In the name of Allah; most Merciful, most Compassionate.
Who is Ayaan Hirsi Ali?
According to reporters and her own words (in chronological order): “She renounced Islam and became an atheist in 2002 … She claims that her personal views are for the most part inspired by her change from Islam to atheism”;[1] “I am a Muslim woman saying these things, and it has provoked a lot of hatred”[2]; "I came to the conclusion [that] I do not believe in the existence of a god or in the hereafter"[3]; “All I say is that being a Muslim…”[4]; “the fact that I'm an atheist”[5]; “[Do you regard yourself as a Muslim?] A Muslim atheist … I’m no longer a Muslim but I was a Muslim woman”[6]; “Hirsi Ali, an atheist”[7]; "’I'm not a Muslim!’ Hirsi Ali responds. ‘I have become an infidel!’”[8]
Perhaps ‘a feminist counterpart to Salman Rushdie’ or a new Wafa Sultan is more suiting.[9]
Terms
There are many terms that Ayaan Hirsi uses that she ought to define, because the meaning of these words and/or their interpretation can make for differing understandings. Let me give one example, in the Preface of her first book (The Caged Virgin, 2002) she said her parents brought her up to be a “good Muslim.”[10] Does that mean that her father, who promoted education, Islamic rights, and forbid female genital mutilation (Type III, see footnote)[11] to be a good Muslim example, her mother who relentlessly beat her, or her grandmother who secretly had Ayaan mutilated when her mother was away? As such, one is left wondering what Ayaan Hirsi Ali means by “good Muslim,” and readers unfamiliar with Islam are also unjustly left wondering.
Ali uses the term “extremist religion”[12] but does not allow her readers know what that means in her usage. Does she refer to “extremist religion” as those people who misuse and vilify Islam, those who disregard Islam but claim to be Muslims by birth, or those who live according to the guidance in the Qur’an and Sunna? Which ever definition is the case her readers deserve to know what it is that she means within her writing.
Opinions
It is important that a person distinguish opinion from fact. Within her first novel Ayaan Hirsi Ali integrates people’s opinion, such as her grandmother, but does not clarify for her readers that such opinions are actually against the teachings of Islam. This leaves an incorrect impression that the ideas presented are actually those of Islam. Whether this was intended or not, I’d like to point just a couple of these out so that readers are aware of this backhanded tactic to attach teachings to Islam, which has no basis in the religion.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali would probably state that these are fact, that they did happen, and some people do believe them. This is not in disagreement. However, if Ayaan Hirsi Ali wants to join with other Muslims in “reforming” Islam (she says that she is a Muslim reformer), she ought to, at least, represent Islam in a proper light. [13] Ayaan Hirsi Ali wants to start a dialogue for change, however in presenting Islam in a skewed, misrepresented, and incorrect way is a hypocritical and self-defeating, thus calling into question the authenticity of these so-called aims in the first place.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali quotes and refers to leaders, scholars, and others however does not provide any bibliographic information when doing so. I collected only a few of these problems, which is a form of plagiarism, to demonstrate this. Due note, that in all the below examples no citations, references, or even names are given to support her claims:
“Some Western critics disapprove …;”[14] “Some intellectuals criticize …;”[15] “cultural experts fail to notice …;”[16] “their numbers [Muslim women who have been successful in the West], incidentally, are not very large;” [17] “many of whom have an Islamic background;”[18] “even first-generation Muslims mothers in the West have no more than elementary education;”[19] “Most mullahs advise Muslims …;”[20] “a large number of Muslims …;”[21] “there are three kinds of Muslims in the West …;”[22] “Muslim men rarely tell their wives how they spend the day.”[23]
Ayaan Hirsi Ali quotes “experts” in making these claims, but makes no reference of where she found these quotes and materials, nor does she even give the name of the person whom the quote is from (for example, the preface to her first book page xviii).
