*** Scroll down for updates ***
A western feminist stepped down from her Ivory Tower and moved to a Muslim country with her Muslim husband and received the kind of education she never would have received in any left-leaning western university.
Phyllis Chesler, a professor of “women’s studies,†witnessed Muslim barbarity firsthand. She married a Muslim she’d met at an American school, then moved to his country. She writes:
When we landed in Kabul, an airport official smoothly confiscated my US passport. “Don’t worry, it’s just a formality,†my husband assured me. I never saw that passport again. I later learnt that this was routinely done to foreign wives — perhaps to make it impossible for them to leave. Overnight, my husband became a stranger. The man with whom I had discussed Camus, Dostoevsky, Tennessee Williams and the Italian cinema became a stranger. He treated me the same way his father and elder brother treated their wives: distantly, with a hint of disdain and embarrassment.
…
Individual Afghans were enchantingly courteous — but the Afghanistan I knew was a bastion of illiteracy, poverty, treachery and preventable diseases. It was also a police state, a feudal monarchy and a theocracy, rank with fear and paranoia. Afghanistan had never been colonised. My relatives said: “Not even the British could occupy us.†Thus I was forced to conclude that Afghan barbarism was of their own making and could not be attributed to Western imperialism.
Naysayers will claim Chesler’s account is an isolated story or merely one woman’s account, but it is not. Though some Muslim countries may not be as brutal and backward, there is no such thing as “women’s rights” in Islam or even “individual rights.” This is why people say that Islam is incompatible with western societies. The suppression of individual rights is an integral part of living under Sharia, and it is not racist or bigotry to say so.
My problem isn’t with “radical†Islam. I have a problem with the entire religion, especially the desire of its followers to live under religious law and to have that law imposed on westerners. In western countries. Every time I blog about my issues with Islam, somebody somewhere calls me a religious bigot. Whatever. Sticks and stones, you know?
My first question to Chesler and women like her is why she married a Muslim in the first place? (And don’t give me that love stuff.) Based on the fact that she’s a women’s studies professor and probably majored in women’s studies in college, she, like so many feminist elites in the West, held a romanticized and false notion that followers of Allah were no different from secularists like herself. But she knows the truth now. After having lived in Afghanistan, she says (emphasis added):
Long before the rise of the Taleban, I learnt not to romanticise Third World countries or to confuse their hideous tyrants with liberators. I also learnt that sexual and religious apartheid in Muslim countries is indigenous and not the result of Western crimes — and that such “colourful tribal customs†are absolutely, not relatively, evil.
My best guess is that Chesler, who is Jewish, is not an observant Jew, which is why she married a non-Jew. As a Christian, I am forbidden to marry an unbeliever. An unbeliever is anyone who does not profess Christ. (This doesn’t mean that someone who became a Christian after marriage should divorce an unbelieving spouse. The admonition is against Christians intentionally marrying non-Christians.)
My second question to Chesler is why in god’s name she even thought about moving to a backward Muslim country, let alone actually doing it? The most likely explanation is that she, like so many liberal westerners, bought the insipid multicultural all-cultures-are-equally-valid line. Strangely enough, these same people tend to hold Islam and other religions in higher esteem than they do Christianity, a religion that played and continues to play a huge role in the fact that even Christianity’s harshest critics can denigrate the faith without worrying about having their heads chopped off!
After witnessing Islamic brutality, Chesler is telling the world what she knows. But she has to put up with people who don’t know what the hell heck they’re talking about:
Western intellectual-ideologues, including feminists, have demonised me as a reactionary and racist “Islamophobe†for arguing that Islam, not Israel, is the largest practitioner of both sexual and religious apartheid in the world and that if Westerners do not stand up to this apartheid, morally, economically and militarily, we will not only have the blood of innocents on our hands; we will also be overrun by Sharia in the West
Islamophobe. What a stupid word. If that label describes anyone who thinks the West is far superior to the Middle East and that an Islamic state is a less than ideal place to live, Islamo-lovers can call me whatever they like. The irony is totally lost on them. Only in a western country, particularly the U.S., do individuals even have the freedom to broadcast their bloody opinions about us Islamophobes in the first place! Dolts.
You know, it’s really easy to sit in the comfort and luxury of the U.S. and fantasize about some Third World country, full of barbarity, and blame that barbarity on “imperialism.” I believe the word is code for hostility and envy toward white “Christian” men. I strongly suspect this is the case among feminist bloggers, who shall remain nameless and unlinked. They seem not to care about actual brutality toward women by Muslims, only perceived brutality perpetrated by white men.
Let’s do an experiment. Go to the top feminist political blogs and search for criticism of Muslims’ treatment of their wives specifically and women in general, and Islam. Now do a search for disparaging references to the “patriarchy,” which also is code for “white men,” and for Christianity. Additionally, search for criticism of rape where the rapist is someone other than a white man. Let me know what you find.
Chesler of the Open Eyes has a word of warning for western liberal snots and their cohorts:
Now is the time for Western intellectuals who claim to be antiracists and committed to human rights to stand with these dissidents. To do so requires that we adopt a universal standard of human rights and abandon our loyalty to multicultural relativism, which justifies, even romanticises, indigenous Islamist barbarism, totalitarian terrorism and the persecution of women, religious minorities, homosexuals and intellectuals. Our abject refusal to judge between civilisation and barbarism, and between enlightened rationalism and theocratic fundamentalism, endangers and condemns the victims of Islamic tyranny.
Western so-called anarchists antiracists [I misread the word, but that’s OK. So-called tolerant “antiracists” are spoiled brats, too!] and multiculturalists are nothing more than brats, spoiled on the fat hog of American wealth and freedom, which provides them with plenty of leisure to fantasize that barbaric Third World countries and uncivilized religious zealots are somehow morally equal or even superior to the society that gives them the forum and safety to criticize American wealth and freedom.
They lean back in cushioned comfort bad-mouthing the hog while biting into it. May they suffer gut-wrenching indigestion.
Update: Commenter Jeff Turner writes:
For six years of my life I was a devout Muslim who followed the “path†(sirat) of the Salif-as-Salih (those who follow their righteous predecessors) or Wahabibism (a name we didnt particularly like), and I can tell you that everything that this woman has written is true. I’ve seen Muslim men beat their wives, marry other women without their first wife knowing and then one day springs it on his first wife that she is now a co-wife. I remember watching a jihadist tape which was used as a recruiting tool to get the Muslim men to fight jihad in Bosnia via Afghanistan. Islamic life focuses on death and returning to Allah. I have never been so miserable as when I was a Muslim; I could not stop thinking about death. It is a very repressive and oppresive lifestyle in which you are not in control your actions or your thoughts; you’re always living in fear that Allah will punish you not only for your bad actions but your bad thoughts.
