The alliance between the Left and Islam
I, and many others (especially those from the Right) have noted that the Left tend to pander towards Islam (and some non-western immigrants):
“More perplexing to Ms. Hirsi Ali is the hostility leveled at her by some on the left for her efforts to challenge Islamic law and teachings.” [1]
“It’s becoming increasingly difficult to talk honestly about Islam. For liberals in particular, it’s a kind of heresy to suggest that Islam, at this particular moment in history, has a problem.” [2]
“The Left's Strange Love Affair With Islam.” [3]
“The mystery is why the left has welcomed into its ranks individuals who by any definition sit on the ultra-right.” [4]
My first impression is that it seems bizarre because those two ideologies are at odds with each other. Islamic cultures are notorious for their contra-leftist [5] (or progressive) behaviour and beliefs, especially regarding women’s rights, LGBT rights and oppressive violence.
This results to dubious situations where the Left often blinkers in the cases of unusual high rates of rape and homicide by Muslim minorities and non-western immigrants. Think about the rape cases in Cologne [6] and Rotherham, but this is just the top of the iceberg. It is estimated that about 80% of Central American migrant women and children are raped [7]. I won’t go into the general statistics in Europe, but the pattern is the same. The mind boggling part is that I often hear leftist excuse such behaviour or they become unreasonably sceptical, which is ironic given that the same group are known to proclaim ‘rape culture’ [in areas with the lowest rates of rape]. Ben Affleck called it “gross” and “racist” for pointing this out. [8]
Their sycophantic attitude completely subsides their ‘progressive’ oratories. Hirsi Ali comments on this silence [9]. The lack of outrage from the Left must be a symptom of a deeper issue here because on the surface it is too absurd. There is some kind of alliance between the Left and Islam. Ms. Hirsi Ali has no good answer to this question, and she is not the only one.
So what is the explanation for this remarkable phenomenon?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://observer.com/2016/04/why-ayaan-hirsi-alis-criticism-of-islam-angers-western-liberals/
[2] http://www.salon.com/2015/11/17/the_left_has_an_islam_problem_if_liberals_wont_come_to_terms_with_religious_extremism_the_xenophobic_right_will_carry_the_day/
[3] https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/06/30/the-lefts-strange-love-affair-with-islam/
[4] http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/why-is-the-left-so-blinkered-to-islamic-extremism-8679265.html
[5] I do not use the word liberal, since its popular use has lost its meaning. I use the word “Left” instead.
[6] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/10/leaked-document-says-2000-men-allegedly-assaulted-1200-german-women-on-new-years-eve/#comments
[7] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/central-america-migrants-rape_n_5806972.html
[8] https://youtu.be/vln9D81eO60?t=113
[9] https://youtu.be/sOMjEJ3JO5Q?t=431
“More perplexing to Ms. Hirsi Ali is the hostility leveled at her by some on the left for her efforts to challenge Islamic law and teachings.” [1]
“It’s becoming increasingly difficult to talk honestly about Islam. For liberals in particular, it’s a kind of heresy to suggest that Islam, at this particular moment in history, has a problem.” [2]
“The Left's Strange Love Affair With Islam.” [3]
“The mystery is why the left has welcomed into its ranks individuals who by any definition sit on the ultra-right.” [4]
My first impression is that it seems bizarre because those two ideologies are at odds with each other. Islamic cultures are notorious for their contra-leftist [5] (or progressive) behaviour and beliefs, especially regarding women’s rights, LGBT rights and oppressive violence.
This results to dubious situations where the Left often blinkers in the cases of unusual high rates of rape and homicide by Muslim minorities and non-western immigrants. Think about the rape cases in Cologne [6] and Rotherham, but this is just the top of the iceberg. It is estimated that about 80% of Central American migrant women and children are raped [7]. I won’t go into the general statistics in Europe, but the pattern is the same. The mind boggling part is that I often hear leftist excuse such behaviour or they become unreasonably sceptical, which is ironic given that the same group are known to proclaim ‘rape culture’ [in areas with the lowest rates of rape]. Ben Affleck called it “gross” and “racist” for pointing this out. [8]
Their sycophantic attitude completely subsides their ‘progressive’ oratories. Hirsi Ali comments on this silence [9]. The lack of outrage from the Left must be a symptom of a deeper issue here because on the surface it is too absurd. There is some kind of alliance between the Left and Islam. Ms. Hirsi Ali has no good answer to this question, and she is not the only one.
So what is the explanation for this remarkable phenomenon?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://observer.com/2016/04/why-ayaan-hirsi-alis-criticism-of-islam-angers-western-liberals/
[2] http://www.salon.com/2015/11/17/the_left_has_an_islam_problem_if_liberals_wont_come_to_terms_with_religious_extremism_the_xenophobic_right_will_carry_the_day/
[3] https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/06/30/the-lefts-strange-love-affair-with-islam/
[4] http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/why-is-the-left-so-blinkered-to-islamic-extremism-8679265.html
[5] I do not use the word liberal, since its popular use has lost its meaning. I use the word “Left” instead.
[6] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/10/leaked-document-says-2000-men-allegedly-assaulted-1200-german-women-on-new-years-eve/#comments
[7] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/central-america-migrants-rape_n_5806972.html
[8] https://youtu.be/vln9D81eO60?t=113
[9] https://youtu.be/sOMjEJ3JO5Q?t=431
Comments (124)
Like "Left" has a precise meaning.
I find that most of the basic terms that describe common political views have been debased. It isn't just that people have mis-used terms, though they have done that. It also the case that politics have also changed. For instance, a lot of what the far left (communists and socialists) once consisted of has crumbled. The concrete referent isn't there any more. What used to be the far right (libertarians and communist conspiracy paranoiacs have moved in their positions relative to some past "center point". New positions which have nothing to do with libertarianism or anti-communism now occupy the far right. Center? Who knows what the center is?
Plus we now live in a "post-factual world" where the binding between rhetoric and reality has been snipped. In this world the two parties say various things during the election campaigns and may or may not remember what they said after they have won, and may do something else entirely different after the inauguration.
Politicians and PR firms have worked to death terms describing left, center and right. Liberal? Conservative? Who knows what they mean? The continuum of positions on certain issues has shifted "rightward".
Eventually these terms will either be replaced or new definitions will be found, or both. It will happen in the fullness of time. Until that happens, we are stuck with vagary. "Democrat" and "Republican" can only refer to organizations and specific persons. What any given Democrat or Republic will or will not vote for is increasingly difficult to work out.
Neo-paranoiacs suspect the wealthy classes of deliberately destroying the means of rational political discussion (the words) as a way to destroy opposition to their rule. This isn't anti-left or anti-right. It's designed to disenfranchise everyone with New Speak.
It's a double minus downer.
It is complicated. Remember that Ms. Ali rose to prominence in Dutch government based on claims she suffered abuses in a Muslim country, then, just when she was exposed by Dutch journalists that evidence showed that her real life story was completely different than what she claimed, she left the country to help right-wing extremists fan anti-Islamic sentiment in the US. They probably don't mind her criticism, (they are quick to criticize Islam, too), but she represents a trend toward racism.
Quoting Emptyheady
That's true. The values of the majority of Muslims tend to be what would be considered "right" relative to western society. They would oppose abortion, gay rights and insist that religion be raised to prominent importance in society and politics. There are similar conservative values for gender roles in society. I remember back in 2000, most US Muslims were backing Bush for president.
If you a referring to the incident I think you are, remember that he was speaking to Bill Maher and Sam Harris, who are as "left" as you can get. They criticize all religious beliefs as ridiculous and that they lead to social disparity. I think that Ben Affleck was correctly pointing out that their criticism of Islam was only fueling racism, fear and hatred in the left. Some of their claims of bad behavior tended to conflate social and religious beliefs. Their opposition to all religious beliefs only created yet another island of intolerance.
I don't think there is any alliance between Islam and the left. It should be clear that politics these days is not defined by any ideological or political alliances, but oppositions. There is opposition between the left and the right-wing religious extremism. They might overlook the absurdity of embracing virtually the same values and irrational beliefs in an attempt to fight against the more persuasive mass hysteria. Once you allow that to spread, it is more difficult to reason or argue for progressive values of liberty and tolerance.
I agree, it's utterly absurd. You have groups of western progressive homosexuals speaking out against the 'racism' (Islam isn't a race) and oppression that Muslim minorities face, and yet the majority of those Muslims literally think homosexuals should be punished by death.
The progressives would never have this sort of attitude to a minority group of white people. You can often hear them insulting stupid dumb redneck hicks etc. And yet to level these sort of insults at Muslims ("terrorist" "camel-jockey" etc) is blasphemy to the progressive mindset.
Progressives don't see 'darker' people as morally culpable as whites. When a white Christian says homosexuals should be punished by death he's (rightly) slammed as a violent bigot. When a middle eastern Muslim says the same the liberals go silent *crickets chirping*, or they start mentioning the crusades, or some other irrelevant nonsense.
Progressives = crazy
Is that so? I would be interested in knowing the details of that.
