Re Your link to globalsecurity.org. That is one weird website. Their 'wahhabi' section manages to sound like a salafi pamphlet whilst talking about 'mahomet' and 'mohammedans' at the same time.

dear eerie & ali,

i thought that manji was isma'ili ... but in any case i think that the wiki article is much better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelvers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ismaili

globalsecurity can be a very useful website - but only for people with a solid background in MENA affairs who can filter out the "mahomet" stuff and read it for data.

--raf*

Is Manji from a Bohra or an Ismaili background? Both communities are very charismatic leader focused and probably the most patriarchal of South Asian muslim communities, though the Bohra Syedna is more of an old time petty tyrant and the Aga Khan is more like contemporary European jetsetting charity-hopping royalty. Manji must realize that these communities are considered practically idolatrous by many other South Asian Muslims...not terribly representative.

Very disingenuous of Ms. Hirsi Ali to ask why people are interested in her personal history, when she uses this history and her identity as validation for most of what she says...

She's denied being Ismaili and it doesn't fit the profile of her upbringing (they are rather too liberal to fit with her description). Bohra is plausible but I still lean towards Twelver.

(We have of course debated this extensively due to her reluctance to disclose previous sect affiliation)

Ali K - reason I chose the globalsecurity link is that it had a useful tree showing different sects on the side.

dear e,

seeing how i myself have stated that "i researched and it's pretty clear that irshad manji's family is 12er shi'a" i stand corrected - by myself, no less.

in ANY case - those comments on brian whitaker's blog were hilarious. interestingly only non-muslim men & women and (ex)muslim men defend both manji & hirsi ali whereas muslim women as a whole - including the liberal/reformist/progressivist/anti-traditionalist/anti-islamist/etc. ones - loathe those two.

of course ... maybe ALL muslim women - save manji & hirsi ali & sultan & mayber a handful similar liberated brains - are just brainwashed.

--raf*

D'oh, I didn't see the earlier reference to Twelver. Though with a south asian Muslim in East Africa, Ismaili is a good bet.

Would you be interested, eerie, in a thread to discuss Real Muslim Reformist Women? I have a couple of articles.

True, Ismailis are likely the most wealthy/high-profile subcon Muslim group in East Africa, and probably the most liberal and apolitical (wrt "pan-Islamic" issues) as well. Iranian influence would reasonably be present among subcon Twelvers, though perhaps there was some with the Bohras.

Sects do mix more in East Africa, even the reclusive ones. Frequent the same places, occasionally intermarry, that sort of thing.

Mashallah 3ala elshatara!

A little intellectual sniping at the Ismailis. Better Manji be an Ismaili to deconstruct her views.

I this the "atheistic liberal" alternative to Manji and Ayaan!

Mr. Torguy, I am simply trying to learn more about Manji's background to try to figure out what it is about religion she's protesting and what she attributes to it. There's a wide range of patriarchal religiously-justified nuttiness out there, so it would help to know if she's reacting to a conservative religious family, defensive identity-mad expat community, her readings of religion, the norms of her particular religious sect, etc.

"the Bohra Syedna is more of an old time petty tyrant and the Aga Khan is more like contemporary European jetsetting charity-hopping royalty"

And the Pope is a old croaked man sitting on top of a wealthy organization in the Vatican, disseminating dubious teachings and attempting to interfere in the affairs of secular nations...

All these communities have a central figure head. And for a web site that purports to have a "nuanced" approach to understanding problems, perhaps the best "nuanced" approach is not to take a snipe at people who Ismailis hold in high esteem, especially when you ought to note that Irshad denies being an Ismaili (inspite of the ring of her last name).

But otherwise I agree with you. Although I think Eerie is unsympathetic to this viewpoint that "there is a wide range of partriarichal religously-justified nuttiness". After all, scripture or not- those communities would be no less patriarichal.

"the Bohra Syedna is more of an old time petty tyrant and the Aga Khan is more like contemporary European jetsetting charity-hopping royalty"

And the Pope is a old croaked man sitting on top of a wealthy organization in the Vatican, disseminating dubious teachings and attempting to interfere in the affairs of secular nations...

All these communities have a central figure head. And for a web site that purports to have a "nuanced" approach to understanding problems, perhaps the best "nuanced" approach is not to take a snipe at people who Ismailis hold in high esteem, especially when you ought to note that Irshad denies being an Ismaili (inspite of the ring of her last name).

But otherwise I agree with you. Although I think Eerie is unsympathetic to this viewpoint that "there is a wide range of partriarichal religously-justified nuttiness". After all, scripture or not- those communities would be no less patriarichal or nutty!

SP:

I should say, I am one of those un-nuanced idiotic comments over at Whittaker's blog :), and for which I have pursued the atheist Eerie here to be enlightened by :).

Well if we're going to be critical of religion and religious communities and their practices, I don't think we can avoid some offence...but that's an aside.

On the issue of scripture and nuttiness, I think the Manjis and Alis who blame it all on some sort of undifferentiated Islam frozen in time are in a way validating the nutty Islamists and purists who insist that the religion cannot change and that the patriarchal nonsense that has been associated with religion over the years is a necessary part of it. It makes for a good Jerry Springer sort of confrontation between defensive conservatives and angry rejectionists, but not a very productive one.

Ah, Torguy. Welcome.

perhaps the best "nuanced" approach is not to take a snipe at people who Ismailis hold in high esteem, especially when you ought to note that Irshad denies being an Ismaili (inspite of the ring of her last name).

Well first, I did note that she denied being Ismaili. Read the comments above, cretin.

Second, since when do Ismailis hold her in high esteem? Yet another sweeping, ignorant generalization. Do you even know any Ismailis? Every Ismaili I've spoken to thinks she's a disingenuous idiot.

Third, since you haven't even grasped the argument here (SP has, particularly with his/her last comment), please don't presume to know my views re: patriarchal nuttiness irrespective of religious justification.

Also, a warning. Tiresome, ignorant troglodytes such as yourself usually don't do well here.

SP: Would you be interested, eerie, in a thread to discuss Real Muslim Reformist Women? I have a couple of articles.

Yes. Give me links.

>> Well first, I did note that she denied being Ismaili. Read the comments above, cretin.

Excuse me Eerie, but are you SP? Where did I say you said she was Ismaili, or is this part of your nuanced approach to analysis?

>> Second, since when do Ismailis hold her in high esteem?

Excuse me, but where did I say that she was held in high esteem by Ismailis?

I said the Aga Khan is held in high esteem by Ismailis.

Is this yet another one of your "nuanced" approach to reading what people write.

>> Yet another sweeping, ignorant generalization. Do you even know any Ismailis? Every Ismaili I've spoken to thinks she's a disingenuous idiot.

Yes, I do. I have many Ismaeeli friends.

>>Also, a warning. Tiresome, ignorant troglodytes such as yourself usually don't do well here.

Of course we don't. Without exceptional ability to be nuanced, like yourself, we naturally don't do very well in your turf :).

>> Well if we're going to be critical of religion and religious communities and their practices, I don't think we can avoid some offence...but that's an aside.

I agree. I think Eerie, the atheist it should be said, has a problem with that kind of reasoning.

>> On the issue of scripture and nuttiness, I think the Manjis and Alis who blame it all on some sort of undifferentiated Islam

Ali is an atheist. She is free to blame it on whatever she wants. As an atheist, first and foremost her view is that Muhammad is a charlatan.

Manji pretends like she is still a Muslim. And she doesn't blame it on some undifferentiated Islam. In fact she speaks fondly of the Golden age of Islam, and all her banter talks about reviving Ijtihad. A little unacademic and populist perhaps, but to say that she makes sweeping generalizations is perhaps a generalization in itself.

>> It makes for a good Jerry Springer sort of confrontation between defensive conservatives and angry rejectionists, but not a very productive one.

Well it need not be productive. But your values seem to be closer to the angry rejectionists. By the looks of this website however, they receive a greater share of ire than the defensive conservatives. I question the wisdom of that.

I suppose it is a bit much to expect trolls to write coherently.

And how many times are you going to use the word "nuanced"? It doesn't actually help your case.