Commenter Margaret shares insight on why Chesler traveled to a Muslim country (edited for spelling):
La Shawn, you asked why a feminazi would marry a muslim and go live in Afghanistan.
The answer is because of Chesler’s age. She is in her early 70’s. She went to college in the late 50’s early 60’s married and went to Afghanistan in 1961.
She, like most of the early feminazis such as Betty Freidan was a marxist from a communist background.
In the fifties when Chesler was growing up, Islam was unknown in this country. Most of the Mediterranean islamic countries such as Algeria, Egypt etc were officially very secular at the time. This secularism was because the communists had been very helpful in ridding those countries of their European colonial rulers.
African nationalists also depended on communist help in ending colonial European rule.
So most leftists in America and Europe thought of muslims as fellow fighters against evil colonial white men.
It was really a different time. There was no such thing as women’s studies. The only people who were into women’s rights were the communists. But they weren’t really for women’s rights of course.The communists became pro women’s rights back in the thirties when the labor movement and MALE working class rejected communism. so the communists decided to focus on women, minorities and regional conflicts, (Spanish Basques, Irish catholics etc)
A marxist rebel beatnik young woman of the 1950’s, ignorant of the muslim treatment of women would be very likely to reject all the boring bourgeois boys in her college and marry a stranger from afar country simply because he was not a drab American.
Barack Obama’s Mother is the same age as Chesler. She did the same thing, not once but twice. I am older than you who were exposed to women’s studies at an early age. I am younger that Chesler but knowing the marxist, anti american beatnik New York milieu from which she came I can understand why she chose to marry an Afghan, as far from middle America as possible.
Ten years later, women like Chesler joined the weather underground and bombed the ROTC building on their college campuses, married Black Panthers and rioted for their causes.
Related posts:
I love you! Where have I been for all of your life! Your bold commentary is a shock to the system, a brilliantly refreshing wake up call. Thank you.
Comment by James T. — 03.07.07 @ 8:05 am
Speaking of western countries and Sharia, when are you going to blog about Caribou Coffee? I’m dying to go in there and ask for a bacon sandwich.
Comment by CJ — 03.07.07 @ 8:29 am
I’m pleased that this lady has spoken out, but one must really wonder how she got herself into that mess to begin with. I agree with the idea that she was caught up in the vast sea of deliberate leftist ignorance that is the university system today.
Comment by redbeard — 03.07.07 @ 8:44 am
For six years of my life I was a devout Muslim who followed the “path” (sirat) of the Salif-as-Salih (those who follow their righteous predecessors) or Wahabibism (a name we didnt particularly like), and I can tell you that everything that this woman has written is true. I’ve seen Muslim men beat their wives, marry other women without their first wife knowing and then one day springs it on his first wife that she is now a co-wife. I remember watching a jihadist tape which was used as a recruiting tool to get the Muslim men to fight jihad in Bosnia via Afghanistan. Islamic life focuses on death and returning to Allah. I have never been so miserable as when I was a Muslim; I could not stop thinking about death. It is a very repressive and oppresive lifestyle in which you are not in control your actions or your thoughts; you’re always living in fear that Allah will punish you not only for your bad actions but your bad thoughts.
Comment by Jeff Turner — 03.07.07 @ 8:46 am
I am comfortable with the term Islamophobe. Phobia implies fear and I am terrified at the prospect of having to live under such an hateful and repressive system. That doesn’t mean that I hate people of the Islamic faith. Don’t confuse fear and hate, they are not the same thing.
No, I don’t believe that I am better than they are and certainly not morally superior. But I enjoy the freedom and blessings in life that come only from our Lord, Jesus Christ.
Hate the sin, love the sinner…
Comment by circa bellum — 03.07.07 @ 9:04 am
Sometimes, we all need to be shaken out of our complacency — thank you, La Shawn.
To concur with cira bellum, there is no hate in my heart for the people of any faith. I struggle, every day, to keep the hate where it belongs — for the horrible actions committed in the name of ‘faith’.
Comment by Julie the Jarhead — 03.07.07 @ 9:41 am
For many Western intellectuals Islam is today what Communism was two decades ago - a religion/political philosophy that can do no wrong. Many of the same excuses used to justify Soviet imperialism and barbarity (American foreign policy, support for Israel, American military actions, etc.) have only been lightly edited to cover Islam.
This is a bizarre set of affairs, since Islam differs in many important respects with what Western intellectuals have claimed for decades to represent: opposition to homosexuality and women’s rights, a belief in a higher power. But I think that many of these intellectuals are unhappy with atheistic humanism, and Islam fits the bill of a politically-charged religion that is not “tainted” with dreaded Christianity. It’s not surprising that many are favorably disposed towards it.
Phyllis Chesler is (and will probably remain) a tiny minority among her increasingly hostile campus peers.
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi — 03.07.07 @ 9:42 am
I think Chesler probably fell victim to the rule of three:
Rule 1: All cultures are equal.
Rule 2: If rule 1 is broken by one culture being superior than another, and the choice is between Western and non-Western, under no circumstances will the Western culture be declared the victor–especially if the Western culture is American.
Rule 3: If rule 1 is broken by one culture being inferior to another, and the choice is between Western and non-Western, at all times the Western culture will be regarded as inferior, especially if it is American.
I do not know why, but a certain segment of the population, particularly academics, simply do not regard people who are non-Western, non-white, non-Christian as human. These people believe the “nons” are merely puppets without agency, without beliefs, without actions apart from reany of the above is no, find another man, especially if “honor” killings are the norm amongst his group. You are not special, you will be treated the same way, especially if you go to his home country where treating women as chattel is the norm.
Comment by Tyrian Purple — 03.07.07 @ 9:43 am
Lashawn, you are correct. Islam is not compatible with Western Society, Capitalism, or Democracy. It makes you wonder why we are spending ridiculous amounts of US tax dollars in Iraq attempting to spread democracy to a region and people that aren’t compatible with it. They aren’t even compatible with each other.
You also missed this article:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0306/p06s01-wosc.html
Comment by tristan — 03.07.07 @ 9:45 am
La Shawn, While I believe that St Paul recommended against marrying a non-believer, I don’t think that anything in the New Testament forbids it. On the other hand, St Paul does provide some excellent advice for the spouse of a non-believer. I believe that Christianity is more respectful of other religions that even you, in this case, give it credit for.
That said, for a feminist to marry a practicing Muslim, then move with him to a Muslim country, that was incredibly stupid.
Comment by David Funk — 03.07.07 @ 9:49 am
Hmm, part of my post was eaten above. Let me try again.
