; he touches every one of us. Today Rumi's poems can be heard in churches, synagogues, Zen monasteries, as well as in the downtown New York art/performance/music scene." According to Professor Majid M. Naini [5], Rumi's life and transformation provide true testimony and proof that people of all religions and backgrounds can live together in peace and harmony. Rumi’s visions, words, and life teach us how to reach inner peace and happiness so we can finally stop the continual stream of hostility and hatred and achieve true global peace and harmony."

Love’s nationality is separate from all other religions,

The lover’s religion and nationality is the Beloved (God).

The lover’s cause is separate from all other causes

Love is the astrolabe of God’s mysteries.^[14

I am always impressed by people who not only preach something but also practice it. So many religions preach about love and yet so often it seems as though it is overlooked and instead people focus on right belief. Here Rumi seems more concerned with a persons actions than with what belief system they ascribe to.

The Rubaiyat poems were fascinating and I hate to think that I have to write some of my own, poetry is not my forte. But here are a few of the ones I liked. They have to do with existence and our actions while here on earth.

16 The Worldly Hope men set their Hearts upon
Turns Ashes--or it prospers; and anon
Like Snow upon the Desert's dusty Face,
Lighting a little hour or two--is gone.

29 Into this Universe, and Why not knowing
Nor Whence, like Water willy-nilly flowing;
And out of it, as Wind along the Waste,
I know not Wither, willy-nilly blowing.

44 Why, if the Soul can fling the Dust aside,
And naked on the Air of Heaven ride,
Were't not a Shame--were't not a Shame for him
In this clay carcass crippled to abide?


So we have the professional above and now below we will have the wannabe, in other words my attempt.

Take all that you cherish
Stand back and watch it perish
Do not shed a tear lest it show weakness
Instead define that which is lost as garish.

What is the point or our pride
Perhaps a way for us to hide
Fumbling behind our mask
Until with reality we collide

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder
Just as it is in the hands of the clay molder
But what of that which is false
Is beauty found in the purse of the card-holder

The paper

The paper I am attempting to write looks at the similarities between Othello and Muhammad. Both are great war leaders, both have epileptic experiences, and both are operating under a delusional state. Othello is operating under the idea that Desdemona is having an affair with Cassio. Muhammad is, according to some, operating under the delusion that God is speaking to him. It does not seem that it is coincidental that the main character in a play about converting is similar to the most important member in a religion that is pushing for conversion. Shakespeare's audience would have known little about Turks and Muslims. Othello's character would show the true nature of Moors: their predisposed tainted nature, causes them to only appear one way but actually be another. Othello appeared to be a noble Christian but his absolutes and uncompromising nature made him delusional and violent. Othello's likeness to Muhammad would indicate that while Muhammad may appear to be respectable due to his success in the battlefield, and creation of a new religion, in reality he is also violent and delusional and thus those who follow his religion are also violent and delusional. In the end both Othello and Muhammad as well as the all Muslims are sentenced to eternal damnation. Othello's characterization and comparison to Muhammad results in characterizing all Muslims in the same way as Othello.

1001 Nights

So I read the story of King Shahryar and His Brother and the Tale of the Bull and the Ass. I was indeed intrigued and found it an entertaining story. Being female obviously I had an issue with the abusive tendencies. I know that there is a cultural difference as well as a large generation gap, but perhaps someone should have clued King Shahryar into the fact that his wife, most likely any wife, would not be happily content and faithful if her husband had 10 concubines and lets not even start on the concubines. Yes, I know that Islam has a long standing reputation of suppressing women and their role is supposed to be one of submissiveness and obedience but honestly. Its ok for the king to sleep with all of his concubines and his wife, and thats considered faithful but if she sleeps with another man, she is instantly treacherous and the result is her death. King Shahryar not only kills his wife but proceeds to kill all women he marries. There is a strong theme of female evil and treachery in most of the stories. I randomly picked many of them to read but most of the women have a reputation of wickedness and disobedience. Again this falls back to the cultural expectation of women but it bugs me so sorry for the rant. In the end the King does pardon his wife and perhaps he learns that not all women are vile and unfaithful but the cost of that lesson is enormous.

For anyone curious about husband beating his wife in the Bull and the Ass, let me just make a point. There is a spot in the Koran, and possibly more than one spot, where the Koran specifically says that it is acceptable for men to beat their wives when they are disobedient and send them to their rooms. The Koran is taken literally, there is no room for interpretation or representation. If it says God has hands, then in some way God has hands. Anyway, there are many, many Muslim men who do not beat their wives and then claim it to be just as it is written in the Koran; however, there are some Muslims that use sections such as this in the Koran to justify suppressing and abusing women. It is a long standing problem: one that will most likely take years of Muslim women protesting to solve.

On another note, I did enjoy the story about The Simpleton and The Sharper. I love the end where the simpleton walks up to his donkey and talks to it, and moves on. This has got to make everyone smile at the gullibility of this man. :)

The Vitkus Article

I read the Vitkus article and found that I really enjoyed his interpretation of Othello and the ideas of "turning" and conversion seem to be well founded. Othello is full imagery about moving from pure or white to evil or black. Othello is set up to fail from the beginning of for no other reason than his skin. It seems that protestant Christians did not really believe in heartfelt conversions from Islam or at least doubted that the conversion changed the nature or the people. Othello retains his violent and inconsolable side despite his conversion and slips back into that nature. The parallel between the backward moving fleet of Turks and the backsliding of Othello is something I did not and would not have noticed without having it pointed out to me. I also like the part where Vitkus shows that once Othello's "heart is turned to stone" he no longer doubts his conclusions about Desdemona or Cassio, he is convinced of their treachery. His heart turning stone shows his heartfelt conversion to Islam and thus a conversion to delusion and violence. The comparisons of Othello to Muhammad do little to help the cause of religious tolerance. As Othello becomes more distraught and deranged in his thinking he starts to be compared to Muhammad. His epileptic fit is reminiscent of Muhammad's and Othello's behavior fits the stereotype of the Muslims or Turks at the time. Othello's suicided being the last step of the conversion to Islam or a Turk nature is very well thought out. I love that Vitkus points out the even Othello's desperation to the point where he kills himself is considered evil and a form of conversion as it symbolizes his circumcision. Othello's unwillingness to repent and ask for help from God shows his lack of Christian nature and his full evil and demonic Turkish tendencies.