Of course it doesn't help my case. It's my way to give your opinions the kind of respect they deserve- aka, by comparing what is evidently your superior comprehension skills with your claim that you have a nuanced understanding of the problems at hand.

This contrasts dramatically with your approach of responding to people with kind words such as Cretin, Troglodytes, Trolls, Ignorant.

That approach most certainly helps your case in advancing your views, by demonstrating your wonderful ability to be calm and composed, and to make arguments based on rational merit.

I think Eerie, the atheist it should be said, has a problem with that kind of reasoning.

Once again, avoid presuming to know what I think. Either quote me directly or explain your position.

Also, you may want to try more than a cursory reading of this website before passing judgement on it. Of course, that is probably asking too much, since you seem to prefer everything be taken at face value.

As for namecalling, why not? It's my site and you're obviously trying to get a rise out of me. Insulting you doesn't mean I've lost my cool, merely enjoying myself at your expense.

(ah, I appear to be channeling someone)

Here is an example of the sort of silly defensiveness that the Manji/Alis invite by depicting the problems of Muslim women as a grand clash of civs:
http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00006208&channel=gulberg&threshold=1&layout=0&order=0&start=90&end=99&page=1

I think it shows pretty well how angry generalizations breed defensiveness and denial, and it's interesting to see how these so-called reformists(can we give them a snappy acronym?) play upon the old colonial backward-natives stereotype and how much of the defensive nutty response is actually a response to this superior West vs backward Islam idea.

About women who could more accurately be called reformists, there's Mukhtaran Mai of Pakistan, who used *her* international publicity to raise funds for girls' schools:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4330335.stm

And a group of Muslim women in south India who were pissed off at their patriarchial community leaders and started their own mosque:
http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20040809&fname=Muslim+women+%28F%29&sid=1

>> Once again, avoid presuming to know what I think. Either quote me directly or explain your position.

This is the wonderous role of the word Think. I said I think you would have a problem with it. As for your claim to be an atheist, that was a claim you made, and is quoted verbatim.

>> Also, you may want to try more than a cursory reading of this website before passing judgement on it.

I did not pass judgement on this website. My initial cursory reading of it inspired my sincere complement that I liked it.

And in spite of disagreeing with every sentiment you have expressed herein, I still like the website!

>> Of course, that is probably asking too much, since you seem to prefer everything be taken at face value.

Even if that were true, it would be some notches higher than your approach- and that is not taking things at face value (case in point, your misreading of what I wrote SP).

It also seems to be the approach you have taken with Ayaan- reading her statements at face value, and thereby accusing her of lacking nuance.

>> As for namecalling, why not? It's my site

As a firm believer in Freedom to express oneself. You are right. Why not! Especially considering it's your website. It is however a reflection of the kind of character you are. Criticism carries a lot more weight when it is unencumbered with profanities.

>> and you're obviously trying to get a rise out of me.

Nope. That is speculation on your part. I am trying to better understand your vitroilic opposition to the Alis and Manjis and your obsession with them. I thought that if I presented you with some of inconsistencies in your argument, you would clarify either your point, or at least express them better. You have done neither.

>> Insulting you doesn't mean I've lost my cool, merely enjoying myself at your expense.

My expense :). Well if believing that means it will help you enjoy yourself, or give purpose to your day, then by all means believe that. Indeed, I am injured and agonized. And as we speak, tears are running down my cheeks. I hope that has amplified the enjoyment you are getting.

I think it shows pretty well how angry generalizations breed defensiveness and denial, and it's interesting to see how these so-called reformists(can we give them a snappy acronym?) play upon the old colonial backward-natives stereotype and how much of the defensive nutty response is actually a response to this superior West vs backward Islam idea.

Yes, exactly. Hardly productive, as you said earlier. Plays to xenophobic instincts, which generally leads to isolationist (or worse) policies.

Re snappy acronyms: Arabist calls them CRAP (courageous reformist arab personalities), but that doesn't capture non-Arabs.

Thanks for the links. There are a few deserving reformers (perhaps this isn't a precise enough term for what they do) that I'd like to highlight over the next little while.

dear all,

just when you start to almost miss a troll ... there's another one popping up. am having a vision of a waiting room of trolls, each waiting for his/her number to be called.

torguy,

what exactly is your point? if you are here to engage in a meaningful debate - please state your case. if you are here merely to piss people off ... good luck.

btw, being an atheist does not mean that one thinks that muhammad was a charlatan. most non-muslim academics/intellectuals working on islam/m.e.n.a. are quite convinced that muhammad sincerely believed in having received divine revelation, just as most non-christian academics/intellectuals do not dispute that jesus sincerely believed to have been the son of god.

--raf*

ps: i wrote an earlier comment - e, could you please release it?

"Here is an example of the sort of silly defensiveness that the Manji/Alis invite by depicting the problems of Muslim women as a grand clash of civs:"

SP. The article is funny.

On the one hand though, you state that criticising religion or religious figures is bound to insult some people, and on the other hard you decry the kind of defensiveness this may lead to.

It appears then that the only solution is to endorse somewhat what the author of the article is saying. He too, after all, did take a swipe at the Mullahs!

Am I missing something? what is the argument here? Is it for taking a swipe at ismaili leaders? Eerie didn't do that.

This is the wonderous role of the word Think. I said I think you would have a problem with it.

Indeed, which is why I told you not to presume. Find a quote that demonstrates what I think, or shut up. Not difficult.

It also seems to be the approach you have taken with Ayaan- reading her statements at face value, and thereby accusing her of lacking nuance.

I repeatedly quoted Hirsi Ali to demonstrate her lack of nuance (e.g. "Islam has failed to condemn FGM") and then proceeded to explain the impact of making such a statement. Did you even read the entry or did you just randomly start with the pathetic sniping about "nuance"?

It is however a reflection of the kind of character you are. Criticism carries a lot more weight when it is unencumbered with profanities.

Yes, well, everyone should be aware of how much weight your opinion carries with me.

I am trying to better understand your vitroilic opposition to the Alis and Manjis and your obsession with them. I thought that if I presented you with some of inconsistencies in your argument, you would clarify either your point, or at least express them better.

Aside from whining about "nuance" and making silly assumptions based on my atheism, you haven't asked for clarification on a single point. Suggests to me that you don't care to understand because it would create uncomfortable cognitive dissonance in your own mind.

Indeed, I am injured and agonized. And as we speak, tears are running down my cheeks. I hope that has amplified the enjoyment you are getting.

Blah blah blah

Recap for Ali K: SP wondered if Manji was Ismaili. I noted that Manji had publicly denied it, but that it was plausible she could be Bohra. That was a rather interesting discussion.

Then Torguy wandered in and babbled incoherently about my atheism and "nuance" (continuing a stream of tiresome wanking from the Whitaker blog), found SP's characterization of the Aga Khan to be negative (I misread Tor's wandering pronouns and thought he was suggesting that all Ismailis liked Manji, which is not true), followed by some floundering attempts to discredit my analysis of Wafa/Ayaan/Irshad.

Tedious, really. Aside from sad attempts at being snide and morally superior, Torguy has no argument that I can see.

(sorry for releasing your comment late, got trapped in the filter)

Raf: in ANY case - those comments on brian whitaker's blog were hilarious. interestingly only non-muslim men & women and (ex)muslim men defend both manji & hirsi ali whereas muslim women as a whole - including the liberal/reformist/progressivist/anti-traditionalist/anti-islamist/etc. ones - loathe those two.

Hah, indeed. Perhaps you are right about the brainwashing. Or perhaps I spoke without thinking again, just as Sheikh Jassem predicted.

Re Whitaker's blog. One of the most tedious points being thrown out about Ayan is that somehow 'leftists like Whitaker' were responsible for her leaving the netherlands, when in fact it was *her own right-wing party* that did it. That is why her case is particularly ironic.

>> I repeatedly quoted Hirsi Ali to demonstrate her lack of nuance (e.g. "Islam has failed to condemn FGM")

I read the statement, and you are reading it at face value. This seems to be the central part of your case against Ayaan, and is largely unimpressive. See below.

>> and then proceeded to explain the impact of making such a statement.

Yes- you gave your views as to why you saw it to be detrimental, but other people have different views.