Chesler fell victim to the 3 rules:
Rule 1: All cultures are equal.
Rule 2: If rule 1 is broken by one culture being superior than another, and the choice is between Western and non-Western, under no circumstances will the Western culture be declared the victor–especially if the Western culture is American.
Rule 3: If rule 1 is broken by one culture being inferior to another, and the choice is between Western and non-Western, at all times the Western culture will be regarded as inferior, especially if it is American.
I do not know why, but a certain segment of the population, particularly academics, simply do not regard people who are non-Western, non-white, non-Christian as human. These people believe the “nons†are merely puppets without agency, without beliefs, without actions apart from reacting to what Westerners do.
LaShawn wrote that multiculturalists see barbaric cultures as superior to the one that gave them their privileges and freedoms in the first place. I believe that is why some women marry as Chesler did, because the husband is a prop meant to prove their “cred,†and show how exceptional they are in their tolerance, open-mindedness, and moral superiority.
In my job I only see failed marriages, and from my observation, a prime underlying cause of people marrying badly is from thinking of the spouse as a prop.
Here is a rule for any women who wishes to marry a man from a culture that treats women as 2nd/3rd class as a rule by law and custom: look at his sister. In my experience with people who marry badly, everyone in general falls back on what the values and habits they were raised by. So, can his sister date your brother? Can she date any man who is outside of her group? Can she be like you, in that she is educated and allowed to live independently? Can she have any lifestyle other than being barefoot and pregnant? Can she have the same freedoms her brother does?
If the answer to any of the above is no, find another man, especially if “honor†killings are the norm amongst his group. You are not special, you will be treated the same way, especially if you go to his home country where treating women as chattel is the norm.
Comment by Tyrian Purple — 03.07.07 @ 10:05 am
To answer David above, God gives us free will. However, as a believer, not all marriages are heavenly. When two unbelievers marry, or when a Christian and an unbeliever marry, they are set up for problems. They will find themselves at odds. God blesses marriages of His own people and but believers take their marriages out of God’s hands. I married an unbeliever and it was a living hell.
I have traveled to several Muslim countries and the only one that gave women “a bit of dignity” is the United Arab Emirates. All of the other Muslim countries I have visited including Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait treat their women like prisoners.
Many liberals who talk a good game about Muslim cultures, Pan-Africanism and the like, have never traveled to these countries to actually experience those cultures first hand. They refuse to believe the conditions unless they experience it firsthand like Phyllis Chesler.
Comment by Tracey — 03.07.07 @ 10:07 am
“Every time I blog about my issues with Islam, somebody somewhere calls me a religious bigot.”
I’m sure. Yet those same folks who charge you with bigotry, probably stand up and cheer Julio Pino, Kent State’s pro-jihadi professor or Colorado
Univerisity’s resident (faux indian) liar, Ward Churchill, and excoriate christianity for being ‘too repressive.’ This is the rhetoric of cowards,
because like you said,’Christianity’s harshest critics can denigrate the faith without worrying about having their heads chopped off!’
Your question to ‘Chesler and women like her is why she married a Muslim in the first place?’ should be a HUGE red flag for all western women. You rightly point out she is a university professor of ‘women’s studies’; a nortorious bastion of revisionist history and leftist-utopian political philosophy. The woman was no dummy, but Ms. Chesler’s decision speaks volumes about her as a person and her ability to critically think through complex social, cultural, and personal issues. This is a the root as to why liberalism is a recipe for cultural & political failure.
And I’ve about had it with the suffix ‘phobe’. People need to look up the definiton of ‘phobia’. My informed disapproval of some group or person and their beliefs, ideas or philosophy does not make me a ‘phobe’ of any stripe or character no matter how LOUD some ‘activist’ screams it at me. People need to look up the definiton of ‘phobia’ because it is waaaay mis-used.
Comment by locomotivebreath1901 — 03.07.07 @ 10:15 am
Thanks, La Shawn, for, as usual, telling it like it is.
Comment by Mike — 03.07.07 @ 10:17 am
Islamophobe-much like “prejudiced.” Useful words that have been misused and abused to the point they have lost their utility. A “phobia” is an IRRATIONAL fear. Being afraid of people who like to blow up buses full of children in the name of their god is NOT irrational. “Prejudice” means PRE judging. Judging without a basis. Jesse Jackson looking behind him and feeling relieved that it is white folk and not black folk following him is NOT an example of being “prejudiced.” It is a rational reaction based on EXPERIENCE. Muslims are more likely to behead you. Blacks are more likely to carjack you. That is just the truth, whether it is PC or not.
Comment by Lucinius Antonninus — 03.07.07 @ 10:20 am
“I have a problem with the entire religion, especially the desire of its followers to live under religious law and to have that law imposed on westerners.”
Right on the nose, LaShawn. For those who would argue that Christians proselytize and want their religion imposed on others, I say, not true. First, Christianity does not teach imposition of the faith by force. In contrast, this is a basic tenet of Islam. Living and preaching the faith, while praying for the soul to be converted, is not the same as killing those who will not convert, or subjecting them to second-class citizen status, i.e., dhimmitude.
Second, the fact that several hundred years ago Christianity was imposed militarily is irrelevant. That type of behavior was normal and accepted for those times, just like slavery. Barbaric behavior was viewed as acceptable by everyone. Neither activity is normal or acceptable today.
Comment by Kim — 03.07.07 @ 10:22 am
“And I’ve about had it with the suffix ‘phobe’. People need to look up the definiton of ‘phobia’. My informed disapproval of some group or person and their beliefs, ideas or philosophy does not make me a ‘phobe’ of any stripe or character no matter how LOUD some ‘activist’ screams it at me. People need to look up the definiton of ‘phobia’ because it is waaaay mis-used.”
Preach it locomotivebreath1901!!!!!
Comment by Tracey — 03.07.07 @ 10:44 am
A great post, La Shawn. I know that God is working in the world towards the return of the Lord; Psalm 2 comes into focus as a description of the Last Days, which don’t seem that far off.
It could be that the apostasy, the falling away mentioned in the last days would be Islam temporarily controlling the entire world. Walid Shoebat made mention of the fact that many of the countries mentioned in Ezekiel as coming up against Israel before Armageddon are Muslim strongholds. So it’s possible that Islam may overrun the world, but that will be a very short rule indeed. When our Lord returns, it’s all over for Islam, Buddhism, secular humanism, etc.
Even so, come Lord Jesus!
Comment by Doug — 03.07.07 @ 10:49 am
I wonder how many tie-dyed burqas you could sell at concert attended by lots of liberal hippie chicks? I am troubled by Islam but I dont fear it.