Other statements made by Ayaan Hirsi Ali clearly rest in the fanciful realm of opinion as she neglects to develop or prove any of her statements. Such as: “Western culture is superior to Islamic culture … Islam as a body of ideas is not compatible with human rights, it is bad for women, it is bad for the human being, it is bad for the imagination, bad for science and therefore bad for progress."[24] Further, she says that "Islam is a culture that has been outlived."[25] Again, Ayaan Hirsi Ali makes claims without any justification and bases her evidence on mere opinion. Since she provides no factual evidence for these claims, they will not be refuted here, but simple research demonstrates the incorrectness of her statements, such as the human rights within Islam in the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human rights, which describes human rights as: the rights to life, rights to freedom, rights to equality, rights to justice, rights of protection, rights of minorities, freedom of religion, rights to education, and so on.[26]
Mistakes
One wonders sometimes which religion Ayaan Hirsi Ali is talking about and if she has created her own religion, since she has given new laws and introduced instructions not found within Islamic law. For example she writes, “Like the fact that Muslim women at home are kept locked up, are raped and are married off against their will.”[27] She fails to mention any religious justification for this – a glaring generalization of the Muslim world that certainly requires one. While it is the case that these horrid acts do occur, they are not done by only one specific group of people. However, almost all groups of people agree that such people are criminals, and certainly Islamic law does. Maria Golia, an Egyptian-based academic, writes: 'Hirsi Ali seems far more interested in indicting Islam than helping damaged women, whose horror stories she conveniently trots out whenever she needs to bludgeon home a point.'[28] In this case she clearly contradicts the Islamic legal system, which demonstrates her complete lack of knowledge of Islam.
A large component of Ali’s first book deals with the sexual morality in Islam. One of these points refers to the idea of abstinence until marriage. Ali describes this as being “enchained by the doctrine of virginity.”[29] However, if her case against the moral regulation regarding sexuality in Islam is one of prime concern, which she says, then Christianity and Judaism also fall under this banner. Ayaan Hirsi Ali states that the sexual morality of Islam is one of three factors that have resulted in Muslims are “lagging behind the West.”[30] But, interestingly, the religions practiced within the West also value these moral principles. In Islam marriage is sacred. It must be agreed upon by both parties in full commitment.[31] Muslims marry in a voluntary union, according to the Qur’an. In her book The Caged Virgin, Ayaan says that Muslim marriages are “prearranged by the family when the daughter is very young”[32] and are in essence an “arranged rape.”[33] She is blatantly incorrect.
In her first book Ayaan Hirsi Ali explains that Christians no longer believe in hell.[34] There may be some Christians that hold this view, but it is surely in the minority. This is not the case in the Catholic and Protestant belief, and these two sects account for almost 1.4 billion Christians.[35] Below are some Christian sources which disprove her claims: “Hell, in Christian beliefs, is a place in which the souls of the unsaved will suffer the consequences of sin.”[36] The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell.”[37] In the Protestant view, Hell is “where they will be punished for their sins. People will be consigned to hell after the last judgment.”[38]
Ayaan Hirsi Ali also states that Islam is bad for science, progress, and the imagination. However, it was Muslim scholars, following the direction of Islam to study the world and learn of Allah’s wonders that lead to the emergence out of the dark ages in Europe. There is no need to list the accomplishments of Muslims, following the Islamic direction of the sciences, from the past to the present as they permeate society, if Ayaan only cared to look.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali spoke of the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and described him in vile terms which will not be reprinted here. The Qur’an states that “We know of best what they say; and you (O Muhammad) are not a tyrant over them (to force them to Belief). But warn by the Qur'an, him who fears My Threat (50:45).” The prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) made peace treaties with neighboring groups (including those of other faiths) and encouraged patience when facing adversity:
"How wonderful is the case of a believer; there is good for him in everything and this applies only to a believer. If prosperity attends him, he expresses gratitude to Allah and that is good for him; and if adversity befalls him, he endures it patiently and that is better for him." (Sahih Muslim)
The Holy Qur’an explains: "O you who believe! Endure and be more patient" (3:200)
Islamic law, the Qur’an and the Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace) outright banned the practice of infanticide and maltreatment of women. His teachings declared that the poor, orphaned, and elderly need to be cared for by the Muslim community. If the Prophet (peace be upon him) sought fame, as Ayaan claims, he would have promoted himself and his images. However, we find the opposite. It fact he forbade it. Ali makes illogical, incorrect and disrespectful comparisons to modern figures, all of which are baseless.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali claims to understand the difference between culture and religion, but her arguments utilize this faulty logic throughout her books. For example, she writes that non-Muslims practice the tradition of female genital mutilation (FGM here refers to Type III as defined by the WHO, which is the type Ayaan Hirsi Ali refers to her books); a practice does not come from the Middle East. Female circumcision in general is a tradition that is practiced by Christians, Jews, Muslims and animists. A comprehensive study done by the United Nations covering fourteen African nations found no correlation between Islam and female genital mutilation.[39] In regards to religion and culture, FGM is not Islamic. Ayaan Hirsi Ali falsely claims that “Muslim scholars have never condemned the ritual.”[40] However, the Mufti of Egypt, the Grand Shaykh of Al-Azhar Masjid,[41] a statement made from the 2006 International Conference in Egypt,[42] and scholars from around the world are also in agreement.[43] Again, Ali’s lack of research leads her to errors and incorrect statements.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali writes that: “the Quran is not a holy document. It is a historical record, written by humans. It is one version of events, as perceived by the men who wrote it 150 years after the Prophet Muhammad died.”[44] Again, she cites no reference for this statement and it is false. During the time of the Prophet (upon whom be peace) the suras of the Qur’an were written and during the caliphate of Abu Bakr (632-634) the Qur’an was written, and copies were made and sent to the capitals of the Islamic world. And, two copies of these originals still exist in Istanbul and Tashkent.