For example, one can easily condemn the Catholic church for its stated policy vis-a-vis condom usage in Africa, especially when this policy is extremely detrimental. Also, the rule is not universally applied.

The Catholic church has a hierarchy, so it is of course different to some extent. But since you've been following up on the FGM issue, then at least you should recognize that there are a number of prominent "scholars" in places like Al-Azhar who condone the practice.

The practice may be pre-Islamic. It may not be demanded or recommended by the bulk of the Muslim world when you go outside the geographical area of Africa, but those scholars who are proponents of the practice speak of at least some approval of the practice by Muhammad in one of the Hadiths.

Now is a blanket statement necessary? No. But at least the heirarchy of Muslim theologians should convincingly discredit the Hadith (which they have yet to do). Or they should acknowledge that they are part of the problem because they live in a part of the world where their views and edicts are taken seriously by the religiously inclined.

If the scriptures of the Copts and Animists (as the Amnesty report says) are also pro- the practice, then they too should be criticized.

Your assertion that just because the practice is not limited to just the Muslim community of Africa, and not applicable outside of Africa means Ayaan's approach is wrong, does not give a recipe for solving the problem.

And if you are valiantly facing off against the Imams of Azhar who are proponents of the practice, then good for you. But if your case against Ayaan is based purely on her sin of omission, then you have not made much of a case.

>> Did you even read the entry or did you just randomly start with the pathetic sniping about "nuance"?

Yes, I read that entry and many more that you have made on Irshad and others, including Wafa, where I got the full transcript of her conversation in Al-Jazeera.

I thank you for that. I was trying, at the time, to get a hold of the entire show because the clip was irritating me due to its cut and paste nature.

I also noted that for an avowed atheist, one of your criticisms of these ladies is that they leave no latitude to preach their values while showing other women that they can "still follow the example of the Prophet".

But as an atheist, and a woman, you proved that you can buck the trend, much like Ayaan and Irshad. Clearly, their writings have not disusaded you from thinking that Muhammad was a Charlatan and that no God exists.

People don't need your help- or Irshad's or Ayaans for that matter- to see make their informed decisions. Instead of devoting your time pouting agaisnt the Ayaans and Irshads, you can use it more constructively. Present your views instead of insulting others'.

>>Aside from whining about "nuance" and making silly assumptions based on my atheism, you haven't asked for clarification on a single point. Suggests to me that you don't care to understand because it would create uncomfortable cognitive dissonance in your own mind.

We had a quasi- conversation back in CommentisFree whereby views were explicitly stated, and which you dismissed as ignorant.

I gave you the example of honor killing to parallel the discussion on FGM, and the importance of the role of religious groups in advancing change.

Ali:

There is nothing tedious about the point. Leftists like Whittaker did do it, becasue they didn't take the principelled stance.

Take Geert Wilders, another Dutch politician enjoying round-the-clock protection. Has there been any case to evict him from his property?

That right-wing groups in Europe are xenophobic and racist is not new. They have never been the ones who stood up for diversity.

That people like Ayaan can only really find a home within a more right-wing party is a demonstration that the left no longer provides a home within their ranks for dissidents. The left wing that has traditionally been critical of the church and of religious edicts. The left wing that has traditionally supported libertarians left her hanging.

Torguy-
I am not sure exactly how that makes them 'responsible'. The people responsible are first and foremost her own party. Then her for advocating the same immigration laws that came back to haunt her (I am not talking about her anti-muslim stance).
And if I recall correctly, some leftist groups in the netherlands sided with her in the citizenship issue whilst still disagreeing with her, which is what I consider the principled stance.

"That people like Ayaan can only really find a home within a more right-wing party is a demonstration that the left no longer provides a home within their ranks for dissidents. The left wing that has traditionally been critical of the church and of religious edicts. The left wing that has traditionally supported libertarians left her hanging."

That is somewhat true, and you'll find that we have touched upon this subject in various threads on this very website.

torguy,

for someone criticizing other for making sweeping generalizations, you are quite active on that level.

"the left"? which country are you talking about again?

re: "Muhammad was a Charlatan" - do see my comment above. (they're really easy to find - i tend to use bold font.)

re: FGM - hirsi ali does not talk about christians and animists practicing it. she exclusively attributes it to islam (or, rather, her understanding of what "islam" is). that was/is eerie's point on that issue. and yes, some people at al-azhar condone FGM. that doesn't make it an "islamic practice", though.

i am asking you again: what is your argument here? so far you have not done anything but cheap sniping. yaaaaaawn.

--raf*

In other words, this isn't the bleeding-hearts place you presume it to be.

Eerie,

I don't know how you want to manage your place, but in others where I did, I used to ban loser who came for trolling and lowered the standards. Many people used to scream about freedom of speech (which I fully support, in the public taxpayer supported sphere), but this is your private space, and any guest is as welcome as you decide he is. You probably already knew that, but since it only costs a few bytes to say it...

Tor: But since you've been following up on the FGM issue, then at least you should recognize that there are a number of prominent "scholars" in places like Al-Azhar who condone the practice.

To quote myself: "As we have discussed on ‘Aqoul previously, female genital mutilation is region-specific (primarily Africa). It is not particularly restricted to Muslims either, as explained in this Amnesty International report on FGM. Religion has naturally been used to bolster its legitimacy in regions where it is practiced but in areas where it is not customary, Muslims obviously find it revolting and/or bizarre. Who, in Hirsi Ali’s opinion, speaks for the entire religion such that their condemnation equates to Islam’s condemnation?"

Basically you assert that Islamic scholars in regions where FGM is endemic should renounce the practice. I agree. In fact this is precisely what Ayaan should have demanded. That Somalian/Egyptian/Sudanese/etc religious scholars be the ones to enact culture shift within their own societies. What she did instead was insinuate that the entire religion (=all adherents) condoned and failed to condemn the practice, which is utterly absurd and certainly misleading to the average Western reader.

The recipe for solving the problem, as I stated wrt your honour killings example, is to understand the underlying motivations and incentives in order to enable a culture shift, not to oversimplify or misappropriate blame. Westerners who might otherwise support actual reform (e.g. pressure the Egyptian government to enforce anti-FGM measures) will instead conclude that Islam is the problem and all Muslims are guilty. Encouraging xenophobia is not helpful.

I also noted that for an avowed atheist, one of your criticisms of these ladies is that they leave no latitude to preach their values while showing other women that they can "still follow the example of the Prophet".

I may not believe in God, but I dislike it when Manji et al insult average Muslims - the very people who might otherwise be receptive to various reforms. Run an 'Aqoul search on "pious middle" for some detailed commentary on this issue.

Clearly, their writings have not disusaded you from thinking that Muhammad was a Charlatan and that no God exists.

Again, you presume things about me based on one trait. I don't think Mohammed was a charlatan, period. Why would I bother with all this if I held Islam in such contempt? That would mean I hold my own family in contempt. It's not that simple. One can lose God.

People don't need your help- or Irshad's or Ayaans for that matter- to see make their informed decisions. Instead of devoting your time pouting agaisnt the Ayaans and Irshads, you can use it more constructively. Present your views instead of insulting others'.

My views are all over the site. The reason I go after Ayaan and Irshad in particular is that they present a monolithic view of Islam that is received uncritically by most Western readers (who generally lack the background to determine accuracy/veracity). Judging by the rampant Islamophobia in N. America and Europe, people do need help making informed decisions.

I gave you the example of honor killing to parallel the discussion on FGM, and the importance of the role of religious groups in advancing change.

I'm in full agreement with this concept. Of course, the best way to get conservatives to dig in their heels and shriek about imperialism is to attack Islam in a flagrant and rude manner. Average pious believers aren't going to side with people who do that either, so how can change happen this way?

Shaheen: I don't know how you want to manage your place, but in others where I did, I used to ban loser who came for trolling and lowered the standards.

No need for banning here. I have Lounsbury.

Ali:

I agree. Ultimately, she did choose a party that was flagrantly violating the rights of many before her and expelling them on dubious grounds. On that level, she did reap what she sowed.