So this kind of gets into "unreliable testimony" territory.
Do they really? Could you point me towards the poll that was taken?
I don't think this is right. It's not that those vocal Muslims aren't condemned, just as it's not that those vocal Christians aren't condemned. Because they are. It's that one doesn't then condemn Islam (or Christianity) or Muslims (or Christians) in general because of the violent bigotry of a vocal minority.
Dukkha, you are doing the same kind of thing that you think the progressives are doing: projecting some stereotypes which have some validity, (as stereotypes are wont to have) onto groups of people.
You are not altogether wrong, of course. Neither are progressives, Moslems, fundamentalist Christians, socialists, nor atheists all wrong, all right, or all alike. You know this of course, you being a worldly-wise sophisticated intelligent thinker.
(1) personal inexperience
It varies from 8% to 99%.
http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2013/04/gsi2-overview-1.png
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/22/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/
edit: I remember that I did some calculations regarding this poll, it is worldwide more than half of all Muslims.
Quoting Emptyheady
Did you take into account the size of the Muslim population of each country, and all the countries missing from that list?
Quoting Michael
http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/homosexual.htm
For the lazy: stoning to death is the punishment.
But I will leave some room for """progressive""" interpretations, like just some non-lethal form of punishment... ?_?
Quoting Michael
Here is Shapiro doing it with outdated data and lower percentages than those of 2016.
I can't be arsed to do the proper calculations right now for 2016, but seeing those percentages, I am reasonably confident that it is well above half.
I think you reveal yourself here as an amateur Islamic scholar, unaware of the subtleties, nuances and rules of abrogation in that deeply complex religion. Allow me to educate you:
While stoning to death is AN accepted method of killing gays (Quran 7: 80-84, 15:72, 27:58, 29:40), it is not the ONLY method.
Gays can also be killed by throwing them off roofs, THEN stoning them if they are not already dead. OR they can be burnt at the stake.
Thanks, I thought homosexuals were forced to smoke weed. Silly me and my """progressive""" interpretations.
But you don't defend the child-brides, you don't defend the raped, you don't defend the beheaded, you don't defend the genocided, or the genitally mutilated. You do however defend those practices. Well done!
Precisely, you will insult me (though you wouldn't dare to do so to my face) but you won't say a word against the Orlando terrorist who targeted homosexuals.
She earned her doctorate and is considered to be a proper modern feminist, yet suffered some backlash from left-wing feminist who appear to be pro-multicultural / pro-Islam.
(You'd have to run them through Google translate, they're Dutch)
http://www.volkskrant.nl/opinie/schrijf-vrouwen-niet-voor-hoe-zij-emanciperen~a4405451/
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2016/10/24/een-echte-feminist-komt-juist-op-voor-moslimas-4960632-a1528197
I found it somewhat disturbing that both those articles were written by three females together, from post docs in the Humanities, professors of culture, professors of gender based violence, etc.
An English article with a similar gist: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gabby-aossey/muslims-are-the-true-feminists_b_9877692.html
I am unaware of the left vs.right divide in our universities but a bunch of self proclaimed left wing feminists ganging up to try and influence public opinion through reputable newspapers makes me doubt their function as teachers for our population; especially when, upon dissecting their articles, what they write is full of fallacies and appeals to emotion.
Not implying they shouldn't be teaching, just doubts towards the role of their ideological baggage and how such ideological baggage might turn into political idea's being peached.
A pyramid has a left and a right on the bottom. The top is just the top. And those on top want to stay there, which is difficult because there is not much room and the fighting is no-holds-barred.
Divide and conquer is probably oldest strategy around. And it is working on us so well that you will see another civil war in the Ununited States, before you see a parade celebrating both sides. And that potential civil war would be just fine with the status quo. They are ready for it, whichever "party" (now there's Orwellian doublespeak. No fun at this party) is in office. There may be two parties, but they are two sides of the same coin. And they don't wish to share that coin with us. Or anything thing else. Those who study philosophy and the human mind should be able to see past this game. But passions and fog are blinding.
So we can waste our time, energy, efforts, and money on wearing our official red or blue team merchandise and yelling at our neighbors. Or we can take the difficult steps needed in order to see clearly. There is nothing wrong with our eyes or our minds. But there is a thick fog covering everything that makes it hard to see. Guess who is running the fog machine? Action is needed, but without our vision we are like the Three Stooges smacking each other on the head, much to the amusement of the Pharaohs (and their billionaire backers).
Still don't believe this? Just picture yourself on top of that pyramid. You are the ruler with immense power and money. You want to stay on top for as long as possible. The fighting at the pinnacle is fierce. The mob and natives are restless, and they want answers now. Before they storm the Bastille, they must be weakened. Divided and conquered. Is that not what you would do to hold on to power?
In my heart, there is a hope that this post is all cynicism, bs, and recycled conspiracy theory. There is also a fear that it isn't.
The following is from:
"Cities and refugees: The German experience" Brookings Institute study 9/16/16
https://www.brookings.edu/research/cities-and-refugees-the-german-experience/
1) they distributed the refugees according to tax and national funding parameters which is a predictable and efficiency system deviations from the assigned quota norm are minimal.
2)the cities where the majority of the refugees were relocate to have to varying extents their own issues of housing, labor, and all the civic issues prior to arrival of there people. In some cities the situation is now acute.
3)the current framework for allocating funding and expenditures across federal, state, and city governments imposes uneven burdens on city-states and large cities and the government is in process or rectifying these allocations and giving cities a seat in on Federal decisions that will have a direct effect on them.
4)cities such as Hamburg and Berlin have shown a remarkable ability to innovate in the face of crisis. Innovations have included an expanded role of civil society, the use of technology to engage community participation, and the rapid building of non-traditional housing.
In the words of Nigel Farage its "Too late. The horse has bolted." The debate of Left versus Right is over. The government has decided to integrate this population, to make it its own, which will take time.
Aren't politicians a type of walking archetype...we call them representatives? Instead of the collective unconscious, they reflect the choice of the collective conscious?
What I've observed online on other message boards, including some political message boards, is that a lot of people (whether they're on the right side of the political spectrum or whatever) make hasty generalizations about Islam, very similar to how people would make hasty generalizations about blacks or Jews or whatever, folks who are left-leaning or perceived that way (like myself when I'm interacting with conservatives) will point out that the hasty generalization is unjustified, that it's bigoed, or whatever, and then the person who made the hasty generalization will say, "Oh! You love Islam! How can you support oppressing women" and so on.
So it's a misinterpretation.
What folks on the left putatively support ("putatively" because I do agree that they're hypocritical about this in some regards--I particularly can't stand the PC/SJW crowd for example) is tolerance of different beliefs, lifestyles, etc., and they disagree with bigoted, blanket-statement hasty generalizations based on the actions of a subset of people in whatever category.
Thanks for your informative post. I live in the mid-USA, and it is difficult for me to imagine living in an area flooded with more and more refugees each day. The countries in Europe had their hands full already, before the influx of foreign people seeking refuge. Hats off to Germany if they can find a solution to this crisis. It would serve as an example for other nations. As an aside, i feel that Time magazine's "Person of the Year" should have been "the Refugee", imho.
I agree it is an end result of a "divide and conquer", (d?vide et ?mpera), strategy. But that strategy is usually employed by an external power wishing to conquer a region. Come in, find some minor ideological difference, then keep the locals fighting over their identity so they have to come in and take control to "maintain order". It is a bad strategy for just one local side. Historically, this strategy doesn't last for very long as the locals tend to unify and revolt. So, who is this external power? Could it be Russia? It would have a lot to gain by keeping the US and Europe under control and out of the picture.
Thanks very much for your reply. Of course, my post was on the speculative worst-case scenario side. I just wonder if some organizations (whether local or foreign, public or private) have a vested interest in stirring people against each other. Noam Chomsky said "We are hurtling towards self-destruction at an alarming rate thanks chiefly to an advertising and propaganda system that goads people from infancy towards apathy, isolation, passivity, helplessness and separation."
BTW, happy holidays everyone! ;)
It isn't clear to me that the Left, to the extent it exists, has sanctioned the excesses of certain proponents of Islam. But it has seemed to be excessive in its efforts to object to criticisms of Islam. Christopher Hitchens found himself abandoned and reviled by his friends on the Left because of his stand against what he called Islamo-fascism; but he was against all forms of theocracy. The Left seems to have lost itself in a kind of fog of smugness brought about by its adherence to the view that we of the West are incapable of judging those different from us, and have no business doing so in light of our own excesses. Indeed, the whole idea of judging especially when matters of customs and morals are involved seems to be objectionable to some.
This is an outright smear. Nothing in her history shows her to be supportive of "right wing extremists" (I suspect you've set the bar rather low for this) or racism. Quite the opposite in fact.
Quite ironic.
She came to the US at the invitation of the AEI, a "conservative think tank", and she is still on their list of "scholars" in 2006. By that time, the group was already getting a few Islamophobia types. She ended up associating with jihadwatch.org's owner Robert Spencer and head of SOIA, Pamela Geller. She ended up on Southern Poverty Law Center's A Journalist's Manual: Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists, (jihadwatch.org started a petition to get her removed).