Response
Certainly not all non-Muslims have been jumping on the Ali bandwagon as Infidel has received criticism from all walks of life. Andrew Anthony, of the Observer, noted that, "of course in voicing her opinion in the style she does, she risks lumping together over a billion people from different nations, cultures and traditions as a single 'problem."[45] The Economist book review wrote that "much as she tries, the kind of problems that Ms Hirsi Ali describes in Infidel are all too human to be blamed entirely on Islam. Her book shows that her life, like those of other Muslims, is more complex than many people in the West may have realised. But the West's tendency to seek simplistic explanations is a weakness that Ms Hirsi Ali also shows she has been happy to exploit."[46] Newsweek magazine felt the book "manipulated" its readers and that "Hirsi Ali is more a hero among Islamophobes than Islamic women."[47] Newsweek says that Hirsi sounds as "single-minded and reactionary as the zealots she's worked so hard to oppose."[48] “The Dutch sociologist and publicist Dick Pels describes her as an exponent of what he refers to as liberal fundamentalism, claiming "This ideology is similar to orthodox Islam in the sense that it thinks its perspective is superior and all people should be forced to have it.""[49] The March 15th edition of the Guardian concluded that “she's definitely right about the shameful, unacceptable oppression of women in some Muslim families and communities in Europe. But I don't think she's right about Islam.”
The Washington Post reported the contradiction of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, which is that she claims to want to help Muslim women but time after time she has only insulted and degraded them. The newspaper writes, “The film she scripted, Submission, showed … When it was screened for a small audience of Islamic women at a Dutch shelter for abused women -- and you'd have to figure this would be her core audience -- they were appalled, not inspired.”[50]
To demonstrate this foundational contradiction of claiming to help Muslim women while in fact she is harming them we can look at her work in the field of social work in the Netherlands. The Washington Post reports,
“She began to scorn her fellow immigrants. She said Muslims needed to adopt Western values; if necessary, the Netherlands should amend its Constitution to ban faith-based schools in order to keep Muslim parents from sending their children to Muslim schools. She stood for office on the Liberal ticket, one of a slate of candidates, and made it into parliament -- an immigrant elected on a current of anti- immigrant sentiment.”[51]
Although she no longer is involved in the Dutch government Ayaan Hirsi Ali continues to voice her opinion on restricting immigration policies, while this seems counter-intuitive for someone who herself came to Europe on false pretenses. Halleh Ghorashi writes, “I soon realized that Ayaan had become part of the dominant "rightist" discourse on Islam in the Netherlands that pictures Islamic migrants as problems and enemies of the nation.”[52]
Concluding remarks
In Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s first book she says that she is “optimistic,”[53] for reform in Islam and that it is her “mission to help Muslim women.”[54] However she also said, in that same book, “September 11, mark my words, was the beginning of the end of Islam as we know it.”[55] The author is optimistic for the future while at the same time the positions and "reformations" she advocates for have thus far done the opposite: to offend Muslim women, rather then empower or 'free' them.
Ali lavishes praise on the Western countries and their legal systems of rights, however she hypocritically does not allow such rights (such as the freedom to practice ones religion and the freedom of choice) to be extended to Muslims. It is a bizarre contradiction to promote these Western values while not allowing Muslims to be given those rights. She hypocritically subscribes to a western secular value system while at the same time denies them.