At the same time, the criticism some in the "left" has heaped on her have been unfounded

As far as FGM and honor killings go, they're foreign to the Maghreb. Last time I checked, 98-99% of Maghrebis are Muslims. Hammering those issues on their heads simply won't solve anything because you're talking about the wrong problems to the wrong people. In fact, by doing so you're only likely to get resent in return. Kind of like lecturing Latvians about blatant racism against their non existing black minority (hey, they're Christian and White, aren't they?).

Just an example among many others...

East Africa says khoja to me, and they are ithna asheri.

shaheen - I used to ban loser who came for trolling and lowered the standards.

persistent loser trolls actually seem to bring out the best in 'aqoul, so i would advise against.

torguy,

are you too scared to respond to my arguments? i do find it interesting that for all the bluster with which you started ... you then proceeded to nitpick on the little scraps that you could still find yet ignored actual counter-arguments.

c'mon ... you're not giving up that easily, are you? oh well ... plenty more in that troll waiting room looking eagerly for your 5 minutes to be up.

--raf*

Well, I am not feeling all that peppy, but as to this silly person:

There is nothing tedious about the point. Leftists like Whittaker did do it, becasue they didn't take the principelled stance.

You are actually quite stupid.

Really.

Not taking a principled stance with respect to the entire fiasco about Hirsi Ali's citizenship status (an accusation which as far as I understand on the factual matter is false, as my understand in fact Left parties -meaning actors- in Netherlands actually pressured for and won a reconsideration of the decision: it helps not to shriek on like a moron you know, although in your case that would appear to be your natural state.) is not the same as actually taking the action.

Or rather more briefly, hysteric knee-jerk wailing and oversimplification isn't terribly convincing.

Take Geert Wilders, another Dutch politician enjoying round-the-clock protection. Has there been any case to evict him from his property?

Has there?

The private complaint of neighbours of course has fuck-all to do with "principled stands" of Left or Right, and rather more to do with what is so charmingly referred to in English as "Not in My Backyard"ism.

Of course, I should not expect any clarity of thought from someone who has, so far, displayed no capacity for it - although much capacity for hysteric emotional incoherent whinging on.

That right-wing groups in Europe are xenophobic and racist is not new. They have never been the ones who stood up for diversity.

Well.

Actually I would say the liberal right in Europe has not historically in the post-WWII period been either xenophobic or racist, and even my center-right comrades hardly merit such labels, but then your comments are more about emotive bleating than anything else.

That people like Ayaan can only really find a home within a more right-wing party is a demonstration that the left no longer provides a home within their ranks for dissidents.

Well, taking politician's posturing about where they "really" can "find a home" at face value is a better demonstration of your gullibility than anything else.

Now, mind you, while I rather suspect Hirsi Ali's "home" was about personal ambition rather than "only" home, I don't find that to be a particular damnation for the woman. She's ambitious, knows (or knew) how to move politically and made the move. I rather like cunning pragmatism myself, no patience for you sort of idiotic Bolshy ideologue bleaters.

But on that thought, this "no longer provides a home for dissidents" is pure idiotic ahistorical bleating.

The "Left" of course is hardly a monolithic entity, any more than the Right is - contra your idiotic comment supra about "the Right" being racist and xenophobic - although I do tend to the opinion the majority of Lefties are idiots, and there is a fine long history of not harbouring "dissidents" of the wrong ideological flavour.

This abstracting away from the (admirably clever actually) political opportunism of Hirsi Ali's change over.

The left wing that has traditionally been critical of the church and of religious edicts. The left wing that has traditionally supported libertarians left her hanging.

Oddly that seems not to be factual (unless you would like to illustrate how it is). How surprising you're engaging in dim-witted exageratted bleating.

>> In fact this is precisely what Ayaan should have demanded. That Somalian/Egyptian/Sudanese/etc religious scholars be the ones to enact culture shift within their own societies. What she did instead was insinuate that the entire religion (=all adherents) condoned and failed to condemn the practice, which is utterly absurd and certainly misleading to the average Western reader.

I think this is something you are reading into it- though I won't argue whether something is misleading to the Western reader. We are not thought police that should control all the sources of information people have and what conclusions they draw from them. Clearly there are many Western readers who demonstrate an ability to understand the complexities of the problem.

Going back to my point with Ali, there is clearly segragation in the European model, where the elite have left the immigrant communities to their own devices and have not taken a more assertive role in weeding out practices like honor killing, arranged marriages...(even within their own borders) all in the name of the "multi-cultural" model, or perhaps because they don't understand what constitutes a line crossed when dealing with the 'Other'.

The broader picture is even more complex. Christianity is criticised regularly, and no provisions for applying nuance is ever demanded, or insisting that such criticism is not in good taste because other religious communities have their own mythologies that they subscribe to, that are just as non-sensical.

>> The recipe for solving the problem, as I stated wrt your honour killings example, is to understand the underlying motivations and incentives in order to enable a culture shift, not to oversimplify or misappropriate blame.

I suppose one can argue, as a recent book on Galileo did, that Galileo not ought to have dubbed the Pope "Simplicius", and that instead he should have come to terms with the fact that the Church just needed time to "reform". Perhaps this is why (ironically) a country like the Netherlands which had embraced the reform movement became a safe haven for scientists escaping the wrath of the Conquistadors.

I go back to my point before. The prerogative of "Islam's" reform should be the Easterners, not the Westerners. It is not the job of the West to pressure reform on the East, but on the East to shed it's biases, prejudices. Undestand the inherent problems. (And for that purpose they have people like Shirin Ebadi who make that point). The West has its own problems to deal with, like how to deal with immigration and integration, xenophobia (both Western and Eastern). So on and so forth.

>> Westerners who might otherwise support actual reform (e.g. pressure the Egyptian government to enforce anti-FGM measures) will instead conclude that Islam is the problem and all Muslims are guilty. Encouraging xenophobia is not helpful.

Well, I suppose your underlying assumption here is that the West's role in the East is driven by concern for women, or some other utopic cause. And that Ayaan's job is deflecting them from that path.

The West's role is to make money, not to pander to the problems of the East. The unfortunate situation the US has put itself into of bribing the Egyptian gvmnt to keep peace with Israel has given it at times latitude in putting pressure on the Egyptian government on the issue of reform. But this situation is highly contrived.

The movement for reform in the East has to be at the grass-roots level and grow organically. And yet. I read somewhere on the website (I don't know if it was your comment) that perhaps AL-Jazeera should have a no-holes barred discusion on religion and culture to put this question to rest. Yes, that is the ideal situation. But culturally, people in the area are not prepared for that.

>> I may not believe in God, but I dislike it when Manji et al insult average Muslims

I don't see how Irshad "insulted" the average Muslim. As evidenced by the reaction to the DaVinci code, people can be insulted by a myriad of things.

>> - the very people who might otherwise be receptive to various reforms. Run an 'Aqoul search on "pious middle" for some detailed commentary on this issue.

Does the "pious middle" have room for atheists? Or just atheists who are not public about their sentiments?

>> Again, you presume things about me based on one trait. I don't think Mohammed was a charlatan, period.

But you are an atheist. Now I know that Muslim is broad and different throughout the continents. But let's agree that it's proclamation is that "There is no God, and that Muhammad was his messenger".

You beleive there not to be a God. Hence any man who claims that much is a charlatan, especially one who claims to be his Prophet.

Now, if you're not an Atheist. That's quite OK, but why advertise yourself as such.

>> Why would I bother with all this if I held Islam in such contempt?

Why do you correlate making the statement above with holding "Islam in contempt". There were many military leaders and religious leaders who founded political movements and religious movements and who did good and bad things.

So you don't think Muhammad is a "Charlatan". What then do you think he is? Misguided. Confused. Or are you a part-time atheist? An agnostic perhaps? Or maybe someone who thinks it's OK to be atheist but not OK to criticize the religious views of others? So then what do you think of Muhammad criticizing Paganism? The Trinity? Or is Muhammad unique in his right to level criticism?

>> That would mean I hold my own family in contempt.

I was born to a Rum/Catholic family. I think the theology is rubbish. I don't hold my family in contempt. I think some of them are misguided. But I most certainly don't hold them in contempt.

>> It's not that simple. One can lose God.

