Fashion

As I walk the streets here in London, I always seem to notice how classy every female on the street looks. No one really walks out of the house without their makeup and fancy clothes on. It is rare that I do not see a female in one of the following outfits: skirt, tights(or panty hose in some awesome-looking pattern), heels, and a long fashionable coat.. or skinny jeans, high heeled boots, and some sort of fashionable coat.
I guess I just don't get it. I mean sure, some of those women really do have to look good. They're going to work, or really just starting their day, or whatever else. But why do they ALWAYS have to look so good? Can't I just see one woman on the street who has her hair up in a messy bun with no makeup on and wearing sweats? No, of course not. It's just me out there.

I'm convinced that these people are very focused on image. Image seems to mean more here than it does in America, which is sad. People who dress like I did for the first few weeks seem to be treated like second class citizens. We are looked down upon. Why? What is the point of all of this? To be successful in London, you must look good on the outside. How about the inside? Does that matter? Or is it just like the US, where all that matters is how big your chest is, how thin you are, and how many wrinkles you have.
The whole idea of image is ridiculous. Although I do believe that for a job and what-not you need to look good, a woman should not always have to put in a bunch of effort just to run to the store. I will not miss having to wear make-up to run to McDonalds at 11am when I go back to America.

Wilders

Geert Wilders, a controversial member of Dutch Parliament tried to make his way into London on February 12, 2009 to show his short movie, Fitna to the members of the British Parliament. Though this is a seemingly innocent action, one must take into account that Fitna is a movie that tries to prove that the Qur'an encourages terrorism. He also explores Islam in the Netherlands, as well as the religion as a whole. Obviously Wilders seems to have a problem with Islam. He seems to believe that pretty much all of Islam is about violence and that it has absolutely no place in modern Holland. He fears that soon it will consume the land and turn everyone violent.
Anyways, when Wilders announced that he would be flying to the United Kingdom, the Home Secretary of the UK banned Wilders from the country because of his extremist views. Despite the banning, Wilders still attempted to fly into the United Kingdom. However, he was denied entry at the border. The reason behind all of this? He is too extreme, and the country did not want to cause lots of chaos within the country.

Although I do not agree with Wilders' view of Islam.. I do not think that he should have been denied entry into the United Kingdom. Isn't there something here called freedom of speech?
Many people have the same views of Islam as Wilders does, I just don't quite understand why he was denied when other radicals are able to be let in. He wasn't staying long.. just to be there for the showing of his film and to discuss. It is ridiculous that he was denied entry JUST because of his views.

However... because he was denied entry into the UK...he was on my plane ride to Schipol.. and there was a huge media frenzy on the plane and I got to be interviewed by Dutch National Radio. Of course, i made all Americans look stupid and uneducated as usual. Its my calling in life, I think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEMqnCgPHOQ

Islam

As of last year, I have become increasingly interested in Islam. Something about it being the scapegoat of recent events has helped me gravitate towards trying to figure the religion out, beginning with its roots. That is why I super excited about going to the London Central Mosque with my Religion and Violence class. I had been to a mosque before in my hometown of Detroit, Michigan, but I figured this would be a different type of experience.
When I attended the Mosque here in London, I first noticed that compared to the Mosque in Detroit, it was much larger. This mosque had two floors and lots of offices that surrounded a quad-type area. Inside there was a bookstore, an eatery, and also a library, much more than what the Detroit mosque had! The prayer room was also much different than it was back at home. It was much smaller and was not as decorated. The women also had to sit on a separate floor at the London mosque, rather than just in the back of the room.
Also, when I went with my class I was able to have a tour guide, which was real nice. He was able to answer all of my questions that I had about Islam and the mosque. Although when I went at home I was able to just participate and pretend as if I knew what was going on, I was not able to know why people were doing specific things. Thus having a tour guide really helped me to understand the people who attended the mosque and some of the fundamentals of Islam itself.

The fact that the London mosque allows these types of tours to take place shows that they really want Islam to be looked at in a different light. They open up their doors and their sacred place of worship so that people can learn about Islam, and see that it really isn't violent. So many people in this world have such a negative perception of Islam as a whole just because of the terrorist attacks that have taken place all over the world, so by allowing the public in to ask any question they like, and seeing what happens in these huge places of worship, they enlighten the public and teach them about what is really happening in their own backyards.

As for the differences between each visit I have made, I think it's just a matter of architecture and of culture. Considering how important the Islamic culture is in London, the building that the Muslims worship in is bigger and has more floors so that it can accommodate more people.