One is left wondering, how the woman with a “mission to help Muslim women” expects to help Muslim women by defiling the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), stating that Islam is the new Nazism, and telling Muslims not to follow the Qur’an? Clearly, this is not her mission at all and she has aims altogether different that those she claims to aspire for. The one thing readers do know is that she presents a faulty, weak, and incorrect opinion.
[1] Wikipedia. 2007. Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
[2] Marlise Simons. 2002. RaceMatters.org
[3] Celeb Atheists. 2007: http://www.celebatheists.com/?title=Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali
[4] Infidel. Feb, 2007. Guernicamag.com
[5] Infidel. Feb, 2007. Guernicamag.com
[6] Dateline Interview March 15, 2007
[7] Robin Acton. April 22nd, 2007. TRIBUNE-REVIEW
[8] Geoff Elliott. May 29, 2007. Bron: The Australian.
[9] New York Times, 2007
[10] Ayaan Hirsi Ali, 2002. The Caged Virgin, p. ix.
[11] Female Genital Mutilation has been categorized by the World Health Organization and United Nations into three general categories. When the term female genital mutilation (FGM) is used is refers to Type III. When the term female circumcision is used it refers to Type I/II.
[12] Ayaan Hirsi Ali, 2002. The Caged Virgin, p. xvi.
[13] Ayaan Hirsi Ali, 2002. The Caged Virgin, p. 84.
[14] Ayaan Hirsi Ali, 2002. The Caged Virgin, p. xvii.
[15] Ayaan Hirsi Ali, 2002. The Caged Virgin, p. xvii.
[16] Ayaan Hirsi Ali, 2002. The Caged Virgin, p. xviii.
[17] Ayaan Hirsi Ali, 2002. The Caged Virgin, p. 6.
[18] Ayaan Hirsi Ali, 2002. The Caged Virgin, p. 16.
[19] Ayaan Hirsi Ali, 2002. The Caged Virgin, p. 26.
[20] Ayaan Hirsi Ali, 2002. The Caged Virgin, p. 27.
[21] Ayaan Hirsi Ali, 2002. The Caged Virgin, p. 28.
[22] Ayaan Hirsi Ali, 2002. The Caged Virgin, p. 30.
[23] Ayaan Hirsi Ali, 2002. The Caged Virgin, p. 68.
[24] door Geoff Elliott. May 29, 2007. Bron: The Australian.
[25] Tucker, Neely. 2007. True Unbeliever. Washington Post.
[26] Full declaration available here: http://www.alhewar.com/ISLAMDECL.html
[27] Spiegel Interview (2006) AYAAN HIRSI ALI, Feb.6, 2006.
[28] http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2005258,00.html
[29] Ayaan Hirsi Ali, 2002. The Caged Virgin, p. 2.
[30] Ayaan Hirsi Ali, 2002. The Caged Virgin, p. xi.
[31] Jannah.org, 2007. Marriage in Islam: www.jannah.org
[32] Ayaan Hirsi Ali, 2002. The Caged Virgin, p. 3.
[33] Ayaan Hirsi Ali, 2002. The Caged Virgin, p. 4.
[34] Ayaan Hirsi Ali, 2002. The Caged Virgin, p. x, 160.
[35] Adherents.com, 2005, Major Branches of Religions: http://www.adherents.com/adh_branches.html
[36] Wikipedia, 2007, Hell in Christian Beliefs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell_in_Christian_beliefs
[37] Catholic Answers, 2007, http://www.catholic.com/library/Hell_There_Is.asp
[38] Wikipedia, 2007, Hell in Christian Beliefs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell_in_Christian_beliefs
[39] UNICEF, 2005, Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: A Statistical Exploration.
[40] Ayaan Hirsi Ali, 2002. The Caged Virgin, p. 105.
[41] Religious Tolerance, 2007, Female Genital Mutilation: http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_cirm3.htm#mufti
[42] Religious Tolerance, 2007, Female Genital Mutilation: http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_cirm3.htm#mufti
[43] Ahmad Kutty, 2007, Ask the Scholar: http://www.islamicinstitute.ca/answers.php?id=3
[44] Ayaan Hirsi Ali, 2007, Infidel, p. 272.
[45] Christopher Hitchens (February 4, 2007). A voice that will not be silenced. The Sunday Times.
[46] Anne Applebaum (February 4, 2007). The Fight for Muslim Women. Washington Post.