If you don't believe in God, then there won't be a God for you to lose.

torguy,

did you just start a college-level "western civ" course? you speak of "the european model", "the west's role", "the east", etc.pp.

so much for "nuance"...

--raf*

I wish I hadn't begun reading this idiot's bleating, but now that I have:

First, in female circumcision:
The practice may be pre-Islamic.

Is, not may be, is.

It may not be demanded or recommended by the bulk of the Muslim world when you go outside the geographical area of Africa,

Isn't practicised period, idiot boy.

Not "not demanded or recommended," but unknown. Not even within goddamned "Africa" - it's not bloody practised in the Maghreb at all, and last time I looked that's part of bloody Africa.

The zone of practise is East African, and the Sahel belt. Pretty clearly originating somewhere in the Nile valley and/or East Africa, where Xians, pagans, Muslims... everyone practises the rather repulsive tradition (although of course one should recognise there are a wide variety of forms, from the really repulsive East Africa total mutilation, to fairly innocuous if still repulsive symbolic 'nicking' that seems to be more prevalent in West Africa).

So, dimwit, get the fucking facts right.

but those scholars who are proponents of the practice speak of at least some approval of the practice by Muhammad in one of the Hadiths.

And fabricated Hadith (like the fabricated Xian support for the practice) are relevant to the observation that most of the Muslim world, the Arab world don't practise this at all how?

Now is a blanket statement necessary? No. But at least the heirarchy of Muslim theologians should convincingly discredit the Hadith (which they have yet to do).

Well:
(i) there is no such thing as a hierarchy of Muslim theologians
(ii) the Hadith is given no credit in the vast swath of the Muslim world, which I would call "discrediting" (again you're bleating on in utter ignorance is most unenlightening and boring, so fucking shut it)
(iii) my understanding re the Egyptian cretin scholars is the practice is supported as "tradition" and not generally on the basis of the fabricated Hadith.

I'd note that in places like Senegal and Mali scholars have come out against the practice (which appears to have been fairly recently imported).

If the scriptures of the Copts and Animists (as the Amnesty report says) are also pro- the practice, then they too should be criticized.

Scriptures of Animists?

But since you're so much of bleating on about responsibility (as in e.g. Whitaker somehow re Hirsi Ali), then I would point out by your impoverished logic, your not highlighting and bleating on about the Copts and others makes you guilty of condoning the practice.

Stupid logic, of course, but it does nicely highlight your idiotic hypocrisy.

Your assertion that just because the practice is not limited to just the Muslim community of Africa, and not applicable outside of Africa means Ayaan's approach is wrong, does not give a recipe for solving the problem.

There is no "recipe" for solving the problem idiot boy, matter of long term education, which organisations like Population Council (see www.popcouncil.org) are working on.

Simple minded idiot posturing aside.

BTW, let me remind you: parts of Africa.

But as an atheist, and a woman, you proved that you can buck the trend, much like Ayaan and Irshad. Clearly, their writings have not disusaded you from thinking that Muhammad was a Charlatan and that no God exists.

You are indeed an idiot.

Being an athiest does not mean one ipso facto believes Jesus, Mohammed etc. were charlatans.

Certainly certain twits think this way, but that's what I would call adolescent acting out 'athiesm'

People don't need your help- or Irshad's or Ayaans for that matter- to see make their informed decisions.

Whinge, whinge, whinge.

Listen idiot boy, criticising your evident object of whanking adulation ain't twisting anybody's arms.

Instead of devoting your time pouting agaisnt the Ayaans and Irshads, you can use it more constructively. Present your views instead of insulting others'.

Whinge, whinge, whinge.

Here's some advice, fuck off, idiot boy, if you're too sensitive to have your idols criticised.

Ah fuck it, let the troll whank on, I haven't the time for such dimwitted whanking on by some ignorant twit.

there is clearly segragation in the European model, where the elite have left the immigrant communities to their own devices and have not taken a more assertive role in weeding out practices like honor killing, arranged marriages...(even within their own borders) all in the name of the "multi-cultural" model

Don't know which side of Europe you've lived in, or if you really know any immigrant community there, but let me educate you a bit about some countries there:

1) Multiculturalism is certainly NOT a value that is promoted, not in Spain, not in Germany, and certainly NOT in France. France, together with Germany have by far the most important immigrant communities. Assimilation is what's very explicitely demanded and pushed for. Anyone claiming the opposite is displaying ignorance or lying.

2) Honor killings do NOT exist in those countries. There is no single case reported in neither Spain nor France (I don't know about other countries, but I'd be surprised there are any since the origin of immigrant communities there is essentially Maghrebi or Turkish, and honor killings are NOT an issue in the Maghreb - and probably not in Turkey).

3) Yes, there are pre-arranged marriages. There are forced marriages too, and they should definitely be fought though one has to keep in mind that those are statistically NOT significant. The line between arranged and forced is thin, but in almost all cases, there's consent from the girl as a result of her education, not much, if any, pressure is needed. Not that it makes it better, but that means that if you come in as a savior knight and suggest she tells her family to get lost, you're the one likely to get that message from her, with full knowledge and control of what she's doing. IOW, banging on her head or her family's will only give you the xenophobe pleasure of banging on an immigrant head, nothing more.

Tor, you seem to have a pathological hangup about atheists. It's like you can't even read the word without foaming at the mouth. Pity, you seemed momentarily lucid.

Anyway, my L has shown up so no need for me to continue entertaining your crazed ranting.

ya shaheen,

honor killings are prevalent in turkey as well as the turkish communities in europe. as a matter of fact, the recent hardening of the anti-honor-killing law in turkey (significantly raising the penalty for honor-killers) has, as evidenced in south-east turkey, resulted in a drastic rise of "suicides" among young women - which in fact were honor-killings disguised as suicides.

so - "honor killing" is definitively an issue in turkey and among turks.

--raf*

ps: i am really getting bored by torguy. his "reasoning" re: if you don't believe in god then you must think that muhammad was a charlatan is just idiotic. yesyesyes ... english is not his first language. whatever, "charlatan" has a distinct meaning & it's about time he either learns it or stops using the word. i seem to remember that on brian whitaker's blog he claimed to be of iraqi background - maybe that accounts for his utter lack of any sort of basic knowledge about MENA, europe, and the world at large. (no, that's not levantine racism - i am merely alluding to the possibility that he was educated during the saddam era.)

dear e,

actually, to me it seems that torguy IS an atheist, a religion-hating one no less.

how boring.

--raf*

Shaheen,

Honour killings have been reported as an issue in rural eastern Turkey (among the Kurds actually), although not suprisingly not in Western Turkey.

And of course, one has honour killings among Arab Xians....

But again, this all underlines why talking about "Muslims" having a general issue re honour killings like this cretin is, is so fundamentally misleading. Typical, but misleading.

Ah, very entertaining happenings in my absence. If I may add my two cents to the commentary, honour killings and arranged/forced marriages are not based in religious tenets, more like tribal and social custom, and are practised through much of South and Central Asia by nuts in all sorts of religious communities. Arranged marriage is not the same as a forced marriage, no more than your pal setting you up on a blind date may be, though there are cases of forced marriages in these regions. If you're going to make arranged marriages a basis for political asylum, you may have hundreds of millions of South Asians taking you up on that. The Netherlands will never be the same again.

Torguy-

"Going back to my point with Ali, there is clearly segragation in the European model, where the elite have left the immigrant communities to their own devices and have not taken a more assertive role in weeding out practices like honor killing, arranged marriages...(even within their own borders) all in the name of the "multi-cultural" model, or perhaps because they don't understand what constitutes a line crossed when dealing with the 'Other'.

"The broader picture is even more complex. Christianity is criticised regularly, and no provisions for applying nuance is ever demanded, or insisting that such criticism is not in good taste because other religious communities have their own mythologies that they subscribe to, that are just as non-sensical."

This piece of ideological wank demonstrates to me that you don't know anything about europe or 'the European model' let alone mena countries. I am sorry to have given you the benefit of the doubt.

Raf and Lounsbury,

I stand corrected re Turkey - I would have imagined they're more progressive...

It doesn't change the gist of my post though, in France or in Spain where Turkish communities are not significant and where the bulk of immigrants is Maghrebi, honor killings are not an issue.