But maybe she just hangs out with a bad crowd. Look at this controversial interview she did with "Reason" magazine:
Quoting reason.com
I think her words in that interview were spot on and courageous. We're in real trouble if they now meet the standards for "controversy."
This is surely going too far. Her words in the interview are very controversial. They easily 'meet the standards' for that. I live among Muslims, I am not at war with their religion or beliefs, and those who advocate such a 'war', however metaphorically - and hers doesn't come over that metaphorically - are of extreme views, on my spectrometer. In my locality, to vote in accordance with the beliefs she expresses would be to vote for an extreme right party.
Glad we got that cleared up.
@emptyheady
I used to know actual leftists, but most of us have died, gone into dormancy for the duration, or aren't dead yet.
The leftists I knew disdained the religions equally: Hindu, Christian, Moslem, Buddhist, Jewish, New Age, liberal, conservative. All opium.
For such leftists as still call themselves that, and progressives (whatever that is) perhaps the problem is their relativist views. Few of them have much religious conviction or knowledge, the lack of which may leave them feeling slightly guilty and unequipped to assess their own or others' religions. Progressives are also afflicted by the soup du jour approach: Who is not being adequately cherished today?
There is also what Bertrand Russel warned about: the alleged superior virtue of the oppressed. It doesn't exist. The oppressed are just as likely to be morally contemptible as anybody else. Being oppressed doesn't make people good. Oppression just puts the sons of bitches at a disadvantage. How much sympathy are the disadvantaged sons of bitches worth?
Are all Moslems bad? No. Is Islam all good? No. Did Islam accrete and hold onto some primitive tribal content that they would do well to get rid of? Yes. Is Islam given to greater extreme views than Christianity or Hinduism? Maybe not, but most religionists are capable of going off the deep end. Is Christianity any better than Islam? To the extent that it has overcome it's witch-burning queer stoning scarlet letter branding tendencies, yes--it is. Enlightened Christianity or Islam are still opiates.
Fundamentalist Moslems, Hindus, Christians, etc. are all a plague. Conservative religionists are a drag. Moderate, wishy-washy believers are just smoking lukewarm dope.
That's either because universities are leftist fortresses reinforcing the leftist agenda or the right is simply wrong on many of these subjects.
Hirsi Ali used to go on about genital mutilation as a Muslim problem, whereas the only majority Muslim country where it's prevalent is Egypt (with most imams there opposed to it). Other African countries where it's prevalent are majority Christian. The practice predates Islam in any case. That's just one example where she knowingly lied. Not a woman whose words are to be taken at face value.
Besides such misstatements of facts the reasoning of both writers is not logically rigorous.
And although there's definitely things going awry with Sharia arbitration in Europe, Machteld's work is basically a conspiracy theory and mostly an attack on what she labels as the progressive elite. She has "found" interesting cases but raises a few examples to a standard and then ascribes an intentional islamisation of Europe into it that has simply no basis on facts. It's all very... poor academic work. In the end, I think they are "attacked" by other academics because those others take their work seriously and don't need these charlatans to spout nonsense under the veneer of sensibility that working for a university grants. Call it professional pride.
Not even no.
If you knew Hirsi personally and read Machteld (which I haven't) I assume you know Dutch. I've linked to the articles you purport to be people "taking their job seriously" and these two articles are written by 6 females with an academic function. It's these articles which are spouting nonsense, it's plain and clear for everyone to see: http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/37918
As I said I haven't read Machteld Zee's work yet but she published the thesis which earned her a doctorate as a book, anyone who wishes can read it and come to their own conclusions.
Aside from what's what concerning Hirshi Ali, you put up a straw man with attacking her on her stance of female genital mutilation (which she has suffered) and you do the same with the work of Machteld Zee (where you accuse 'her' of making a straw man argument) and you do this to defend ...really poor leftist academic work while, again (!) making a straw man argument when you sarcastically mention:Quoting Benkei
What's your pride in using some logical fallacies instead of actually criticizing the subject at hand?
"Professorship of socio-political aspects of the welfare state and the exchange economy" , "Professor in gender and equality", "Professor in citizenship and moral diversity", "Professor in art, culture and diversity", "Special professor in gender based violence".
I am a complete nitwit concerning academic culture but these are a few of the academic positions available in the Netherlands, they're all held by females (I don't know what that's supposed to mean) and some of these positions have been created specifically for those holding the position.
Again I'm a nitwit when it concerns academia but I am unaware of much explicitly right wing academic positions in reputable universities (the above mentioned are very much leftist positions). Am I totally wrong in asserting that there might be a strong leftist current in the local academic culture or is it just that the right is wrong on many of the subjects ...they would in principle not get any doctorate in?
I'm not being sarcastic here, I would really like to become aware of the right counterpart of this, preferably concerning the Netherlands.
Ah, so you can read. Excellent, then I still fail to see how what she said was controversial.
Quoting mcdoodle
Your what now? Why should I care?
Quoting mcdoodle
Again, so? "According to me and the community I live in, she's controversial, therefore she is!" No, sorry, that doesn't follow.
I would like to see your source showing that those educated in hard science degrees are as likely to be conservative as liberal.
To my understanding the more educated a person is the more likely they are to be liberal.
I did but got different results than you.
http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/
That is why I asked for your source.
My mistake
I thought you were suggesting that in the hard sciences it was an even split among left leaning and right leaning views.
That would be news to me, because even in the hard sciences left leaning tend to significantly out number right leaners.
Your article did not have a link to any actual study that I could find, but I will take your word for it that there have been studies that show that in humanities majors there is an even greater disparity than in the hard sciences.
I corrected this in my very first reply to you.
Sigh. Genital mutilation isn't a Muslim problem, which she knew but lied about because she has issues. Whether she suffered it, is neither here nor there.
Quoting Gooseone
So you have no way of assessing the merits of those articles but just feel they're not appropriate because they don't agree with your preconceived political notions. Notions so well established you'll defend someone who you don't even know. Fantastic. Very well-examined.
I said "aside from the what's what concerning Hirshi Ali", you use one example to purport her words aren't to be taken on face value. You can probably find a bunch more and this just shows that one should always be critical and not blindly take things on face value.
And if I look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_female_genital_mutilation_by_country there are certainly strong links between female genital mutilation, look at Indonesia and Malaysia for example.
Quoting Benkei
Yes I have, I can read. The Volkskrant is implicitly mentioning Machteld and the (opinion!) article goes on saying that it's wrong to assume in advance that woman in Islamic cultures (Islam mentioned implicitly) do not necessarily suffer from unequal rights but might very well choose their position... so we shouldn't judge cultures with unequal rights... or something. Then they use the example about how woman aren't able to get a maidenhead restoration operation in Zweden and how we should respect woman's wishes more. They mention that in the Netherlands, 48% of such operations are applied for due to sexual abuse yet it's common knowledge here many woman use that as an excuse to get it done because there is a critical policy in the Netherlands. The essence of the article is basically saying we should show solidarity and don't judge the cultures which expect females to be virgin when they get married. "Why criticise the cultures which are hampering equal rights, who are we to tell woman how to emancipate?".
The NRC article starts of with saying that it's a bad thing to polarize debate by stating that Islam and feminism can't go together and ends with stating that these "racist, patriarchal, extreme right nationalist ideologies are irreconcilable with feminism".
Quoting Benkei
Unlike you with your condescending tone, I also specifically mention that I'm not being sarcastic when I ask for information concerning right wing positions, I would gladly be more informed instead of "judging everything by my preconceived political notions".
Seeing you mainly try to set up straw man arguments so that you're better able to use an ad hominem in your discourse, I won't count on you providing such enlightening information.
It predates Islam, Chirstianity and Judaism. It's prohibited in Indonesia. It isn't a Muslim problem as it spans regions that are majority Christian as well. And Hirshi Ali's words aren't to be taken on face value for a lot of reasons but I think lying about a topic you got famous about is a pretty big one. That's not just "not blindly taking things on face value" that's reason to discard her writings to the thrash heap.
Also, both Machteld and Ayaan had an agenda and set out to find data to confirm that agenda, instead of collecting and generating data and distilling a conclusion from the data. In other words, they suck as researchers. Not to mention the mistake of setting Islam up as some sort of monolithic cultural entity. Hint: it isn't.
Quoting Gooseone
Apparently you can't read well. The article is far more nuanced than you make it out to be and despite the word "self determination" being mentioned six times, you didn't pick up on it. The essence is that self determination for people sometimes means you can't tell them what to do even if you disagree with their choices.
I'll state it less nuanced: imposing our values on people who don't share them is fascist. So, given the example of Sweden, I can disagree with maidenhead restoration operations but I I also disagree with prohibiting it. If we're going that way, we can also prohibit circumcision of men (which, by the way, isn't a religious practice either, because it predates Judaism as well but is regularly associated with Judaism any way). Or outlaw any set out of behaviour we consider bad for people (smoking, big macs, alcohol etc. etc.). It's fascist in the sense that the "government knows best".