[47] William Grimes (February 14, 2007). No Rest for a Feminist Fighting Radical Islam. New York Times.
[48] William Grimes (February 14, 2007). No Rest for a Feminist Fighting Radical Islam. New York Times.
[49] AEI - Scholars & Fellows. American Enterprise Institute for Policy Research. Retrieved on 2007-01-07.
[50] Tucker, Neely. 2007. True Unbeliever. Washington Post.
[51] Tucker, Neely. 2007. True Unbeliever. Washington Post.
[52] http://www.signandsight.com/features/1250.html
[53] Ayaan Hirsi Ali, 2002. The Caged Virgin, p. xvii.
[54] Ayaan Hirsi Ali, 2002. The Caged Virgin, p. 2.
[55] Ayaan Hirsi Ali, 2002. The Caged Virgin, p. 84.
24 comments:
MashAllah, JazakAllahu khayr for this interesting post.
Bismillah Ar Rahman ArRahim
Kindly let me preface my commentary with this opening statement: Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an empty vessel that continuously strives to make the most noise. This voice crying for attention in the wilderness of darkness and despair has clearly ingested the vomit of her supporters whom she believes allowed her the freedom to be detached from her source of sanity...Allah Subhana wa Taala. This lost being has committed to do absolutely anything to gain the acceptance and attention of those whose crumbs she has ravenously devoured in her desperate search to gain self worth and credibility. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is being given too much attention which she craves in order to stay alive. Her anguished groans are continuously heard from the incendiary place where she has chosen to occupy; a place where one is neither dead nor alive. She has created a burning desire to become that which she has fashioned for herself. Why would anyone continue to read the distorted,rambling and empty words of someone who is neither dead nor alive? Allah Subhana wa Taala describes the state of these people as such: "Those who reject our Signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire: as often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the penalty: for Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.” (4:56) Please ignore this individual who has evidently lost her mind. Insha Allah we can continue to ask Allah Subhana wa Taala to guide her back to the part of deen. But nothing more. Allahu Alim.
BarakAllah fiikum for your comments.
I decided to write about these books because they are popular and best-sellers so it is a duty for us to respond to them. To correct the mistakes found within them.
MashAllah great post.. very informative.
BarakAllah fiikum.
InshaAllah I'll write about some other books / authors in the future.
I am optimistic for reform of Islam. 9/11 marked the end of Islam as we know it.
There is no contradiction between the two sentences above. So the first paragraph of your conclusion is nonsense.
As to your accusation that Hirsi Ali wants to deny freedom of worship to Muslims and is therefore inconsistent in her advocacy of "Western" freedom - you present no evidence for this. This is unsurprising, because Hirsi Ali does not want to deprive Muslims of the freedom to worship.
Your conclusions are bogus. This is a terrible article.
@mww
Can you please clarify your comments for me:
re: Optimism, reform and 9/11 - It is hypocritical to believe that something has no future while at the some time hoping for reform in the future? Is it not? For example, if I said that next week elephants will be extinct and than next year I will go to study elephants in the wild, this is clearly not logical. Is it logical to hope for reform was at the same time claiming that the entire system is ending and has no future? I hope you can help me understand how you do not see this as a contradiction.
Regarding Ali's rejection of freedom of religion for Muslims while at the same time promoting "Western" freedoms. I kindly ask you to read the article. For example, Ali want to have Muslims schools banned. She also wants forms of Muslim dress to be forbidden. Is this not a denial of rights? Regarding the sources for that, see citation 51.
I'd be happy to provide many other examples of this (curtailing rights of Muslims), if you feel is required. I tried to be brief in the article but am happy to elaborate.
All the best.
If she had said she hoped for Islam's reform, and then said she hoped for Islam's extinction, that would be a logical contradiction. But she did not say that. She said she hoped for a reformed Islam, and that 9/11 marked the end of Islam *as we know it*.
A radically reformed Islam would not be Islam "as we know it" - but it would still exist, albeit in a changed form.
I concede the second point. She does advocate some illiberal restrictions on the practice of Islam.
An example to help you understand. I believe that British parliamentary democracy needs to be radically reformed. I also believe the yesterday's historic coalition of Conservative and Liberals could mark the beginning of the end of British parliamentary democracy as we know it.
Where's the contradiction?