Well, Turkey has maybe 60 documented honour killings per year, limited to a certain area/demographic (deeply conservative Kurds, etc). Penal code revisions are largely in response to EU pressure. Not sure what the figures are for Jordan/Levant, but worth exploring in the context of total violent crime/murder.

Shaheen

Western Turkey is more progressive. Eastern Turkey, esp. S. Eastern is a different world.

And of course, I agree, honour killings aren't an issue in the Maghreb or among Maghrebine communities.

Y'll might be interested in knowing that our heroine Irshad Manji has been mentioned approvingly in discussion on recent Canadian arrests of suspected terror networks in this other blog I read - multiculturalism, apparently, is a problem.

http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/003445.html#comments

dear malikat al-'aqoul,

jordan is notorious for honor killings. in palestine they happen - both among muslims & christians (maybe also among sephardic jews) -, in syria & lebanon almost not at all. in the region the blame is usually laid on "tribal, pre-modern" customs, i.e. in palestine one would speak about "those vestiges of tribal traditions" and as jordan is perceived to be a "much more tribal society" (than, presumably, the more civilized & urbanized syria & lebanon) nobody's really surprized about honor killings there.

cheers,

--raf*

Right right, people always piss on "multiculturalism" without defining it in policy terms. Something tells me I shouldn't read the comments.

I have to say clan based customs struck me as bizarrely prevalent in Jordan, even among urbanites.

Ee: I tried to read through your "L"s post, but couldn't get over all the "fucks" and "idiots".

For all the "informed" people on this board, here is a definition of Charlatan for you...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlatan
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=charlatan

(Also, don't worry, I was not educated in Iraq :), though the Saddam era education system was quite good, and I assure you, my first language is English).

For people with hangups about word usage, you should take ee to task for false pretense on being an atheist, a word whose meaning she clearly does not know.

Now I'll continue to address the only sensible points put forth by Shaheen:

1) Multiculturalism is certainly NOT a value that is promoted, not in Spain, not in Germany, and certainly NOT in France. France, together with Germany have by far the most important immigrant communities. Assimilation is what's very explicitely demanded and pushed for. Anyone claiming the opposite is displaying ignorance or lying.

I don't live in Europe. I have been to Spain and to France, and have lived in the UK.

I don't think any of these countries want assimilation. In fact the biggest criticism about these countries is that they don't want assimilation and that they never want to see their Turks, Morrocans as being French/German or otherwise European. As I understand it, most of these countries have massive guest worker programs to try and dissuade permanent residency, and make it extremely difficult for immigration except on the grounds of asylum claims.

So when I use the word "multiculturalsim", I use it in very loose terms not to be something like what is practiced in a place like Canada (where I live), but this notion of completely leaving those communities to fester in their own without making much of an effort to integrate them into the mainstream.

2) Honor killings do NOT exist in those countries. There is no single case reported in neither Spain nor France (I don't know about other countries, but I'd be surprised there are any since the origin of immigrant communities there is essentially Maghrebi or Turkish, and honor killings are NOT an issue in the Maghreb - and probably not in Turkey).

Honor Killing is the process of killing a family member in a "crime of passion". The issue of Honor Killing in places like Jordan is not so much the "crime of passion" itself, this happens routinely in the Western world amongst non-Muslims, but the fact that there is social accetpatnce to it in places like Jordan, Pakistan and the Eastern flank of Turkey. (I don't know about other countries).

No European country endorses the practice, but crimes of honor have taken place in at least the UK, with numerous BBC reports on the subject.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/honour_crimes/uk.shtml

There are similar reports in Germany.

3) Yes, there are pre-arranged marriages. There are forced marriages too, and they should definitely be fought though one has to keep in mind that those are statistically NOT significant. The line between arranged and forced is thin, but in almost all cases, there's consent from the girl as a result of her education, not much, if any, pressure is needed. Not that it makes it better, but that means that if you come in as a savior knight and suggest she tells her family to get lost, you're the one likely to get that message from her, with full knowledge and control of what she's doing. IOW, banging on her head or her family's will only give you the xenophobe pleasure of banging on an immigrant head, nothing more.

Well I for one don't come claiming to be a saviour. Personally, I couldn't care less how they conduct their lives. They are free agents, especially in the Western world. At the end of the day we all have to balance our lives with societal pressure, family pressure... And many of these women don't want anything more. Ayaan clearly was not one of those women, and her objection to the cause clearly spoke to a specific segment of people.

Now you got me googling, and I found an interesting Guardian piece on honour killings in Palestine -- centered on a Christian (Christian Bedouin?) victim -- and a Palestinian human rights report on the same.

It appears there are a couple of tens of Palestinian honour killings each year (in the WB/Gaza), and a slightly higher overall tolerance/support for the practice than I would've guessed (c:a 25%). In the statistical breakdown of the HR report, surprisingly few cases were listed as Bedouin, but then those recorded for "villages" and "camps" could of course also involve people with Bedouin roots. The support for honour killings rise in the countryside, and even more so in refugee camps, indicating socioeconomic factors are important, but the level of religiousness and education seem much less relevant.

Torguy-
Then what is it that you want? You seem to be all over the place. I cannot discern one single argument here, either for or against. All you seem to do is treat this thread as a forum for your general ramblings.

Tor: Your points have already been refuted yet you continue to bring them up. No matter, will try smaller words this time:

You seem to be incapable of grasping a most essential point: atheists do not necessarily believe that a prophet knowingly deceived his followers. Might want to review those dictionary definitions yourself, or reread raf's comment above. Or L's.

The same goes for my "false pretenses" about being atheist. Atheist does not mean anti-religion. I don't think believers are "misguided", but this notion seems to give you seizures.

Or perhaps I am being generous and you are simply an ignorant wanking moron who likes to fixate on words without really understanding them.

L: contain yourself. You're imploding.

>>> The practice may be pre-Islamic.
>>> It may not be demanded or recommended by the bulk of the Muslim world when you go outside the geographical area of Africa,

L: Is, not may be, is.

Do forgive the word usage, I did not intend probability there. Just to note that because it was pre-Islamic, its adoption by the Muslim community makes it an Islamic issue. After all, Paganism was a pre-Islamic practice in Arabia, that ended with the advent of Muhammad. The practice of FGM was not ended by Muhammad, and supporting "hadiths" were produced in the story of Sarah and Hagar to justify the practice. Whether this is baseless is not is a matter for you to take with the theologians of Al-Azhar.

>> Isn't practicised period, idiot boy.

According to a BBC report on the issue, it occurs in some areas of Yemen, in the Gulf, and in South Asia.

>> Not even within goddamned "Africa" - it's not bloody practised in the Maghreb at all, and last time I looked that's part of bloody Africa.The zone of practise is East African, and the Sahel belt. Pretty clearly originating somewhere in the Nile valley and/or East Africa, where Xians, pagans, Muslims... everyone practises the rather repulsive tradition (although of course one should recognise there are a wide variety of forms, from the really repulsive East Africa total mutilation, to fairly innocuous if still repulsive symbolic 'nicking' that seems to be more prevalent in West Africa).

You can do better than that L. Can't you? Or am I supposed to expand on the geographical region of application in my discussion with ee? Do you think I have hours to waste being accurate to the nth degree? My point has nothing to do with what portion of Africa it is. If you have something intelligent to say- as your friend ee- at least responded on this point, make it on the essence of the point.

>> And fabricated Hadith (like the fabricated Xian support for the practice) are relevant to the observation that most of the Muslim world, the Arab world don't practise this at all how?

What is the relevance of this? Clearly Islam is not a monolith that has different practices geographically. Where this practice occured pre-Islamically, it continued to be because there was no opposition to it, and a Hadith- fabricated or not- was made available to justify it.

>> (i) there is no such thing as a hierarchy of Muslim theologians

Forgive my word usage. Elsewhere where I referred to Catholic hierarchy, I expressly stated that did not apply to Islam. But we all slip. I meant to say "body of Muslim theologians".

>> (ii) the Hadith is given no credit in the vast swath of the Muslim world, which I would call "discrediting"

Discrediting in when the various Ulama speak strongly against it because they fundamentally find something wrong with the Hadith.