On the subject of Christians marrying non-believers; I thank God that my wife married one. Seeing the Lord work through her is what led me to Him!
Comment by Dave — 03.07.07 @ 10:58 am
Why does a woman marry a muslim? Because she doesn’t really believe what she has heard can really be true. Women have had equal rights for generations in the US and western cultures generally, so that we really cannot imagine not having it. There was a commenter on this very blog that was considering marrying a muslim, and although other commenters were saying “don’t do it - he’ll treat you like they do in muslim countries” she was was convinced that he was different. He was eduated, “western”, charming etc. and so forth. As I recall, she was a black woman who had a master’s degree…maybe even a doctorate - I don’t remember exactly. At any rate, she had come from very little and accomplished much. She was _certain_ that for her - for them - things would be different. If Phylis Chesler hadn’t already been there, come back and written a book, I’d swear it was the same woman!
And Locomotive Breath….does that mean I can’t have a Gorephobia???
Comment by suek — 03.07.07 @ 11:33 am
Great post. And let’s not forget the whole Airport cabbie mess in Minneapolis where the cabbies claimed that sharia law forced them to not pick up fares that had guide dogs, alcohol etc.
Comment by Greg Laurich — 03.07.07 @ 11:47 am
“For many Western intellectuals Islam is today what Communism was two decades ago - a religion/political philosophy that can do no wrong.”
Source quotes/references please?
I’d be interested in reading who says Islam can do no wrong.
I personally have no love or even like for the Islamic faith, from what I have seen and heard, it is way too conservative, and way to patriarchal/oppressive.
I do support people’s freedom to worship who they choose, or wear/eat say what they want, so I guess that puts me in the ‘multicultural’ camp.
However, that said, I don’t take kindly to anyone giving me the mantra that I view all cultures ‘as of equal worth’, any more than I’ll take a muslim telling me what I should believe, or what I ‘represent’. All cultures aren’t of equal ‘worth’ or effect. It’s worth remembering that Islamic culture is a monoculture before people go around slamming each and every concept or actuality of a multi-cultural society. Broad brushes are rarely useful, and normally dishonest.
Believing people may worship what and whomever they wish is not merely a “multicultural” trait. I also believe people are free to bow down before whoever and whatever. The multiculturalist takes it too far, declaring inferior cultures (read: oppressive) equally valid and/or worthy of appreciation as superior cultures (read: free). Your beliefs about people’s freedom are western beliefs, which come from being raised in a culture that values individual freedom. Such a culture, I’ll argue to my grave, is vastly superior to others, esp. Muslim cultures. Multiculturalists tend to view all cultures as “good,” which is grade A crap. - Admin
Comment by JohnD — 03.07.07 @ 11:50 am
Krushchev of the former USSR said it, and it’s probably true… “America, you will bury yourselves” With our insane political correctness we are headed toward the slaughter house like stupid sheep. Time is on the Muslim’s side. They know it, and we are sleeping at the wheel. First Europe, and then the United States. Our politicians want to “make nice” with Islamic groups such as Hamas. President Bush claims Islam is a religion of “Peace”. What? We’re doomed. We have become a big rich, slobbering kid who can’t protect himself….from himself. Yikes…it’s nuts!!!!!
Comment by Sparky — 03.07.07 @ 12:11 pm
Feminism is a religion for many. Liberalism is a religion for many. Multiculturalism is a religion for many. Of course, they are all phony religions. But when you are the high priestess of feminism or political correctness or liberal love and understanding, you are able to manipulate the rules and form the doxology to your liking.
When these puff-brained folks encounter true faith and an abiding belief system, they scream like stuck pigs. They can’t stand the imperatives, the strict codes, the concept of absolute right and wrong.
Mark Twain said that a person who sets out to carry a cat by the tail is getting valuable information.
Guess what happened to our little “Jewish” friend turned Muslim; she entered the lion’s den of “multiculturalism” and she got eviscerated. Isn’t that just so astounding and beyond prediction?
There is only Islam: no moderate or reformed Islam. The radicals have carved out the deadliest ideas and they are acting on them. But the rest of Islam can not offer a strong argument against the “radical” views, because the radical views spring from the foundational tenets of the Koran.
I do not consider myself any sort of expert, but I have spent a lot of time traveling in Indonesia, Egypt, Thailand, Turkey, Tunisia, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Jordon, and Malaysia. I have spent much time in consulting with Christians, Hindu’s, Copts, Jews, Buddhists and others who feel the hot breath of radical Islam on a daily basis. It is a constant, deadly threat: convert or die.
The threat of radical Islam is as clear today as it was when the first Caliphate swept across Africa and into Europe in its earliest founding years.
The liberal English society is treating its enormous problem with Islam in exactly the same way as this daffy feminist went tip-toe through the tulips of marriage with her Afghan husband. And, England may be the first European country to assimilate Sharia in its legal system.
Her tale may be a wake up call to the sleepy denizens of multiculturalism, but I doubt it. Look how many Jews in the United States want to appease and slink away from reality. They even seem willing to throw Israel overboard.
Radio hosts have been fired for saying what LaShawn has posted. CAIR makes Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton look like amateurs competing for the Donnie and Marie Osmond award.
I just finished reading an article in Archaeology about Mel Gibson offending the Maya in his movie Apocalypto. Gibson also stirred up the Jews with his Passion of the Christ. What are the chances that anyone in Hollywood will dare tread on the toes of Islam?
We are all being “courted” by Islam and being compelled to “accept” their religious beliefs in our day to day lives. It would be best if everyone outside of Islam were to approach it with a knowledge of what the basic tenets of Islam demand.
Comment by Heliotrope — 03.07.07 @ 12:17 pm
Thank you LaShawn. This is why your blog is one of my must reads.
It is about time females everywhere spoke up against Islam, while they still have tongues.
Comment by Changed Life — 03.07.07 @ 12:37 pm
#19 Dave says: “I am troubled by Islam but I don’t fear it.”
Currently, in the United States, you can afford to feel that way. You can write off 9/11 as a “lucky hit” by a bunch of nut cases. You can look at Iraq and Afghanistan as “Bush’s War” and a stupid mistake. You can look at the pressures of Islam on London, Paris, Stockholm, Hamburg, Copenhagen, Dearborn, Spain, Italy, Sudan, Thailand, Fiji, Australia, Bali, etc. as merely local or far distant problems.
You can ignore the dictators who are holding down radical Islamists. Namely: Mubarak, the House of Saud, Mussarif, etc. But these people are a heartbeat away from having their countries go the way of Iran.
Russia has huge problems with radical Islam and every day Putin is slipping further back into the KGB days of governing. Meanwhile, the world economy teeters on the brink of chaos because of Islamic hands on the oil supply.