I think your misrepresentation of Ali's position as "hypocrisy" stems from a misunderstanding of the phrase "as we know it."
Fair enough. I understand where you are coming from.
Is there not some hypocrisy the point you conceded to?
I will rework that last part of the conclusion, let me know if you find it unfair (may take me a day).
All the best.
Yes, I agree there is some hypocrisy - or, at very least, inconsistency - in simultaneously advocating religious freedom and seeking restrictions on it. I do not agree with Hirsi-Ali's position on this matter.
Thank you for being so fair minded.
@mww
Thank you for writing and commenting.
Have you read the other books I reviewed that are of a simmilar approach (Irshad Manji or Asra Nomani)?
Interested to hear your comments on those if you have.
All the best.
Having read your quote from Imam Sahfi'i below I now see that many of you think the true purpose of debate is to persuade others of your opinions and that only your opinions and beliefs are true.
I can now see why you choose to remain ignorant of so much and why you criticise Hirsi Ali so harshly and learn nothing from her.
The true purpose of debate is to learn from others, not simply to persuade them. Anything else is foolish arrogant pride which I think would be frowned on by any true religion. Shame on you all.
Now go back and reflect on your vain pride and seek to open your minds and learn.
We should all take this as our first duty as scholars, not simply persuading others.
Thank you for commenting Anonymous.
Could you please read that quote again. It may be that you missed the negation "never do I debate a man with a desire to hear him err" or maybe that he prays for whoever speaks the Truth will have it accepted by the other. I kindly ask that you re-read this quote:
“Never do I debate a man with a desire to hear him err in his speech, or to expose the flaws in his argument, and thus vanquish him. Whenever I face an opponent in debate I silently supplicate, ‘O Lord, help him so that truth may manifest itself in his heart and on his tongue. If it be that the truth is on my side, may he follow me; and if the truth be on his side, may I follow him.’”
- Imam Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him)
I think you will see that the "true purpose" of debate is not persuasion, as that is not mentioned by Imam Shafi'i. Rather the search for the Truth and acceptance of that.
However, Imam Shafi'i aside if you wanted to highlight some points that Ayaan Hirsi Ali makes that I've missed or that you'd like to remind us about, kindly cite them here for discussion.
All the best.
I've done a lot of reading and too much watching of Ms Ali's videos bashing Islam. What I find most disturbing is that there are no challenges to what she is saying. The interviewers, and I don't blame them, know less about Islam than she does. This gives her free reign to spout whatever she wants.
Here's a collection from her 'talk' at a University in Winconsin (http://vimeo.com/9184055):
1. "No culture, no religion, no idea has ever been so brutal to women as Islam".
2. "For it's a matter of princical that women are free and equal as it is for Islam and too a matter of principal to oppress women".
3. "Muslim communities in Europe largeley accept domestic violence as natural".
4. "Women are confined to small apartments in tall buildings; they're not allowed to leave their homes but only with permission from their husbands".
5. "It was a special kind of hatred that the Nazis had for Jews, and Islam sanctions a special kind of hatred towards women".
She has no limits. She also said the following in "Nomad":
"The Christian leaders now wasting precious time and resources on a futile exercise of interfaith dialogue with the self-appointed leaders of Islam should redirect their efforts to converting as many Muslims as possible to Christianity".
Can you imagine a Muslim saying this about Christains?
Can you imagine that she is going around the world under the disguise that she is championing women's rights? Shes become the very thing that Muslims are accused of - a preacher of hate.
Barak Allah fiikum Anonymous.
Very informative. It appears she is willing to say just about anything to appease.
Dear "i love western civilization":
Thank you for submitting a comment, however it has not been approved because it seems as though you have neglected to read this post and decided instead to send in insults.
If you have some relevant comments, or factual information, I'd be happy to discuss it with you.
All the best.
In a rather promotional comment on another blog, you described AHA as mixing culture with with religion in order to make her argument stronger.
This quote from Infidel, I think, gets the spirit of her opinion across.
It wasn’t completely because of Islam that we were cut: not all Muslim women are excised. But in Somalia and the other Muslim countries, it was clear that that the Islamic culture of virginity encouraged it. I knew of no fatwa denouncing female genital mutilation; on the contrary, suppressing the sexuality of women was a big theme with imams.
Thanks for the comment Anonymous.
I suppose some comments have been posted in a promotional manner - although the objective was just to share this review, since most of what is said in the blogworld is praise and this offers another viewpoint.