Quoting Gooseone
Maybe you shouldn't be using Google translate because the article doesn't state this. It states it has created a schism in feminism. Summed up, it is feminism that tells non-Western women what to do on the one hand and feminism that supports non-Western people to emancipate on the other. The former, according to the writer, is irreconcilable with feminism in the latter sense. She labels the former as racist (assumes superiority of Western values), patriarchal (dictates instead of empowers women to freedom), and coincides with nationalist ideologies (because it says the same as Wilders).
Quoting Gooseone
I gave you information but you don't care about it and just accuse me of straw man arguments, which I haven't. I've accused Ayaan of lying which is quite well established and handed you the facts and accused both of bad methodologies, which is also easily established if you had actually read anything other than badly translated articles instead of some of their original works. Your convictions are clear, despite your claims to the opposite. Apologies if my lack of patience then comes across as condescending but I'll remind you that you started accusing me of straw man arguments where there were none, which is pretty much the academics equivalent of plugging your ears with your fingers and screaming "lalalala" at the top of your lungs.
Antidiscrimination law was never changed and not even attempted and the public prosecutor decided not to prosecute. It was subsequently forced to do so as a consequence of a court case brought by private individuals that demanded prosecution. Court decided in their favour.
She also lied when she asked for asylum in the Netherlands and then lied about having lied.
Then there's her economic use of the truth, which runs through most of her work. Here's a nice example:
As said in an interview with Jon Stewart.
Not clear where the number comes from but the International Institute of Strategic Studies says it might be calculated independently based on the number of Muslim victims. The problem is that it unjustifiably suggests the armed conflicts are a result of the Muslim religion. The Syrian conflict, for instance, does not have at its root religion, which totally skewed the number of Muslim victims in 2015.
So yes, the woman is a charlatan.
I don't understand how rudeness aids any debate. To repeat: to talk about 'a war with Islam' is indeed 'controversial' rhetoric. To talk about it in public in that way in my community would align you with the extreme right-wing. Evidently you live among people who are happiter to talk in such an inflammatory way about the beliefs of their neighbours and friends than the people I know.
Because you say so. Got it. QED. How shall I ever recover from this argumentative masterclass?
But we call virtually anything a war, you know. There's the War against Christmas, the War against Christianity, the good ole War against Poverty, the War against Drugs, the War against Crime. How can we know, any longer, that we're against something unless we acknowledge there's a war against it? How can we express our outrage against criticism of something we value unless we maintain there's a war against it? Nobody would understand unless we say there's a war.
I'll concede that it's not helpful to see Hirshi Ali as an academic scholar, yet you've far from proven that there's no link between Islam and female genital mutilation, just because Islam didn't invent it and Egyptian imam's speak out publicly against it does not mean there is no correlation whatsoever. Furthermore, Hirshi's own report on it being interpreted as a religious exercise counts for something to me, where I would not see such a report as academic scholarship. She rose to prominence due to her political engagement 'and 'her background. In my view she's not wrong about FMG, and especially considering her own personal experience I find it overly harsh to use this specific example as a straw man to negate anything she has said. (You've done a way better job in you more recent assessment).
Quoting Benkei
Concerning Machteld, I've learned upon some reading that the book she wrote is not the thesis which gave her her doctorate, the thesis was called: "Choosing Sharia? Multiculturalism, Islamic Fundamentalism and Sharia Councils in the United Kingdom". As I mentioned I haven't read her book but I do have some trust in the panel which granted her a doctorate based on her thesis, more so then your opinion on her "poor academic scholarship".
Quoting Benkei
Here you apply moral relativism and use it to condemn ethical behaviour, I would not for instance call it fascist for governments to penalize murder. There can be debate on this specific issue (and there should be!), if this was the case I would state my opinion in that I personally feel Islam, as a monolithic culture, hampers female rights overall and it's morally wrong to give everyone the full freedom to emancipate. We have a past which we can use to observe the violent nature of reformation and also considering choice supportive bias, I feel it's justified to condemn a religion which 'generally' puts woman in a position which makes it hard for them to bring about change from the inside. Religious indoctrination plays a role here also, whereas it might seem like fascism to impose our morals onto others, I am of the personal opinion there are sufficient grounds for doing so.
Conflating maidenhood restoration with male circumcision is a bad idea, maidenhood restoration, aside from the actual existence of such a thing as maidenhood is generally done "voluntarily" at an age round about the age of consent and the bulk of this wish stems from what, mostly religious believes, is expected from woman (virginity). There's lots to say about male circumcision, the main thing I'd like to say on the subject is that males are fortunate it generally doesn't hamper physical functionality.
Quoting Benkei
I'm Dutch. I have not misread anything, the article starts with an accusation of creating a schism and ends doing the same thing. It's a pure difference of opinion on both sides which both contribute to this schism (and here you are justified to accuse me of having preconceived idea's which make me lean towards the former).
Quoting Benkei
No you started with straw man arguments and this accusation made you elaborate.
Quoting Benkei
You did use straw man arguments and I'm still here replying to your elaborations (which I appreciate). You made it seem as if Hirshi Ali was an academic scholar (where I'll admit this has been in large part due to my bias, yet you have not notified me about my misrepresentation and I take that as a justification which confirms my biased suspicions). And you have also failed in notifying me about about the actual scholarship of Machteld while you did use 'your' opinion to accuse her of poor academic work.
I made a post in this thread stating my interest in this topic, you did in fact used straw man arguments to purport a certain stance to be "the right one" and this only justifies my hunches that there's something going on with leftist ideals defending Islam.
Quoting Benkei
The laws for the legislation you mention were put forward in parliament and would make it so that Wilders could 'not' be prosecuted, they didn't get support and the PVV is now trying again to legislate an addition to these laws. It's completely the other way round then you purport and yes it says a lot about the factual nature which Hirshi Ali considers to be truth. Also, are you mixing up the two separate prosecutions against Wilders? (one case for his film "Fitna" and the other for his discriminating speech).
Again, I wouldn't see Hirshi Ali as an academic scholar, the way she lied to get granted asylum could tell us something about how people distort truth to get what they want and how that may be relevant in certain current debates, I don't however feel that anything she says is necessarily without merit.
On another note, the "right" equivalent of what I purported to be leftist academic might be found in the University of Leiden where there are some professors of law and their students who appear to comprise a right wing academic establishment. (Paul Cliteur, Thierry Baudet, Afshin Ellian). These "right-wing" academic positions do not seem to hallmarked by being created to facilitate a certain view though, contrary to some "leftist" positions.
It's amazing, by the way, that being Dutch you knew so little about Ayaan.
As to poor academics, standards in the Netherlands are pretty lax.
You claimed her statement on genital mutilation being linked to Islam to be false; you did so based on the origins of this practice and purport Egypt to be the only Islamic country (in Africa!) where it's prevalent. Though we might be able to look from the outside in and observe that the tradition is not necessarily linked towards religious practice, this does not mean that from the inside the practice has gained a religious narrative in many cases. I find that a misrepresentation and a lowly way of attacking her as a caricature, especially considering the many things you could have used (and have used later) to generate a more nuanced opinion on her.
Though I don't know that much about Hirshi Ali, you would be mistaken to think I am in favour of her views on the whole or that I feel she can be regarded as an objective authority on matters of Islam. I actually do not care that much, I do start to care if people feel they need to attack her and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I won't blame her for being selfish and making up stories about her immigration and I have doubts to what extent she felt the need to (indeed) become somewhat of a caricature due to being met with criticism from the left. (Haven't followed her much when she was politically active).
It's the way in which criticism is generated which bugs me, all the time (both on the left and on the right) you see people set up a caricature of their opponents and attacking them on that basis. It's odd that those who tend to claim moral superiority are so often inclined to judge everyone who doesn't share their opinion while not realising that they place their own values onto those who are unable to do anything with these values.
"Stupid conversation", "fascist government", "charlatans spouting nonsense", claiming my convictions are clear, you give away a lot when it concerns how you feel about your own opinion.
That's not a straw man I'm afraid. I highlighted an example. Or do you insist that every argument is conclusive and concise to the point where I'd have to take 5 days to write an essay. If your point was, Eqypt isn't the only majority muslim country in the region that practise FGM, then say so. Instead you go "straw man", when it really wasn't. That made it a stupid conversation.
The point remains that it's ridiculous to claim that genital mutilation is a Muslim problem when the practice exists irrespective of the religion held by people in the region where it came into existence for sanitary reasons. Due to lack of water, it was easier to remove these parts instead of having to clean it every day. If it were a religious thing, it would also be a Christian problem for certain African countries. But somehow then it all of a sudden isn't about religion, laying bare the double standard of the likes of Ayaan (and others).
The cultural practice of FGM was exported, among other things, when Islam was exported. It's interesting to see then that Indonesian imams are more "traditional" than their Egyptian counterparts even when the both governments have prohibited it. The fact that different imams in different regions hold different opinions, is further proof that it isn't an "Islamic" thing and that Islam isn't a monolithic cultural phenomenon.