You might want to consider adding a little “fear” of our delicate condition with Islam.
Even if everyone were to concede that we are entirely to blame, what is our way out?
Are we going to talk Islam out of its basic tenets?
Comment by Heliotrope — 03.07.07 @ 12:40 pm
La Shawn Barber blog has a most interesting post concerning a woman academic who married an Afghani Muslim and moved with him back to his native country. Read the post.
Pingback by BLINKERED THINKER — 03.07.07 @ 1:14 pm
“The multiculturalist takes it too far, declaring inferior cultures (read: oppressive) equally valid and/or worthy of appreciation as superior cultures”
Sometimes I guess a ‘multiculturalist’ will take it too far. As will a ‘cultural superialist’ or Nationalist.
Extremists rarely interest me as they live in cloud cuckoo-land, re-defining and re-interpreting the world around them to suit their belief system/propaganda needs.
Comment by JohnD — 03.07.07 @ 1:32 pm
“Multiculturalists tend to view all cultures as “good,†which is grade A crap. ”
Well, I guess that excludes me, thanks for the education, LaShawn.
Comment by JohnD — 03.07.07 @ 1:33 pm
“And, England may be the first European country to assimilate Sharia in its legal system.”
Being a Brit, this is obviously of immense interest to me. Do you have any evidence that Sharia law is going to be assimilated into our legal system?
As one might say….”not on your Nelly, old chap”
My next-door neighbours are British-born Muslims, I’ll ask them what they think about it. I foresee a battle on the stairs!
Regards,
John
Comment by JohnD — 03.07.07 @ 1:45 pm
Chesler’s story reminds me of Betty Mahmoody, who wrote the book Not Without My Daughter. Some of you might remember this story from when it was made into a movie in 1991, starring Sally Fields as Betty, who is pictured on the book cover in the above link.
Betty’s story is that she married an Iranian, went to Iran to “visit relatives”, whereupon her husband morphed from a medical professional into an 8th Century misogynist. She was held captive by his family via the method of allowing her to move about as she pleased, but not allowing her to take her daughter whenever she went anywhere. After a year and a half of trying to arrange something with the British and Canadian consulates in Iran, she managed to sneak her daughter out of the house, and escaped, ironically enough, with the help of the Kurds, who guided her to Turkey. Yet again, the Kurds turn up as heroes in a story of Islamic repression!
Betty’s story has for years been dismissed as an artifact of the Iranian Hostage Crisis, which was a recent event at the time Betty was “kidnapped”… this IN SPITE of the fact that when the story was released, hundreds of women came forward and said the same thing had happened to them in places like Saudi Arabia which are supposed to be “American-friendly”. US Consulates and Embassies in these nations stay out of these cases because of the child custody aspect, so the women are left to their own devices to find a way out.
So Chesler’s reasoning HAD to have been multi-culti fantasizing. At the time she went to Afghanistan, hundreds of cases were already on record, and one of them made famous by a fairly well-known movie starring a VERY well-known actress. It was Chesler’s viewpoint that got her caught in Afghanistan.
And people claim that the multi-culti viewpoint isn’t “dangerous”???
Comment by mamapajamas — 03.07.07 @ 1:46 pm
Go to the top feminist political blogs and search for criticism of Muslims’ treatment of their wives specifically and women in general, and Islam.
You’ll find such criticism quite frequently on feminist blogs, thank you very much. Feministing and Feministe come to mind. Feminist campaigns against the Taliban way before 9/11 also come to mind. Here’s an example below.
http://happyfeminist.typepad.com/happyfeminist/2006/01/protesting_gend.html
If you consider yours among the “top feminist political blogs,” as I mentioned in the post, wonderful. But one post? That disproves my theory? You call yourself a feminist and don’t blog more often about violence against women in Islam? Even if you find several posts on a top feminist political blog criticizing Muslims for their treatment of women, it still won’t negate or disprove the implication I made. But whatever you say…
Comment by Reader of Feminist Blogs — 03.07.07 @ 1:57 pm
Lashawn You asked why a feminazi would marry a muslim and go live in Afghanistan.
The answer is because of Chesler’s age. She is in her early 70’s. She went to college in the late 50’s early 60’s married and went to Afghanistan in 1961.
She, like most of the early feminazis such as Betty Freidan was a marxist from a communist background.
In the fifties when Chesler was growing up, Islam was unknown in this country. Most of the meditterean islamic countries such as Algeria, Egypt etc were officially very secular at the time. This secularism was because the communists had been very helpful in ridding those countries of their European colonial rulers.
African nationalists also depended on communist help in ending colonial European rule.
So most leftists in America and Europe thought of muslims as fellow fighters against evil colonial white men.
It was really a different time. There was no such thing as women’s studies. The only people who were into women’s rights were the communists. But they weren’t really for women’s rights of course.
The communists became pro women’s rights back in the thirties when the labor movement and MALE working class rejected communism. so the communists decided to focus on women, minorities and regional conflicts, (Spanish Basques, Irish catholics etc)
A marxist rebel beatnik young woman of the 1950’s, ignorant of the muslim treatment of women would be very likely to reject all the boring bourgeious boys in her college and marry a stranger from afar country simply because he was not a drab American.
Barack Obama’s Mother is the same age as Chessler. She did the same thing, not once but twice. I am older than you who were exposed to women’s studies at an early age. I am younger that Chessler but knowing the marxist, anti american beatnik New York mileiu from which she came I can understand why she chose to marry an Afghan, as far from middle America as possible.
Ten years later, women like Chessler joined the weather underground and bombed the ROTC building on their college campuses, married Black Panthers and rioted for their causes.
Comment by Margaret — 03.07.07 @ 2:22 pm
Helio, your response;
“You might want to consider adding a little “fear†of our delicate condition with Islam.”,
Indicates that you misinterpreted my post. By saying I dont “fear” it, I am not saying that I condone or lessen the extent of the threat, nor am I saying that we are to blame. I will stand beside you and oppose this evil, but I do not have to fear it. I skipped to the end of the Book. I have read how all of this turns out.
Comment by Dave — 03.07.07 @ 2:36 pm
Before she became a feminazi Chessler was a marxist. She was a marxist when she married her Afghani.
I wonder how she reconciled her marxism with the incredible poverty and class oppression of the poor in Afghanistan?
Comment by Margaret — 03.07.07 @ 2:55 pm
Reading through the comments thread at the Times site is crazy-making. The majority of commenters are sticking with the multi-culti dogma that her experience may have been unpleasant, but it’s an isolated experience and the West is much worse. Sam in Manchester notes that there’s a conservative club that won’t let women play snooker! The horror!