Thankyou for that very informative article.
I too agree that AHA is using cultural identity and practise to strengthen her view of Islam's "cruelty" towards women.
I believe that her idea of reform in Islam shows just how little she knows of the religion in general. Islam is unchanging and cannot be subjected to the changing ideals of time. This shows just how limited her rote learned knowledge of Quranic verse in Somalia is.
I just find it disappointing that she, along with many others, believe that Islam and Democracy are a clash of ideals. Was it not Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) who allowed the followers of other religions to continue their practise and worship at the Al - Asqa mosque (please forgive me if I am mistaken)? Because, to me, that is freedom of religion, the epitome of democracy. She is inhibiting the ideals which she claims to uphold through her outspoken calls for a stop to financial funding of Islamic funding in the UK (though supporting the funding of other religious entity schooling). She is stripping the Quran and Islam in general of any worth because she too, along with many others, is judging the religion on its followers. Many have said this before and I believe AHA has disregarded this famous statement; "One cannot judge a religion on it's followers." This needs to be upheld to the utmost because Allah (SWT) knows that his followers are not perfect.
Also, I find it further disappointing that she is questioning the morality of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) and by doing so, is likening him to all men of the Muslim faith and the atrocities they subject Muslim women to. She, once again along with many others, is basing this on his relationship with Aisha, as this, it seems, is the only issue on which they can strongly attack the Prophet (PBUH). They are subjected a marriage (with an engagement period of 2 years) of 1400 years ago to ideals of our 21st century world. How can one not see fault with this? AHA praises an Egyptian scholar for reading the Quran in the context of the 7th century (to which he was consequently persecuted) but cannot do this herself. And if she, along with others, has a problem with this, than why does she not question the purely sexual marriage of King Henry VIII and Catharine Howard, who was merely 11 at the time. He was the head of Christian reform and he has this sexual relationship a mere 500 years ago! How does this light a match to the 7th century respectable marriage of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) and Aisha?
I find her too hypocritical, all too willing to dwell on the darkness in followers of Islam and all to quick to dismiss the credibility of a religion of millions.
<1981-JAN-29: The Great Sheikh of Al-Azhar (the most famous University of the Islamic World) stated that parents must follow the lessons of Mohammed and not listen to medical authorities because the latter often change their minds. Parents must do their duty and have their daughters circumcised.>
I think he changed this statement AFTER Ayaan's capmpaign and thanks to her.
Appreciate your thoughts Anonymous. However, the statement made in 2006 was made by a different person than that of 1981 (so it was not one individual who changed his mind, as you have suggested). As the article outlines, this is an issue of jurisprudence and opinions have different over time. Seems unlikely that the publication of an English book by an author largely unread and unrecognized in the Muslim world (as she has no religions training or education) would impact the religious rulings of al Azhar (unless you have some evidence to the contrary). Due also note that this opinion is not a new one, there is historical precedent that long predates Ayaan Hirsi Ali (by hundreds of years). All the best.
For me Ayaan’s books provide a good example of how religious doctrines often get misused and abused as a justification of violence and other nasty cultural practices in the society. Ayaan experienced those practices in her life and she was taught that Qur’an justifies those practices. She does not understand however the following two points:
- When dealing with the religious perspective of any topic, there should be a clear distinction between the normative teachings of that religion and the diverse cultural practices among its followers, which may or may not be consistent with the normative teachings.
- It is important that we study the religious texts in their proper context. When these texts are not read in their proper textual and historical contexts they are manipulated and distorted.
Unfortunately, religious doctrines often get misused and abused as a justification of violence, including justification of male violence against women. Check out “A chicken is not a bird, a woman is not a human” post at http://otrazhenie.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/a-chicken-is-not-a-bird-and-a-woman-is-not-a-person/ for an example of how Bible is sometimes misused as a justification of male violence against women in a county where every hour 1 woman is killed by her husband. :-(
@mww
You are correct; there is no contradiciton between those two sentences- but to immediately dismiss that paragraph as nonsense is wrong.It is slightly badly worded but that is the only fault-The author is "optimistic” for reform in Islam and “September 11, mark my words, was the beginning of the end of Islam as we know it.” Her “mission to help Muslim women.” These statements especially the last show she wants to reform Islam mainly through supporting women; but what she advocates has only served to offend muslim women. That is the contradiction.
Post a Comment