There's more issues surrounding this, because most people do not receive and practice customs based on textual evidence but on the actions and expectation of their surroundings. Much the same that most Westerners aren't Christian any more but do believe in, for instance, the Christian work ethic. Or arbitration and impartiality as a requirement for fair judgments (also an ecclesiastical invention). So when people practice FGM, it isn't because they've done an extensive study of the Qu'ran and hadith and wonder whether it's the "islamic" thing to do. They basically do it because everybody around them does it and expects them to do it too.
Also, speaking of straw men, I said she claimed FGM was a Muslim problem and took issue with that, which is different than claiming there are links between FGM and Islam as you state it (still incorrect, but closer to the mark).
Quoting Gooseone
I was going to act as a legal advisor to her at one point, because I felt strongly about FGM as well and thought it was great someone from her background would take up this cause. She had a habit to propose things that were legally unfeasible and I was supposed to help her formulate steps that fit in the existing legal system. Unfortunately, she turned out to be more interested in being shocking (and polarising the debate) than actually implementing effective policies. She made a conscious choice at some point to chose form over function and that's where I exited stage left.
Quoting Gooseone
But Hirsi Ali is a liar and a charlatan. How should I "generate" my criticism to please you then? You've also could've asked me "why do you think that?" but instead you accuse me of straw manning.
Quoting Gooseone
Which examples did I give and do you think murder fits into those categories of examples?
Monolithic culture... As I said, your preconceived notions were clear, despite your claims to the contrary. The difference between you and me is that I don't pretend to have an open mind about things that are morally clear.
Then you are unaware of the historical developments in this area. There was a time that Islamic women could divorce and receive part of the estate, when us Westerners treated women as a thing to be owned. The thin veneer of respectibility we shroud ourselves with to feel superior is easily lost. 2 world wars in the "enlightened world" is proof enough. Human beings are animals if we do not continually make the effort to be more than just animals and it's only too easy not to make the effort, when we perceive it not costing us anything (except our humanity).
The point being, these things are in flux and I don't think the human race has progressed morally in any way as compared to 4000 years ago.
That said, I consider every religion equally stupid.
A prohibition on FGM? Sure. A prohibition on maidenhood restoration not so much. You know we've had discussions about prohibition on wearing the nikab in NL. Because women who wear them are all oppressed by their husbands. Even if that were true, how is more oppression (this time state-sanctioned) going to help women emancipate? This is why imposing our morals, especially when they are repressive, isn't a good idea in every instance.
Yes not the best comparison in that respect but the examples were given to show it isn't necessarily a good idea to have governments enforce every moral norm. I'm not even sure what moral norm is being protected by prohibiting maidenhood restorations. For more it falls squarely in the middle of physical integrity and the right to choose what to do with your body.
Unfortunately caricature isn't necessary. Daniel Pipes is an example of a guy who has command of a lot of facts and chooses to twist them to create the inflammatory picture he thinks is necessary to wake people up to the threat he sees. In my view it just eliminates him altogether as a worthy resource.
And I think that's the situation in a nutshell: everybody is clear-sighted regarding the particular threat that worries them: for some it's the threat of terrorism, for others it's the threat of victimization of innocent Muslims. I guess it's the possibility of bloodshed that makes people feel it's ok to stretch and twist the facts.
Quoting Benkei
Quoting Benkei
I would not expect you to write an essay, in the context of your message you set her up and swiftly dealt with her on the basis of an argument which I find weak. You did not state you took issue with her equating Islam with FMG and, though FGM isn't something that automatically goes with Islam, her personal experience, and that of many more, perceive it to be the case. I am keenly aware that it's easy ammunition for the right to purport Islam to be equal to FGM (I would consider doing so a form of a straw man argument) yet if making any connection is deemed to be wrong in advance, we lose the ability to use said religions to aid in combatting FMG.
Quoting Benkei
Even though this could be wholly false (not trying to antagonize you here), such personal experience does way more to inform me then attacking here on one of her statements where "I" would grant her some credibility due to her personal experience.
Where you are opposed to prohibition against maidenhood restoration and I would be for it, based on the knowledge that the hymen doesn't exist as it's often purported 'and' the idea that the myths around virginity should be expelled, we were talking about an ethical decision from the Swedish government. I did use your less nuanced argument to refute the idea of a "fascist" government deciding what we can or cannot do by stating it's not considered fascist if governments penalize murder. it was a bad example, there's a lot of difference between deciding on individual freedom and deciding on those who blatantly violate others' rights, my apologies. Concerning the nikab,I would be for prohibiting it, call me xenophobic but I would like to be able to see other people their faces. Also, it could evoke unjustified claims of discrimination, someone with a full face tattoo would probably get turned down when applying for a representative function, I feel doing so is a right and although it can be considered discrimination, I feel such discrimination is justified.
Where your assessment concerning my preconceived notions is correct is in that I see Islam as a monolithic culture when it comes to woman's rights (and in a clear divide between church and state). This is indeed where my sense of moral superiority comes in and where I am of the opinion that's it wholly justified to condemn Islam and equate it with an inherent regressive attitude. I feel it's morally wrong to claim we're better off giving people the freedom to emancipate on their own then attempt to change what is governing their idea's at the current moment.
Quoting Benkei
I do think we've progressed morally, yet mainly because we've gained material wealth (be it through carrying out atrocious acts). If people are incapable of seeing how this works, we have indeed gained nothing and would easily revert back to animals in the case of any material setback. I'm not so much right wing as you might think, I am of the conviction that if we're convinced we actually have gained any morality we should apply it (long story).
The main thing which made me reply adversely to your reaction was the way in which I perceived you to claim moral high ground. In the Netherlands I feel the disdain / contempt which appears to go hand in hand with the left when they criticize the right does as little for actual development as does the populist attitude of the right.
But back to the "white savior complex". I think we are all subject to being manipulated by "damsel in distress" themes. It is a powerful means of getting people worked up to support war and violence. The problem is that it is also powerful enough to cover up guilt. It allows us to be temporarily hypocritical. We can ignore all the oppression we put women under at home, or how our treatment of the target country might have brought about the very conditions we are fighting -- and go on a sacred crusade against the infidels. I'm also sure the extremists on the other side are thinking the very same thing. "Those westerners are oppressing their women by dressing them up like porn stars, we have a holy mission to rescue them". The problem with hypocrisy I've seen is that our brains can't handle the cognitive dissonance for long. It seems that people will eventually settle on an extreme side of the issue, while seeing the other side as a fantasy. Side A trying to dismiss that any oppression is happening in that foreign country, while Side B trying to dismiss that there is any oppression going on at home. Both sides are ultimately trying to help, but both methodologies can become destructive. Both sides find, and sometimes even share, their champions of their arguments. Sometimes the message of those champions is completely twisted around to serve their position. Sometimes the champions are serving their own interests, others are truly trying to serve their own people and culture, but get misrepresented and exploited anyway.
My own opinion comes from the old-fashioned notion that we serve by example. First take care of the mote in your own eye. You start to deal with tragic issues like FGM by not being the cause of the conditions that promote it and clean up your own society first. Most of the worst practices in the world were often inspired by things we take for granted.
I'm not familiar with Daniel Pipes, yet it's somewhat noticeable there are lots of people trying to polarize most any debate, it's an effective strategy to keep people occupied it seems. Like swstephe mentions, it could be a "white savior complex", it could be that there's a possibility for bloodshed and probably a bunch of other reasons. Maybe it's just energy efficient to have a nice and manageable duality, "my position is right because clearly (enter some reductio ad absurdum) so they are wrong, bla bla". Humans organising in groups and acting against other groups is well, human nature. In a globalized world where a lot of people appear to act as individuals you kinda need a strongly defined ideology to get people to organize, back and empower such ideology. Rallying against a specific ideology is also an ideology.
Quoting swstephe
There's that (very much so!) and, like people organizing in groups, there are probably a bunch of other innate tendencies which make it easy / pragmatic for people to take on a specific stance. Engaging in dialogue can, at times, be hard work and it's often to no avail. What bugs me about a lot of discourse I find myself in is that it resembles a battle of opinions instead of an exchange of idea's. In the area's on this planet where people are fairly well off a lot of energy is spent on satisfying direct emotions, feeling "good", having fun, things like that. Moral relativism can lead to hedonistic nihilism and such a stance would make it absurd to expend energy on thinking about things which aren't immediately pleasurable. Maybe it's here where we can take care of "the mote in our own eyes".
In my opinion it's also kinda futile to engage in dialogue with someone who's already convinced there's an absolute truth and it's written down in some book.
It seems to me that organizing into groups is part of the problem. Take any group and their list of causes and you find a lot of contradictions. By organizing in groups, you tend to sweep those contradiction under the rug of identity. In a more consistent universe, this thread should be called "the alliance between the Right and Islam", as the majority of the members of both groups share the same ideals. Perhaps implicit animosity between groups that share so many values in common is a kind of competition or shifting blame for unpopular beliefs onto the other group. You would think that a group that passes laws to defend religious beliefs would be defending Islam from the evil liberal humanists and atheists.