Comment by Belinda — 03.07.07 @ 3:36 pm
#30 JohnD asks: “Being a Brit, this is obviously of immense interest to me. Do you have any evidence that Sharia law is going to be assimilated into our legal system?” This was in response to my statement that “….England may be the first European country to assimilate Sharia in its legal system.â€
I am not saying it has happened. But keeping moderately attuned to the British press, it is readily apparent that the movement is alive and growing. Will it happen? I suspect it will. But the French may do it first.
Mark Steyn does a great job of keeping up with all of this as does Little Green Footballs.
Comment by Heliotrope — 03.07.07 @ 4:06 pm
#34 Dave,
Thanks for the clarification. I obviously misread your meaning.
I count among my friends many people who live in daily fear of what Islam has done to members of their families and/or is attempting to do to them.
Comment by Heliotrope — 03.07.07 @ 4:16 pm
“I am not saying it has happened.”
Helio, you misunderstand, I am not saying that you did. Please do you have any evidence that it is ‘likely’ to happen? Any actual evidence, from Britain? (And I don’t mean from right wing activists)
Comment by JohnD — 03.07.07 @ 4:22 pm
England, and France, have a big problem on their hands, and there are rapidly becoming more Muslims, than Christians in those countries.
I remember being floored when reading a copy of England’s ‘Daily Telegraph’ and they were having a debate on whether or not the UK would move towards enacting Sharia Law.
A debate?
The idea that they are even debating this is astounding.
Britons have such national pride in their Monarchy and Parliamentary system of Government.
If they are now even raising a debate over Sharia Law, it’s very scary!
Comment by Glamchild — 03.07.07 @ 4:35 pm
Glamchild, do you have a link for this ‘debate’ please? Also the stats for muslims vs christians figures that you have are maybe, shall we say, exaggerated!
The census in 2001 gave the following figures for religion in Britain:
England Scotland
Christian 71.75% 65.09%
Muslim 2.97% 0.84%
Jewish 0.50% 0.13%
Buddhist 0.28% 0.13%
Hindu 1.06% 0.11%
Sikh 0.63% 0.13%
Other 0.29% 0.53%
None 14.81% 27.55%
No answer 7.71% 5.49%
I really want to see some evidence that the UK is considering handing over it’s legal system to Islam.
More importantly, I wonder why you would be so keen to make such claims about Muslims ‘taking over?’
Glamchild, with respect, could you please quote your sources for religious percentages in the UK?
Regards,
John
Comment by JohnD — 03.07.07 @ 4:53 pm
Does anybody ever wonder why the left will tolerate any religion, no matter how how inimical it is to its beliefs - see Islam, yet loathes Christianity?
Me thinks that God phobic leftists, (everybody for that matter) know deep down that Christianity is the truth and it will be Christ who they will have to face on judgment day…not Allah.
Like Christianity Islam teaches a final judgment and is actually more rigid in many ways than Christianity, yet it’s Christianity that is hated by them.
Comment by Ross — 03.07.07 @ 4:57 pm
Glam,
I would be willing to bet that France would adopt Sharia law before England as well because there is a bigger spiritual vacumn in France than there is in England. France is now reaping the harvest of secularism and it won’t be pretty. What happens to places like the Louve when Muslims gain real power in France? Scary thought for this artist…
Comment by Greg Laurich — 03.07.07 @ 4:59 pm
Apologies glamchild, the stats got garbled on the post.
Here’s the link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/03/census_2001/html/religion.stm
Note the pie chart is diametrically opposed to your claim, how is that?
Comment by JohnD — 03.07.07 @ 5:02 pm
LaShawn, thank you, thank you, and thousand times thank you, for writing this and for bringing Phyllis Chesler’s story to this corner of the blogosphere. I cannot believe how her feminazi ex-compatriots are villifying her now, all because she has chosen to stand up and speak the truth. They are doing the same thing to Aayin Hirsi Ali, who also has firsthand experience with the evil that is Islam. I cannot understand why pampered western feminists are so hellbent on letting their sisters in other countries suffer so many aggregious human rights abuses with nary a protesting peep (like the gang rape victim in Saudi Arabia who last week was sentenced to 90 lashes for her “role” in the gang rape).
I admit that sometimes my faith in G-d gets on shakey ground, but oddly enough, one look at Islam’s “fruits” and my faith in the existence of Satan remains very, very strong. Since you don’t have one without the other (G-d, Satan), I find in a strange sort of way that looking evil in the face reminds me that there is a loving G-d who is still in control of the world, and that we all need to seek Him for protection.
Comment by batyah — 03.07.07 @ 5:03 pm
#39 JohnD,
I do not get into “link” contests with anyone. However, you may have missed this in your hardly right-wing UK Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/29/nsharia29.xml
I read the Telegraph nearly every day and this Sharia is a constant subject there as well as on the BBC.
I assume you also eschew left-wing sources along with the right-wing sources, which would leave you with darn little to read except the ingredients column on cereal boxes.
Comment by Heliotrope — 03.07.07 @ 5:17 pm
JohnD-
Of the supposed 70% Euro Christians, how many are really Active, believing,church attending Christians? I would bet the vast majority of that number are listed as Christian only because they don’t identify with any other faith and being white/ born in Europe in their minds equals being a Christian.
Comment by Ross — 03.07.07 @ 5:17 pm
I would be very carefully painting feminism with too broad a brush. Jut because a woman married a Muslim, and learned from her mistake of moving to a very sexist country, does not make all of feminism ignorant naive or bad. Feminists have spent years working hard for the right of women in this country. We are not so far, from treating women poorly, to throw too many stones.
I studied a lot of feminism in college and feminists have been way out front in the fight for women’s rights in the middle east. They have been anything but ignorant of the serious problems presented by the Muslim religion.
On this issue, feminists are allies in the war on terror and the ground of squalid inequality from which it grows.
Comment by Andrew — 03.07.07 @ 5:19 pm
A warning to James T. (Comment #1); Back off! She’s ours! Lol! Of course we all agree. I am a total intellectual groupie.
Comment by Greg — 03.07.07 @ 5:29 pm
Andrew, buddy, you are living in a bubble. WHERE ARE THE FEMINISTS? They are sucking up to America-hating, Jew-hating leftist moonbats, that’s where they are. They are so terrified to say anything faintly negative about the “brown people” in the Middle East that they have voluntarily gagged themselves on the human rights abuses being carried out routinely in Muslim countries. To speak out would be a little too close to fighting the war on terror (the common perpetrator being Muslims). A few months ago, I read an article by a Yale feminist in which the author clearly stated that she finds it morally reprehensible for white American women to judge brown, Middle Eastern women or their cultures (which rape, stone, burn, stab, shoot, torture and imprison them). Whaaaa?