There is a point that where Vitkus says that conversions to Islam from Christianity were beginning to happen frequently and at a high rate. In response to this, English authorities adopted strategies to prevent the conversions by using sermons that condemned all conversions to Islam. Here it appears that the conversions where more a political problem than a religious one and that those in power used religion to combat the problem. The English authorities seemed wary of losing their power to the Turks because so many people were converting and if the English authorities were tied to the Catholic church, then it may be that the pope and the church was also concerned with losing its power and authority. I will look the role of the church tonight.

Othello

I think this might be the first time I have read Shakespeare so I bought a book that helps me understand what the play is about. I looked him up on Wikipedia and I looked up Othello there also. I have seen the movie "O" so I had an idea about the premise of the play but I must say I am really enjoying the play. I really like how jealousy is portrayed as a monster or a poison that possesses or controls people and corrupts them. There is also a line in Act three that struck me as fascinating, about the idea of wisdom vs. honesty Iago says
"I should be wise, for honesty's a fool
And loses what it works for."

Part of what I like about this is that Othello, Desdemona, and Cassio are all honest but it appears they may not be wise or are at least easily manipulated. Iago has earned all their trust and is using it to benefit and advance himself. Thus these honest people look foolish and silly for trusting such as conniving individual. Perhaps if they were wise instead of honest they could have seen through the evil plans of Iago, but that would defeat the purpose of the story.

I looked up Moor and it seems as though there is some debate as to what the term actually means. According to Wikipedia it did necessarily specifically refer to race but could also have referred to the nationality and religion of the character (see the site for more details). However, I saw someone else found it could just simply mean race. Perhaps the ambiguity of the term reflects more on the idea of alienation than specifics such as the nationality, religion, or race.

Shakespeare is thought to be Catholic and I can't help but laugh and wonder if perhaps his Catholicism helped him write his tragedies. ;) Sorry to offend if anyone is Catholic I have met some very upbeat, happy, and spiritual Catholics that do not at all fit the stereotype of the religion; however, it does at first appear to be a depressing and guilt ridden religion.

The Decameron

I thought that the Decameron portrayed Arab civilization and Muslims in a surprisingly positive light. No where was there condemnation of their lifestyle nor the idea that they were poor uneducated camel riding nomads. I was also very surprised that the use of magic was considered acceptable. They used magic to transport a man into a church and this was considered not black magic or the work of the devil but a miracle and celebrated. I like it. I was also very impressed at the relationship development between Torello and Saladin. The men cried when they departed from each other, bestowed each other with gifts and even kissed and this too was an acceptable form of affection. There are no homosexual implications between the two men but still the sensitivity and compassion for each from the two men is refreshing and moving.

Just some information

I thought some information that I have learned so far that might help everyone understand and maybe clarify some ideas for myself about the tension in the middle east. It is a common misconception that Islam spread by "the tip of a sword" however that is not the case. Most people believe that when Islam began spreading Muslims killed or taxed into poverty those individuals who would not convert religions. In some cases, this may actually have happened but most people under Muslim rule experienced heart felt conversions. Once a person lives under a culture for a period of time, they begin to adopt and understand the ways of that culture. In America, for example, everyone, on some level or another, must confront Jesus, if on no other level than they have to deal with increased numbers shopping around Christmas. People adapt and often adopt certain practices simply out of the need for conformity or comfort. Islam spread more by this than by force.

Keep in mind when reading about the Crusades that the brutality that was exercised on both sides strays drastically from the foundations of both Christianity and Islam. Christians thought that by "freeing" Jerusalem, the "holy city" from the Muslims it would bring about the end of the world, the return of Jesus, and Utopia on earth. Operating under the delusion that is was God's will they waged war and invasions. I personally think that greed, power, and the need to prove one's religion was superior to the others were also motivational ideas, either way they used religion to justify their actions and that almost always spells disaster.

As to the conflict in the Middle East, I am more ignorant that I would like to be but I know enough to get myself in trouble. Jerusalem is considered a holy city by both the Jews and the Muslims and both have staked their claims. Jerusalem holds part of the wall of the Second Temple that was destroyed by the Romans. For Jews, the only place that official sacrifices can take place is in the Temple, in Jerusalem, as specified in their teachings given to them by God through Moses. On the other side of it, there is a Mosque in Jerusalem that is considered by the Muslims to be the third holiest place, as it holds a footprint left by Muhammad. Muhammad supposedly spoke not only to Moses, but was spoken to by God through the angel Gabrielle, and thus is the superior prophet. Each religion holds Jerusalem as its center holy city, each religion has holy sites in the city. Add the holocaust and the feeling by most Jews that "never again" will they be a weakened and vulnerable people and you have a new problem in the equation. Israel was created after the holocaust, in part so that the Jews had a place of their own that they could go and feel safe. Unfortunately, creating Israel uprooted and left many Palestinians/Muslims homeless and the country Israel and the actions by the UN were not recognized by many Islamic nations. All of this results in one big mess.

If there is something that I have missed or been misinformed on please correct me so that we can all better understand.