I see that false equivalencies are alive and well in these debates. The fact that you call women in the West "oppressed" and equate said oppression to the treatment of women under a number of Muslim-majority countries is spurious at best. Women in the United States live longer, graduate college at greater numbers, and best men in any number of metrics. But because they, say, make roughly 93 cents to the man's dollar, this is equivalent to the stoning to death of female adulterers.
You will note that women in the United States (unlike Saudi Arabia) choose what to wear, and if some of them opt to dress like "porn stars" (whatever such dress may look like), then that is their choice. No one is "oppressing" them, and no one "dresses them up."
More news from the "religion of peace":
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/10/05/she-wouldnt-listen-pakistani-man-explains-honor-killing-of-sister/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.4bfdb3825642#comments
(Now cue the cavalcade of plaints that honor killings likewise "have nothing to do with Islam.")
Isn't that essentially what is wrong with "honor killing", that the officials in that country don't treat it as murder, like they would in the modern west? Take a look at any historical reference and you will see that "honor killing", started with Augustus Caesar's, "Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis", and carried around Europe as part of Napoleonic code. I agree that FGM, honor killing, forced marriages, etc is evil and must be stopped, but it is easier to do by reinforcing identity than seeking to destroy it.
I put that statement about western women dressing up like porn stars in quotes because that is what people in strict Islamic countries are saying, not me. I also know that they would use the same excuse as you do, that most do it out of choice and for complex social interactions, not because it is strictly enforced. After living in a Muslim majority country, then coming back to the US, I was impressed how similar was the controversy over American women going topless during the "free the nipple" campaign, (ironically protests were carried out where it wasn't illegal). The west certainly has a lot to say about how women dress in their society, just look at how any female public figure is judged more by appearance than political views.
No, it's a good example of a false equivalency, which speaks to my point. Yes, in the U.S. some rapists are given light sentences, and military has a problem with institutional procedures relating to rape (by the way, the stats on male rape in the military are likewise depressing; this problem is by no means confined to the treatment of women.) And in some Muslim-majority countries, the female victim is persecuted for being raped! There is clearly an asymmetry here, despite your rhetorical attempts to conflate them. (I will be charitable in my reading of your post to not take it as saying that I personally have oppressed women in my own country, though your wording was a bit sloppy.)
Women in the U.S. (as I said) graduate college at higher rates than do men, have greater life expectancies, can open businesses, etc. Women in Saudi Arabia are beholden to severe restrictions on their movements, freedom of association, and dress. (And this is just one Muslim-majority country.)
Even when they do treat it as murder, it is ignored by "traditionalists" and (god help me that I have to say this in the year 2016) tribal leaders.
Ah, yes, the "well, practice X preceded Islam, and therefore its practice cannot be a result of Islamic doctrine" defense. Sorry, Islam may not have invented honor killing, but in the 21st century, if there's honor killing afoot, the perpetrator is almost always Muslim. Italians, not so much.
Yes, and Nazis no doubt regarded the Allies as morally execrable as the Allies did the Nazis. What of it? The mere fact that each side may demonize the other in a dispute somehow implies that both opinions are equally valid? I highly doubt you'd say something like this, but your point eludes me.
I notice your underhanded rhetorical jab about my statement being an "excuse." It's not an "excuse," it's simply a fact: women in the United States (outside of employer-mandated dress codes, which apply to men, as well, and statutes regarding public nudity and so forth) choose to dress themselves. They are not forced by threat of violent reprisal to drape themselves in black bags with a slit cut into them.
Yea, more false equivalency. The claim that women's going topless is morally and legally condemned in some quarters is akin to forcing women to live in a black bag (in a desert climate, no less) holds no water.
And, yes, I agree that, for instance, female politicians' looks probably come under more scrutiny than their male counterparts (though men are not exempt from this either; no one seems able to discuss Chris Christie for more than five minutes without mentioning how fat he is). But this is a far cry from mandating that women drape themselves from head to toe in black fabric (or even just cover their hair), stoning them for adultery, or mandating whom they must marry (under threat of violent reprisal).
The US cannot be at war with a religion.
That would be a violation of the constitution, in particular freedom of religion.
We are not at war with Islam.
I really dislike it too, very occasionally in Bradford I'll pass a woman wearing and it gives me the creeps.
It's not the sort of thing to go to war over, though. Islamic women aren't Other, they're my fellow students, my wife's co workers, strangers in the next street, bbc newsreaders, local councillors. Mostly round here they wear Western dress, or lots of variants on discrete dressing that are nevertheless colourful and fashionable. I have no cause for war with their religion, although in religious debate I explain I'm an atheist. It seems that in common with women in both Iran and Saudi, British Asian women outnumber men as graduates these days. Perhaps big changes are bubbling up while all this warlike rhetoric is being exchanged.
So I am accusing these Mullahs of falling victim to a "white savior complex" mentality, (which can actually affect anyone of any race or gender -- so not the best name). The symptoms are a commitment to dismissing the possibility of oppression in their own back-yard. This "white savior complex" works to assuage guilt by shift all the blame on foreign men as "the other". Another symptom is that implied solutions tend to be impassive and drastic. The "white men saving brown women from brown men", comes from a Spivak essay which points out that those "brown women", (the "subaltern"), have a voice and are capable of making decisions on what they would like to do, but that voice is completely disregarded. Instead, the implied solution is to invade their countries and free them from their religion and even their identity. Think about how it would feel if anyone tried to do that to your community? Based on the number of people in America scared senseless about "Sharia Law" taking over the country, they ought to be able to empathize -- but they apparently can't. It seems to me that the descent thing to do would be to let them decide what they want to do for themselves.
As for the "niqab", (the black robe that covers everything), I don't have that much experience. I've spoken with a few, (through a female intermediate), and they say they don't mind and even feel proud to wear it. I've even heard a white American convert to Islam who wore it says she gets a lot more respect from people than she did before. She was actually a bit of a feminist and thought it helped avoid the "male gaze" of objectifying women. Maybe that is why a lot of men feel uncomfortable around it. I figured out it actually serves some function in the Arabian desert. I once saw a woman eating a hamburger outside a mall, in direct sunlight, around lunch time. I think it was about 45C, (113F), outside. Then I realized that everyone, (even desert bedouin), was wearing some kind of robe, it keeps the sun off and circulates air underneath. Also, I've had the chance to join a few conversations to point out that full outer covering is not Islamic or "hijab', but a bit of overkill.
The word "hijab" refers to the areas of the body to keep hidden in the presence of people outside the family. I saw an article which said that they wanted to ban "hijab" -- I thought it was funny, because to follow that law to the letter, it would mean I would have to walk around without pants! When areas of France were banning the niqab, I had a long debate with my fiance. I was opposed to the ban because I don't think the government should be telling people how to dress, but she was in favor of it, because she thought people need to adapt to the local culture. That reminded me that I really have no say over how someone else is supposed to think, and no right to think I have some kind of moral obligation to force people to change their minds.
So you indoctrinate others with your firm grasp on absolute truth.
Quoting swstephe
And yourself, even though you claim you have no right to on how others are supposed to think ...unless it's your "truth" off course.
Quoting swstephe
Yes, "naturally" all males should feel ashamed they can get physically attracted to woman.
Quoting swstephe
Yes, that 'and' the concept that it helps to keep cool in hot climates is enough to show that it's without any rational reason to outlaw the niqab, a better reason might be to keep warm in certain cold climates, but I digress.
Quoting swstephe
...which you still do, yet one difference in opinion is enough to make you realize "it's all relative".
So if we locally ban the practice of tying boys under the age of ten around their ankles with vines to make them jump from height with the aim of getting as close to the ground as they can, we're suffering "white saviour complex"? Surely those young boys are mistreated because they now aren't able to prove their manhood as they're supposed to.
The only thing you are rightfully pointing out is that we should be careful when "we" interfere and that we shouldn't go out to other countries and violently impose our morals onto a local population, the rest sounds as if you would be terrible in raising kids.
Male circumcision was Jewish and wasn't embraced by Gentiles until early to mid 20th Century unless I'm mistaken. If the transmission of the custom happened as you describe... is there evidence of this?
What country do you believe has declared war on the religion?
Hopefully you aren't eating right now. To give you some context, one of the most popular breakfast cereals is Kellogg's Corn Flakes. It was invented in 1878 by John Harvey Kellogg. He was a homeopathic physician that believed sex harmed health, (it is said he never consummated his own marriage and adopted all his kids). So he invented a cereal that was so boring, (unlike the usual ham and eggs wealthy people ate at the time), that people wouldn't be so sexually frustrated. (Same story behind Granola and Graham Crackers). He was also part of the "Orificial Surgery" movement. That group believed that many sicknesses could be cured through circumcision of both males and females, as well as other bizarre treatments. It had a brief moment in the UK, but it was in the US that it really took off. Male circumcision in US hospitals became almost routine, by the 1950's. Even female circumcision was performed as recently as the 1960's. It was only finally banned in the 1990's. I did manage to find a few secondary references to how missionaries brought this practice to Africa in the early 20th century. They tell you it is for "cleanliness", (which is still debatable), but originally it was to prevent masturbation.