As for painting with the broad brush — fine. Show me where the outspoken feminists are who are raging against Islam. They should be out burning burkas, don’t you think? Hell, they could burn a bra in the ’60’s, they can for damn sure burn a burka. How I wish I could believe you that the majority of them are really concerned and working actively to fight Islamic abuses of women, but that simply is not true. They are SILENT. There is NOTHING happening in that arena, except the usual whining about the potential threat to abortion on demand, and the lack of government subsidized childcare for yuppies (they are having a hard time affording their brown nannies). Oh, and the whimpering over the hallucinations of glass ceilings in the workplace. Consider how they all band together to attack Phyllis Chesler, a TRUE feminist.
I’m disgusted that current day “feminists” have utterly contaminated the word that once was used to describe a group of women who fought for equal rights and fair treatment for women everywhere.
Comment by batyah — 03.07.07 @ 5:38 pm
Ross,
And another thing, the left does not “tolerate any religion, no matter how how inimical it is to its beliefs - see Islam, yet loathes Christianity?” Hell, the vast majority of us are Christian just like you.
What we do not like is when our Christian religion gets mixed up in our politics. It is interesting to me that many people on the religious right does not seem to grasp why Islam is such a threat. It is a threat because it has infused its religious beliefs into the political system and then expects all people of the state to follow it’s rules.
In other words, when you mix religious rules into secular state government you end up trampling those that do not happen to belong to your religion. Remember, not ever one in America is a Christian. We need to have government rules that do not force us to follow religious rules.
This is not to say that many secular rules (laws) are not also religious rules. You will find rules against killing in both. That is fine and actually important. However, when a taxi driver, in Minneapolis, does not want to carry a passenger with alcohol, and alcohol is legal to carry in a taxi, we have a problem with the religious rules. Our secular state cannot tolerate that particular religious rule if your are a taxi driver. If you drive a taxi you carry everyone under the same law.
The same goes for marriage. If you want to marry another man, who is to say you cannot just because some Christians believe it is against their religion. We are wrestling with this now in our country. Eventually you will find that in a secular society, we must treat people fairly. If you belong to a church that does not marry people of the same sex than so be it. But, don’t try to impose your religious belief on someone who does not practice your religion.
If you want to live in a religious country you can. We, however we live in a secular one where we expect people to be treated fairly under our laws, and those laws need to make reasonable accommodation, they should not enforce a particular religious doctrine.
Well, we’d better remove laws against murder from the books, because that’s a “religious rule.” Contract law, too. Property rights as well. In fact, we’d better strike our whole legal system because it contains many biblical principles. And about marriage, my argument against homosexual “marriage” is based on more than the Bible. Tradition, marriage’s benefits for raising children and maintaining stable societies, etc., are a few reasons why I believe granting marriage rights to homosexuals will dilute traditional marriage. Homosexuals have the same civil rights as everyone else, but the clamor for special rights, based on who one sleeps with, no doubt, is going too far. - Admin
Comment by Andrew — 03.07.07 @ 5:39 pm
A 3% Muslim population in England is in agreement with the figures given by the left-wing Brookings Institute in 2003. The Muslim birthrate will double to more than 6% by 2015 while the decline in birth rates among the traditional Brits will cause their proportion of the English population to decrease by 3.5% in 2015. The rate of Muslim increase, coupled with the rate of traditional Brit decrease will lead to a Muslim majority in England within this century. (It will happen in France first.)
England is facing this conundrum: How will it assimilate the Muslim culture into the British system or how will the British culture be assimilated into the Islamic system.
There is a third path: cultural apartheid.
Comment by Heliotrope — 03.07.07 @ 5:45 pm
I am sorry if I have been a buzz kill. I will try to hold my tongue.
Lashawn still rocks.
Comment by Andrew — 03.07.07 @ 5:50 pm
Oh, silly me, I forgot to add “Christian-hating” to that descriptor of current day feminists. To hear them talk, it’s the American Christians, and not the Muslims, who pose the greatest, most terrifying threat to women (and humanity in general) than has ever been posed before in the history of the world.
Comment by batyah — 03.07.07 @ 5:52 pm
Heliotrope, there is a fourth path: deportation.
Comment by batyah — 03.07.07 @ 5:53 pm
Heliotrope, I’ll do you the courtesy of ignoring the assumptions and sarcasm.
However, to address your ‘points’:
I too have no wish to eneter a ‘link contest’. Suffice to say, I would rather believe Census or my next door neighbour than someone like Mark Steyn or Michael Moore, or National parties, or Freepers, or Daily Kos. I would have thought that for thinking people that would be a given? No?
Fiercely agenda driven polemic is not my chosen reading, whether or not I get accused of being illiterate or uninformed by yourself, I at least try to fact check or cross-reference rather than believe something just because a politician or demagogue is spouting it. At least cereal boxes give you the plain old ingredients. OK, they cheat on the wrapping, those dried strawberries always look plumper on the box, just like the stats of racially-charged politicking.
I checked the Telegraph (yes it’s right-leaning and yes it misinforms)article that you provided, and knowhere does it say that UK law is assimilating into Sharia. It does point out that some muslims preferred to settle a dispute between themselves, and that the law doesn’t have to intervene if no claim is made, unless for certain crimes like rape.
The telegraph is taking a case of arbitration and using it to sensationalize. It sells papers. And yes, I want to know. But always read the small print.
Orthodox Jewish communities have the same thing in the UK, they go to ‘Beth Din’. I have no problem with either.
Meanwhile we are left with the Telegraph, who said (in your link)
“Although Scotland Yard had no information about that case yesterday, a spokesman said it was common for the police not to proceed with assault cases if the victims decided not to press charges.
However, the spokesman said cases of domestic violence, including rape, might go to trial regardless of the victim’s wishes.”
Is it a ‘loophole’ in the law to allow victims NOT to press charges? Or is this just for exploitation by Muslim and Orthodox Jewish communties?
What do you think?
Comment by JohnD — 03.07.07 @ 6:07 pm
Admin,
I refer back to my post “This is not to say that many secular rules (laws) are not also religious rules. You will find rules against killing in both. That is fine and actually important.”
Just because a law can be found in a religion does not disqualify it from being a secular law. In fact you will find that most religions share many of the same rules. Both Christianity and Buddhism share rules against killing, misuse of sex, stealing, speaking falsehoods etc. This makes sense as most laws are, at their core, very practical. Our society needs effective laws that promote a fair and just, and smooth running society.
With regard to gay marriage. I don’t think gay people want to have extra rights. They just want the same rights. I can get married,and am married, to another adult only if she is a she. I see no reason that I should not be able to marry an adult if he is a he. Why change the rules based on the sex of the partners? Seems a bit arbitrary for our legal system, don’t you think?