Staying silent about a topic because they have no opinion either way is not discrediting.

>> (iii) my understanding re the Egyptian cretin scholars is the practice is supported as "tradition" and not generally on the basis of the fabricated Hadith.

Your understanding is mistaken. Scholars who are pro- the pracitice have quoted the Hadith and did not support it purely from a tradition perspective. For one who "knows" the geographical extent of the problem, your lack of information in that regard is telling.

>> Scriptures of Animists?

Forgive the lack of punctuation. I meant to say, if the scriptures of the copts, and animists...

>> But since you're so much of bleating on about responsibility (as in e.g. Whitaker somehow re Hirsi Ali), then I would point out by your impoverished logic, your not highlighting and bleating on about the Copts and others makes you guilty of condoning the practice.

Not exactly. I couldn't care less what people in Africa do. Nor if this practice is condoned Islamically or not. That's your problem as a Muslim to deal with- not mine.

By the same token if this is a practice conducted amongst the Copts and there are women concerned about it- and feel that Coptic scripture justifies it, then they should point it out.

My point is that there seems to be excessive reasoning that since the practice is not only conducted by Muslims, but by Copts and Animists too, then somehow one has to gloss over the religious dimension of the problem vis-a-vis Islam. That to me sounds like a ridiculous proposition. Critique the Islamic justifications for the practice (or demonstrate once and for all that there are none)- as well as the Coptic ones.

Capish?

>> There is no "recipe" for solving the problem idiot boy, matter of long term education, which organisations like Population Council (see www.popcouncil.org) are working on.

Read above. I couldn't care less if the practiced continued in Africa for the next 1000 years. That's the problem of Africans.

>> Being an athiest does not mean one ipso facto believes Jesus, Mohammed etc. were charlatans.

Of course it doesn't. It means they honestly believed they had connections with a supreme being so that they can gain a following, and tell them how to conduct their lives. That's precisely what an atheist is all about.

>> Certainly certain twits think this way, but that's what I would call adolescent acting out 'athiesm'

Spoken in your capacity as an expert on atheism?

Raf:

Not to be nit-picky. I am technically "agnostic". As I don't make pompous claims to have absolute answers on the subject of creation and do not preclude the existence of a "Creator".

Torguy,

In fact the biggest criticism about these countries is that they don't want assimilation and that they never want to see their Turks, Morrocans as being French/German or otherwise European. As I understand it

You don't. They don't want Moroccans (or other wogs for that matter), period. It isn't that they don't want them to be French, or Spanish, they don't want them, period. They had to take them and swallow it. Euros needed Maghrebis because they started killing themselves by the tens of the millions and needed manpower when they got their blood hangover. Then Euros still need them today because they don't produce enough babies, and the ones they produce don't want to study or create businesses or work hard because dad and mom have created enough comfort already, just like in Canada. Now, having to live with the fact that those Maghrebi communities are there, and there to stay, they want them assimilated, they don't want them to keep anything from their culture, religion, or even appearence of origin. So to quote L, get your facts right. Move there, check the laws, the administrative practices, opinion polls, etc. Because your stupid North American bumpkin neighbor told you so doesn't mean it's true.

So when I use the word "multiculturalsim", I use it in very loose terms not to be something like what is practiced in a place like Canada (where I live), but this notion of completely leaving those communities to fester in their own without making much of an effort to integrate them into the mainstream.

Thanks, it happens that I live in Canada too. Canada has better results with its immigration policies because it embraces multiculturalism as long as you pay your taxes and abide by the law. Immigrants are free to develop and progress, for the benefit of all. The failure that one can observe in France for example, and whose path Spain is following, is precisely because of the assimilationist policies that express themselves at every level of the state and the society. Failure to completely assimilate results in strong rejection and is quite violently sanctionned. Sanctions go from being denied entrance to a bar, your usual street insults or job discrimination to an institutionalized state policy of making your life as difficult as possible all the while making access to citizenship harder everytime and closely tied to assimilation. "Multiculturalism" has its mirror word in France, "communautarisme", with very much the same meaning, but a totally opposite perception. It isn't positively celebrated, it has a very negative load, anyone accused of being "communautariste" is two steps away from being called a terrorist.

As for honor killings, at least you're getting more precise.

No, my dear Trollguy, I am not imploding, but I am going to start deleting your rambling idiocies if you keep up.

Torguy,

My point is that there seems to be excessive reasoning that since the practice is not only conducted by Muslims, but by Copts and Animists too, then somehow one has to gloss over the religious dimension of the problem vis-a-vis Islam. That to me sounds like a ridiculous proposition.

Yeah, that the practice is unknown or rejected by most Muslims too shouldn't interfere in connecting FGM with Islam.

Frankly, you have some dysfunctional brain cells when it comes to linking cause and effect.

"I couldn't care less what people in Africa do. Nor if this practice is condoned Islamically or not."
"I couldn't care less if the practiced continued in Africa for the next 1000 years."

Yes we get your point. I suppose then you wouldn't mind telling us what it is exactly that you want? What is this all about?

Do you want everyone to fall in awe of your heroes irshad and ayan? I am sorry but just as they have the right to say what they want, people here have the right to disagree with their message, their MO, or debate the efficacy of both. As far as I can tell no one is trying to shut them up.

My Dear Torguy I warned you, I am tired of your drivel. It's not the disagreement, it's your sheer stupidity. So, congrats, you're the first person I've actually edited out of existance. Again, because you're stupid and are wasting my time, not because you disagree. Now fuck off.

Yours,

Lounsbury (not an Arab, an Anglo you drooling git).

Again, fuck off.

Yours,

Lounsbury.

Torguy - it's beyond your comprehension that Eerie could be an atheist and still respect people with sincere faith? or think that another atheist, or another person who claims to be a believer, is a liar and/or hypocrite?

I guess you'd think I don't know my own thoughts either - I'm an agnostic who simply despises hypocrisy, particularly when people like Ayaan try to twist the situation to show how they are being "persecuted," and take advantage of something I personally hold more holy than any scripture - the legal and social infrastructure created to protect people who are genuinely fleeing persecution.

People like that do nothing but bolster the arguments of those who accuse asylum-seekers of being nothing more than economic migrants who lie to facilitate a move to somewhere where they think life is more comfortable. And countries that think others are taking advantage of their hospitality are more likely to tighten their asylum (and other immigration) policies, thereby screwing the people who genuinely need and deserve that hospitality.

As someone who's spent her entire career in the immigration arena, it pisses me off to no end, for reasons which have nothing to do with religion or the lack thereof. A liar is a liar, regardless of spiritual beliefs.

Sorry Ali, I'm afraid I want no more of this time waster here. Perhaps I'll change me mind, but after 50 odd messages of incoherent whanking, it's enough.

L - I wish you hadn't just done that, because now it looks like I'm talking to myself. (Not that that would be the first time, but still...)

Thank you. At least we now have a starting point. Eerie does indeed often go off on the manji's of the world, which she calls her personal obsession. But bear in mind, that is not the only thing that she is against. Just because she attacks ayan's position on fgm, does not automatically mean that she holds any less contempt for those azhar nutters.

I don't see how her atheism is opposed to her feeling offended by generalisation about islam, especially considering that her family is muslim. After all does anyone question the atheism of staunch zionists? They can't possibly believe this promised land bullcrap, surely - there is no god!

Personally, I don't have any strong opinions about either manji or hirsi ali. My main points re ayan is (1)the irony of it all, and (2)her ability (and I've said this before) to work the system in her favour. going from a young woman in east africa with relatively no formal training to be an MP in holland, and now a member of a think tank with a 6-figure salary - all on a anti-muslim agenda. As for manji, I don't really care about her.

I know.

A first, and I regret it a bit, as I rather dislike restraining comments, but frankly this reads and smells of trolling and/or irredeemable stupidity.

CRAP

Sorry mate.

This put a new meaning to 'careful what you wish for'

I suppose, however the stupid crack (which is part of the replaced comment) about Arab governments and censorship with respect to myself made me decide he's just trolling (well that and the round and round sub-literate idiocy).

Still, perhaps I shouldn't have. Restraining comment by even trolls leaves a bad taste.

I find it distasteful in principle, but in this instance it seemed necessary. Editors' prerogative.