For evidence, just search for "Orificial Surgery" or "Edwin Hartley Pratt". If you are in a hurry, try this badly made video:
For whatever it's worth, I agree that I dislike burqas. I also disagree with general burqa bans (excepting particular circumstances such as driver's license photos, workplace dress rules, etc). I believe that people should be permitted to engage in foolish, demeaning behavior if they so choose, without laws preventing them from doing so (and no, I don't find the rhetoric of some apologists that the burqa is "liberating" for women to be persuasive: a prison is never liberating, even if said prison is made of cloth).
I've already explained what's wrong with this sophistry. It is possible to acknowledge the misogyny and gender inequality in one's own country (the U.S. in my case) while decrying the far worse plight of women in some Muslim-majority countries (such as Saudi Arabia, which we've been discussing here**). This is nothing like a case of "cognitive dissonance," as you've claimed: cognitive dissonance in this case would amount to dismissing, ignoring, or even favoring gender discrimination in one's own culture, while also decrying it in others' (including in Muslim-majority nations). That's not the case here.
Your plaints about "white savior complex" are little different than cries of "Islamophobia" in such discussions: it serves only to deflect and discourage criticism by implying some sort of racism or white paternalistic/colonial mindset without at all engaging in honest discussion. It is good propaganda; it is, however, a poor way to do philosophy.
**To wit:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/five-things-that-saudi-arabian-women-still-cannot-do-a6765666.html
Fair enough, Arkady.
The Dutch were the primary European colonial power. Not many seem to be aware of it, but the Dutch were unusually contemptuous of and cruel to the people of the regions they colonized, even by European standards. The Boers were Dutch settlers.
The Dutch were a colonial power since the 1600s. But like the Belgians (who were late to imperialism and oppression, concentrated in the Congo) certain of their atrocities against native peoples in Indonesia took place in the 20th century, particularly in the years 1945-50.
I've read that the Dutch aren't forthcoming about the history of their treatment of native peoples, and have taken legal action against those who have published accounts related to their rule in Indonesia. There have been articles in the English press about it. Those articles seem to take some pleasure in noting that the Dutch, though quick to condemn the violation of human rights by other nations, try to silence those who refer to their own conduct in that area. Perhaps the English are exaggerating.
As a native Dutchman I am not very keenly aware of explicit efforts to try and negate what happened there, though this tendency could have been more relevant before my time. I can envision government having tried to put a lid on their conscious involvement seeing the timing just after WO II makes it even more atrocious. Though I can't recall my exact history lessons, I feel it's safe to say it's considered a black page in Dutch history by most of my contemporaries. There 'is' a national consciousness about the ordeal and it does not favour Dutch nationality.
That being said, is this turn of the thread supposed to to invigorate "white saviour complex / white guilt" or something? The Indonesian mass killings in 1965-66 weren't exactly pretty, as was the Rwandese genocide. The role of the UN in the latter can be debated, as can the role of the Dutch in Screbrenica ..."damned if you do, damned if you don't".
I would not want to make the latter imply as if I'm making an excuse for the Indonesian atrocities, but it does shine a nice light on "moral relativism". And yes, questions can (and should be!) posed towards the previous interference of western nations in non-western continents which might have laid the groundwork for these atrocities to happen but then?
Should we blame ourselves for acts carried out half a century ago, should we learn from our mistakes, should we face the facts in that most countries who want to be taken seriously should have a nuclear arsenal ...if not to defend from getting raped for resources? And how does globalized capitalism play a role in all this?
Maybe we should ask NASA (if there aren't conspiracy theories around negating their overall work) to see how we best handle when we explore other planets / realms and try to minimize our impact on foreign environments because we wouldn't want to disturb such a pristine environment.
Just today I read an article from an Amnesty International representative about wearing a Hijab, it went along the lines of: "We Muslim woman don't wear it because we try to avoid unwanted "erotic" exchanges, we wear it show our subservience to Allah / God".
So where's the line in not messing with a pristine environment and thinking: "wtf, grow up already!"
The classic example: you believe smoking is bad for your health, but you like to smoke. That creates cognitive dissonance, a contradiction between belief and action. There are several ways the brain tries to deal with it. It can simply minimize the health effects of smoking, or to trivialize the desire to smoke. That's what most people would do with such a conflict. But there are also extreme positions appeals to shadowy conspiracies to eliminate one side of the conflict.
Quoting Arkady
I'm not discouraging criticism. I criticize FGM and even male circumcision, forced marriages or child marriages. I admit that they happen. I just think if you really want to do something about it, you politely reason with people and respect their identity and beliefs.
Islamophobia works on hatred and fear. It looks just like the days of the "Red Scare" which kept pointing to irrational fear to drive people into throwing out reason or any chance of dialog. The white savior complex is also real, (and just as much on the "left" as the "right"). It plays on feelings of compassion and generosity, but without thinking how it affects the target of those feelings. In NGO circles, there are many talks about how too much charity can disrupt an economy as much as a disaster.
Quoting Arkady
You won't get any argument from me. Saudi Arabia is a bit of an extreme example, though, and most Muslims around the world complain and shake their heads -- but feel like nothing can be done as long as the rest of the world backs them up for oil. I haven't been to Saudi Arabia myself, but I did sponsor an Austrian guy and his wife who were driving from Europe to South-East Asia. They got pulled over by the police in Jeddah because they thought his wife was driving. The police opened the door, then stood there stunned when he didn't see a steering wheel in front of her. The Austrian guy said, "looking for this officer"? It was a right-hand drive car, like the UK, not left-hand like Saudi and the US. But things are rapidly getting betted since King Abdullah died. A prince there said that he thought women should be able to drive legally, (and royal opinion is basically law there). Actually, women can and do drive in remote areas. Also, there are many ways of going around without a member of their family. I've been told there are many different levels of society. There are the royals, the loyal government workers, the regular Saudi, who has 100s of ways to get around the rules, then there are many villages which have been ignored for historical reasons who still don't have electricity. If you really want to fight these problems, I'm all in favor of economic and political sanctions out of concerns for human rights -- but of course, most people will just expect them to become BFF with China and Russia then. Ultimately, it is the west that is supporting that treatment. It was the British who brought the Saud family there in the first place, and we give them money and weapons to crush or bribe any attempt at democracy or overthrowing them.
My fiance was a baby during the killings in Indonesia, but she remembers being shown a pit in their back yard where they were supposed to hide in case the communists came around. The propaganda since then had been very anti-communist in the subsequent decades. I managed to get her to watch "The Act of Killing". She probably knew some of the people re-enacting those killings, but in the end, she was upset that they associated some current politicians with the more militant groups. I watched "The Look of Silence" by myself, but haven't showed it to her yet, even though it is much more compassionate, (the survivors refuse to seek revenge, despite the pain they still feel). However, I heard that after 50 years, the government is officially considering looking into the facts after all these years.
Uh, what? "Shadowy conspiracies"? Unfortunately, there's nothing "shadowy" about the shrill cries of "Islamophobia" every time it is suggested that, just maybe, certain cultures or groups should saw off just a few less limbs as punishment for petty theft, or throw just a few less gay people off of rooftops or hang them from cranes in public squares.
Sure, you admit that they happen. But you seem to deny the role of Islam in certain of these practices (though I will give Islam a pass when it comes to male circumcision...).
As for polite discourse, perhaps you should tell that to, for instance, the Bangladeshis who have been hacked to death by Muslims for daring to blog (yes, blog) about topics which they find disagreeable. I am sure the machete-wielding mobs will be highly receptive to your pleas for a civil discussion.
People have greater reason to fear Muslims than they do, say, Quakers, Unitarians, or Episcopalians. They have greater reason because Muslims have given them such reasons. In the modern world, not all religions inspire doctrinally-driven acts of terror at equal rates, nor do all religions produce equal proportions of violent radicals.
The reasons for violence at any level are, of course, multifaceted, and religion is probably rarely the sole cause of any particular act of terror. And many acts of violence (from interpersonal to interstate) have nothing to do with religion whatsoever. However, in the year 2016 (soon to be 2017), there is one major religion which seems to have a unique problem with radicalization leading to violent acts, and that religion is Islam.
Yes, I agree that the West has gotten in bed with some rather unsavory regimes in order to further their own economic and political interests. However, it is an extreme interpretation of Islamic doctrine, not the meddling of Western powers, which is responsible for the myriad human rights abuses (both the rare and grotesque, and the more day-to-day) in Saudi Arabia. If tomorrow Saudi Arabia announced that it would, for instance, abolish public beheadings, I doubt that said announcement would be met with howls of protest in the halls of power in Berlin, Washington DC, or London.
As for the long-term prospects of women in Saudi Arabia in the wake of King Abdullah's successors, that remains to be seen (you will forgive me if my optimism is somewhat cautious...)
Yes. It is difficult to find historical examples of a truly benevolent empire. I just don't think there's any such thing (even if colonialism has had some positive impacts in some cases).
Quite clearly, the US being a Christian majority country, rape in the military is a Christian problem.
The Dutch were the primary colonial power for about 50 years and before that it was the Spanish and Portuguese and after that the English (for a lot longer). The British empire was definitely larger and longer lasting in the end. The rest seems pretty accurate.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
I'm not aware that there was an active effort to cover up the Dutch crimes in Indonesia. But they're certainly not forthcoming about it. It wasn't until the 60's that some investigation was done but not in depth. Since the 90's there was more research. Public awareness is very low though. As is awareness of our slave trading history.
Most history books tend to depict the violence of slave revolts; where white people were victims of violence. The violence of slavery is rarely shown in Dutch culture though; the torn families, the whippings, the deaths at sea are all invisible.
No, the Dutch don't feel responsibility for the acts of their forefathers because they think in terms of guilt - but people can take responsibility also for things they are not guilty of. I can take responsibility and not perpetuate the inequality that has resulted from slavery, oppression and discrimination. We don't let orphans rot in the street either. But our fellow non-white Dutchman? Not so much.
The "turn of the thread" came about because I responded to a post in which it was asked whether the French colonized Indonesia. Then, probably because I recalled a Dutch woman of my acquaintance and her astonishment in learning the Boers were of Dutch extraction, it grew from there. Black Pete may have popped into my mind as well. Sorry.
Well, the Dutch through their East India Company held various parts of what we call Indonesia for quite some time. It may be that they dominated Indonesia for a shorter time, however.
My comment about stories in the press of Perfidious Albion refer to this sort of thing from the Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/colonial-atrocities-explode-myth-of-dutch-tolerance-1439153.html
I probably misinterpreted things a bit, things appeared to move toward some form of self flagellation to me, apologies.
Quoting Benkei
I would not agree with this, probably the only thing where my environment is somewhat representative is in public opinion (I work in construction and meet a lot of different average Joe's) The slave trading is actually something some people boast about in combination with the "VOC mentality" (seems more of an ego thing to state something like that in a boasting manner for most though, I don't think they actually mean it). The awareness considering Indonesia seems a bit less but when it's present people don't get it in their heads to make any detracting statements on it, far from it. They're not topics which get discussed daily though.
Boasting about it is a clear indication there is no awareness.
Maybe I misunderstood "primary". I understood it as the largest colonial power. There was a time we were the largest but not all the time for the period we were active in slave trading and colonisation. Our colonisation of Indonesia lasted until 1949.
For me this is a prime example of why one needs to distinguish Islam from Islamism. You make it sound as if 'Muslims' are violent extremists and 'Bangladeshis' are the victims. But most Bangladeshis are Muslims - Muslims who oppose machete-wiedling violence; most Bangladeshi Muslims support, albeit precariously, the separation of religion and State in their country even though it's 94% Muslim; the vast majority of Bangladeshi Muslim clerics have by way of a fatwa categorically and publicly opposed the killing of secular bloggers. It's a mistake to single out the 'Muslim'-ness of the extremists as if this were what sets them apart from their fellow-countrymen/women.
That's my persistent disagreement with this 'war' metaphor. The overwhelming majority of Muslims in my country, neighbourhood, accept the secular state. You cannot categorise 'Islam' because of the behaviour of some 'Islamists'. If you do that, you begin to Other a large number of innocent people.
So what does it mean to declare war on Islam?
Is like a war on christmas?
If so why is controversial to declare war on christmas but not when there is a war declared on Islam?
You combat its ideas and legal encroachment.
Who has declared war on Christmas?
Who declared war on Islam?
My point was if some said they declared war on christmas, it is regarded as controversial.
I am asking why that does not also hold true for the religion of Islam.
Which is what you seemed to imply, that declaring a war on Islam is not controversial?
Key word: If.
In reality there is no if.
It is often in the news the controversial of an alleged war declared on christmas and on christianity.
So back to my question.
What makes you think it is controversial to declare war on the christian religion, but not islam?
What a red herring. I'm aware that some people accuse others of doing this. But I asked you to find me someone who explicitly says they are waging or want to wage a war on Christmas.
Quoting m-theory
Way to put words in my mouth. I never said whether it was or was not controversial to declare war on Christianity. To now disabuse you of your ignorance, I will say that I don't think such a statement would be controversial.
Just because you say so?
Who, besides yourself, claims it is not controversial to declare war on a religion, never mind if that religion is islam or christianity?
The common definition of this term applies.
If some group declares war on a religion it will likely be seen as a controversial thing, unless that declaration is trivial and meaningless such that it will come of no consequence.
Well, see, this is what I think is the case. The claim is not threatening any physical violence against people. It's a declaration against a set of ideas. That's not controversial.
Well I agree, if your declaration of war has no real consequence, then there can be no controversy.
It does raise an interesting question though.
If your war on islam has no consequence, what is the point of declaring it?
The same is true of a war on christianity though.
People of that religion could be persuaded to abandon their faith and we could prevent their religious beliefs from becoming law.
Nothing controversial there?
No.
Please don't strawman me: I never said that every untoward act committed by a Muslim and/or which occurs in a Muslim-majority country is related to Islam.
No, it's the fact that they're Muslim which sets them apart from other religions in their behavior, which is the point of contention here. Christianity has dealt with bloody wars of religion: the fact that they pitted Christian vs. Christian doesn't negate the fact that religion was at least one causative factor. Ditto for Muslim-on-Muslim violence (though I would question how many of the murdered bloggers were actually Muslim, as opposed to being atheist/agnostic).
I said that, in the modern world, of the major religions Islam inspires more doctrinally-driven violence and produces a greater proportion of violent radicals than any other, and that people rationally fear Muslims as a collective group more than they fear, for instance, Quakers or Unitarians.
This in no way impugns all Muslims any more than it impugns all men to say that the male gender produces a greater number of murderers than does the female gender. As a consequence, people likewise are more rational in fearing men more than they do women.
Then why mention the fact that they are "Muslim-majority" in the first place if not to make a point about the religion? If that wasn't your point, please rewrite the paragraph I quoted in such a manner it doesn't refer to a religion any more (and still makes a point).
If I was straw-manning than you're a sloppy writer.
My point was that I never said that all violence or human rights atrocities committed in, for instance, Saudi Arabia was a result of Islamic doctrine or theology (of any stripe). People commit horrific acts for any number of reasons, not all of which stem from their religious beliefs or practice.
I said that certain of the human rights abuses which occur in that country (and in certain other Muslim-majority countries) are the result of Muslim theocracy, e.g. forcing women to veil themselves, the stoning of adulterers, and the violent persecution of homosexuals. (And Islamist-driven violence is of course not limited to Muslim-majority countries.)
In response to this claim, you made the non-sequitur inference that that would imply that any untoward act occurring in the United States must therefore be a result of some Christian doctrinal imperative, as the U.S. is a Christian-majority country. But this simply doesn't follow: while there have indeed been some religiously-motivated acts of violence committed by Christians in the U.S., the vast bulk of violence committed in the U.S. has little, if anything, to do with religion. And the same may hold true in most Muslim-majority countries; that is, the routine, day-to-day violence which afflicts nearly every society may not have much to do with any Islamic doctrine or religious practice, and may not be in any way committed in the name of that religion.
However, when one makes comparisons between religions, in the modern world, there is one religion which stands out in its production of violent radicals, and in acts of violence carried out in the name of that religion (whether or not we wish to brand such interpretations as "extremist"), and that religion is Islam. Ceteris paribus, people have greater reason to fear Muslims than they do nearly any other denomination of any other religion, and that is because Muslims have given them such reasons.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/29/europe/berlin-truck-attack-automatic-braking-system/
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/11/world/middleeast/cairo-coptic-cathedral-attack.html?_r=0
You could have a hundred times as many attacks and they still wouldn't be representative of the beliefs of the 1.7 billion Muslims in the world. It's not the religion that's carrying out the attacks, it's a tiny minority of the religious.
Nothing about any of my posts suggests otherwise. If all of the 1.7 billion or so Muslims in the world were engaged in violent jihad, the world would certainly look much different. However, the fact that most Muslims worldwide are not committing acts of violence in the name of their religion doesn't negate the fact that, in the modern world Islam has a unique problem among the world's major religions in producing violent radicals, and in harboring illiberal beliefs (which are often foisted upon people under theocratic rule).
And, as I've said, this is not just reflected in the spasms of Islamist violence which erupt with depressing frequency in places like Fort Hood, Texas; Berlin; or Cairo, but in the day-to-day theocratic humiliations and persecutions undertaken by regimes such as Saudi Arabia (an ideology which is not confined to its borders; the Saudis have made exporting Wahhabism a priority second only to oil exports, it seems).
If Vatican City, say, were stoning adulterers, hanging homosexual in public squares, or threatening apostasy with violent reprisal, I doubt that so many people would be rushing to defend the world's 1+ billion Catholics with protestations that such acts don't represent "true" Catholicism.