And you beat me to it by 2 min.

Honor killings were once a relatively common practice in the American South (as in the southern states of the US) in 19th century.

Good thing they gave up their Islamic past and embraced the Western world, eh?

Huh. All this chatter about al-Azhar and nobody has mentioned that the current Grand Sheikh, Tantawi, has unequivocably condemned FGM as unIslamic ( the Coptic Pope has also spoken out against it ). Indeed as recently as last year - they even organized a conference on it. Heck back in 2000 al-Azhar organized a joint mission with UNICEF to Somalia to speak out against the practice.

Al-Azhar's last official pro-FGM message I can find was circa 1981. In the intervening quarter century it would appear that the prevailing view there has shifted. So as an appeal to authority, I fear it is no longer a strong one.

Lounsbury,

Still, perhaps I shouldn't have. Restraining comment by even trolls leaves a bad taste.

I've been there, and know what you mean. Yet, sometimes cleaning is necessary. In the pre-blog era, many political pre-blogs had a freedom of speech policy which led to their death, thanks to trolls like this one. Reverse gentrification, the bad elements push the interesting ones away. So at some point, you have to make choices which will define your readership. The ones which survived had to go through it.

Nuts, I guess I should have looked at where the thread was going before posting....

If anyone's interested, they can go to this address: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/worldhaveyoursay/#, click on where it says 'Listen again: Friday', and when that starts, click once on the advance 15 mins button, and they'll hear Egyptian doctor Professor Munir Falsi justifying FGM from the Islamic holy texts, and mentioning how he circumcises several hundred girls a year. So it seems that maybe the teachings from Al-Azhar haven't filtered their way down to him just yet.

There's that darn non-hierarchical nature of Islam thing, again. Al-azhar (unfortunately in this case) can't just hand down decisions from on high - they can only put the force of their considerable prestige behind their rulings.

eerie, what do you make of Mohja Kahf - here is her little rant against "progressive Muslims" followed by rant against conservative Muslims.

http://www.muslimwakeup.com/main/archives/2006/01/why_i_am_not_a.php

Tom's point makes me think of another question that has come up in the discussion - if your community justifies a practice like FGM on religious grounds, or believes that it is a religious obligation (regardless of what Al Azhar and ulama have to say), should you as a reformer approach the problem as one of religion? Do you try to convince people that it is not a "true" religious obligation thereby appealing to religion as a higher value and yet entrenching the belief that any commandments that come from a purported god must be obeyed? Do you appeal to basic human decency and human rights?

SP

It seems to me that convinving religious leaders to militate against is a successful one.

I happen to know from first hand communication with the (prob. former, it has been some time) Population Council Director for West Africa that they were quite successful in organising anti-FGM education via the Imams in Senegal, Mali and Guinea.

Rather than beating them on the head and taking the counter-productive "Islam evil" approach, got them on the side of good.

Strikes me putting together a package - appeal to religious correctness, plus health, plus science and one can have an effective argument.

dear all,

here an example for how one can counter FGM by involvement of local leaders.

http://www.target-human-rights.com/target-eng/index3.htm

yay!

--raf*

L,
Sounds like the sensible thing to do and the preferred NGO/development agency way of approaching the problem. I just wonder how far religious leaders would be willing to go, and particularly in defensive migrant Muslim communities, would imams want to be perceived as coopted by state authorities (though I suppose in places like France they sort of are already).

Friend of mine studied French state efforts to combat FGM by framing it as a health issue and emphasizing the health hazards, I don't know how well that worked but it sounds feasible. With practices that are less health-related - for example, locking up daughers - it could be a harder sell, with more of a defensive reaction from migrant communities.

Then again, these practices would be much less likely to be justified as religious, even though Olivier Roy insists cultural practices are getting defined as "Islamic" in Europe through this neo-ethnification process or whatever.

Friend of mine studied French state efforts to combat FGM by framing it as a health issue and emphasizing the health hazards, I don't know how well that worked

They didn't and couldn't work for a very simple reason: FGM is a non issue in France. There are an estimated half a million sub-saharan Africans there, and probably more if we count the illegals who don't exist anyway legally. You might find something there, but even when authorities or the media speak about FGM, they tend to take a flight ticket south of the Sahara, not a metro ticket to French suburbs. France has a tendency to fight non existing scarecrows among its minorities instead of facing its own shortcomings. Last thing I've seen was them thinking about fighting polygamy, which was thrown as an explanation of last november's unrest. Believe it or not, the theory had much success among the media and the population.

SP: Re Mohja's rant, I agreed with a fair number of her points. There is of course some irony (which she noted) in her disdain of labels (i.e. "progressive Muslim"), since the rest of her article is a rant about ill-defined "liberals" and "conservatives".

However, she did approach the matter from a position of respect, which I liked. She mentioned her conservative mother and grandmother, and how they should not be thought of by "progressives" as infantile or incapable of actual decisionmaking. She's neither a conservative apologist nor someone who views women as undifferentiated "damsels in distress".

Neither Irshad nor Ayaan strike me as being on particularly good terms with their families (esp fathers). Being completely disconnected from Muslim communities would certainly explain the lack of empathy in their discourse.

Shaheen:

Believe it or not, the theory had much success among the media and the population.

But of course, the problems in the 3rd generation born-in-France "immigrant" community could not be due to racism/prejudice in the country of equality.

I'm pretty sure this friend said FGM was still practised among subsaharan African migrants in Paris, where she did some translation and outreach work...will double check. Though I completely agree with the characterization of la belle France la meilleure des mondes when it comes to treatment of immigrants.

Someone just posted this bit of nonsense on a thread discussing terrorism arrests in Toronto recently...nothing is more depressing (or more funny, depending on your mood) than to see brown kids who are all for minority rights turn around and morph into right-wingers when they get a chance to beat up on Muslims and worry about how the taint of terrorism will rub off on their presumably good Hindu selves.
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/003445.html#comment66746

I just made a quick google search about FGM in France, and the number that pop is 30,000. That is really wild, as it would mean that something in the range of 6 to 12% of all Black women in France have been victim of FGM. Having lived in France a big chunk of my life and still going there on a regular basis, and having many friends from the (subsaharan) African community there, I'm a bit surprised such a phenomenon could be so widespread and go comparatively so unnoticed. So, without wanting to diminish the problem, I may be wrong, but the numbers really sound way overinflated.

The source of the 30,000 figure that everyone else seems to be quoting and relying on is the personal homepage of an association:

http://perso.orange.fr/..associationgams/index.html

Sheikh Lounsbury,

But of course, the problems in the 3rd generation born-in-France "immigrant" community could not be due to racism/prejudice in the country of equality.

God forbid, don't touch the sacred cows.

ya shaheen,

i remember when i first read that around 80-90% of all egyptian women have undergone some or other form of FGM that i would walk around cairo counting "cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, not-cut, not-cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, ...".

--raf*

raf - no shit, really?? I didn't realize it was so widespread in Egypt.

raf* - you have X-ray vision or something?

dear eva,

did you really not understand what i wrote? 80-90% means that 8 out of 10 women are circumcised. so on the street i visualized it by imagining the first 8 women i see as cut, then the next 2 as uncut, then the next 8 as cut again, etc.

i feel like i'm in that "the difference between 'here' and 'there'" episode of sesame street.

--raf*

raf* - lighten up; it was a joke. I swear, contrary to that video, I do think before I verbalize.

Here's what the friend had to say about FGM in France. She said it was practised largely by West African migrants, especially of Toucouleur ethnicity. She said that the people who were willing to speak openly about it did think it was a significant problem. About the French government response to it:

"The French authorities in general were trying to squash it, hauling women accused of FGM into the French equivalent of the Supreme Court. There have been several cases since the 80s I think--not many, the majority of which I believe found the women guilty of disfiguring a child. It's really a clandestine practice b/c the women KNOW it's illegal but do it anyway. My impression was from talking to NGOs and some attorneys that it is indeed quite prevalent in France but no one wants to talk about it."

Hard to imagine it is "quite prevalent" in France when the Toucouleur, themselves a minority in even little Senegal, may be the center.

Disturbing problem? Sure. Happening too much