I also happen to know at least three gay couples with wonderful children. So far I have seen no reasonable evidence that gay couples do not raise healthy children. If you have some, let me know.
You wrote, “Just because a law can be found in a religion does not disqualify it from being a secular law,” and the rest of the paragraph blah, blah, blah. Thank you for making my point. And homosexual couples can do civil unions. I frankly don’t care. Just don’t call it “marriage” because it is not. - Admin
Comment by Andrew — 03.07.07 @ 6:08 pm
Sorry to leave this hanging. I will continue later. I need to pick up my daughter at day care.
Comment by Andrew — 03.07.07 @ 6:10 pm
Off-topic. - Admin
Comment by Ernesto Ribeiro — 03.07.07 @ 6:13 pm
I would guess what we call it is unimportant to most gay people. If the sticking point is the name then we can get through this quickly. The problem is that civil unions do not carry very many of the rights that my wife and I enjoy as a married couple. I would guess that we could call, what gay people want to do, “Strawberries” if we wanted to. As long as “Strawberries” allowed gay people to have the same secular rights as married couples under our Federal laws.
At this point the civil union of one state is only good in that state, whereas my marraige is good anywhere I go. I just don’t think that is a reasonable place for us to be in this country.
My guess is that you and I are not very far apart on this issue if we cut thorugh the talking points.
Comment by Andrew — 03.07.07 @ 7:06 pm
By the way I promise to not characterize your comments as “blah, blah, blah” and I expect you to do the same. Our country is too divided over important issues to disparage each other’s opinions as blah blah blah.
Comment by Andrew — 03.07.07 @ 7:48 pm
Katya,
How did I make you so angry? I would guess that most feminists are doing what most of America is doing. They are living their lives as best they can.
As for “America-hating, Jew-hating leftist moon bats,” sorry you lost me on this. The feminists I know don’t hate America or Jews.
As for “they have voluntarily gagged themselves on the human rights abuses being carried out routinely in Muslim countries.” I would refer you here:
http://www.globalfundforwomen.org/cms/content/blogcategory/21/59/
here:
http://www.feminist.com/violence/campaign.html
and here:
http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=10187
If you will take one moment to Google feminism you will find that concern and activism around the rights of women in Muslim countries is a consistent theme.
I will cut you some slack on this “They should be out burning burkas, dont you think? Hell, they could burn a bra in the 60s, they can for damn sure burn a burka. How I wish I could believe you that the majority of them are really concerned and working actively to fight Islamic abuses of women, but that simply is not true.”
Because it turns out that they are doing many things far more effective than burning burkas on the streets of America. They are raising money and supporting women in the countries of the world that need their help.
Batyah, perhaps now we can get down to talking about real issues that will bring us together as Americans.
Comment by Andrew — 03.07.07 @ 8:15 pm
In America we are conditioned to be allowed to say political belief systems are good or bad, same with economic, cultural stuff - but have somehow gotten the impression that to say anything derogitory about any religion is “bigoted, narrow-minded”. Part of it started with good intent - that Jews had “suffered unduely” so to protect them, any comment on any religion was prejudice…
And after WWII, the SCOTUS began saying that all religions are equal was enshrined in the 1st Amendment and those “Venerators” who treat the Constitution as Holy Parchment as the High Priesthood of lawyers in robes pronounces chimed in “God through the Founders says it is so!”
Try a test. Ask a friend if they intensely dislike national socialism. Check. Stalinism. Check. Hip hop’s misogyny. For sure. Caudillos seizing a county’s wealth? Ditto.
Instant and unequivocable condemnation.
Then ask them if they think anyone aspiring to be Priestess of Satanism should be reviled.
Hestitation…then perhaps words that they are not in a position to judge, perhaps Satanism is misguided - but hey, we are a big country and the Sacred Parchment of the Holy Founders compells all of us to tolerate and accept Satanism, as long as it is “not manifested in public or government controlled places”.
Then ask if New Guineans practicing religious cannibaism should be condemned. Perhaps the Aztec death cult.
You are likely to get words about the many positive aspects of New Guinea cannibal religions outside “better understanding and education” needed in the area of cannibal practices…Or searching for the “plenty of good things Aztec priests did when not cutting hearts out…”
We have fallen in that trap with Islam. We must give lip service to saying it is the moral equal of Christianity…or admit bias. From George Bush’s insipid drivel in his early defense of Islam as the Religion of Peace, to feminists attacking any woman once under Islam that says life is hell under Islam as misinformed and bigoted.
Well said: There is only Islam: no moderate or reformed Islam. The radicals have carved out the deadliest ideas and they are acting on them. But the rest of Islam can not offer a strong argument against the “radical†views, because the radical views spring from the foundational tenets of the Koran.
The bottom line is anyone should be able to attack or agree with another persons ideology - political, cultural, economic AND religious.
PS -
Why only Muslim men hit on infidels…because it is forbidden in most Islamic cultures on pain of death for a Muslim women to dishonor her family subjugating herself to the will of the son of pigs and monkeys. But enslaving or capturing infidel women by romance or guile is good because it creates more Muslims and is encouraged by the Qu’ran.
Comment by Chris Ford — 03.07.07 @ 8:17 pm
Western so-called anarchists and multiculturalists are nothing more than brats…
I trimmed it because it’s a huge sentence. Anyhow, I think you made the same mistake I did when I first read Chesler’s words, which were in the blockquote above your “anarchists” comment:
Now is the time for Western intellectuals who claim to be antiracists and committed to human rights to stand with these dissidents.
She said antiracists. When I first read that, I wondered what anarchists had to do with anything, then I got to your words and wondered the same thing. Anarchists?
You’re right! Thanks for the correction. - Admin
Comment by Jon — 03.07.07 @ 8:31 pm
>>The problem is that civil unions do not carry very many of the rights that my wife and I enjoy as a married couple.>>
Such as?
Comment by suek — 03.07.07 @ 8:33 pm
Sorry Batya, I did not mean to call you “Katya.”
My sincere apologies.
By the way, here is the article you read in the Yale Daily News:
http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/16858
It was written by a man from Pierson College, and certainly no feminist. By the way. I would guess he has not talked to the feminists at Yale either (I realize this is probably redundant).
Comment by Andrew — 03.07.07 @ 8:38 pm
A couple comments:
Feminism is political. Maybe at one point it was nobler, but that’s all it is now. That’s why they don’t care about “sisters” mistreated by religions the Left is in bed with. That’s why they don’t care about “sisters” who are torn apart with their mother’s blessing–not even when it is done to them because they are female. That’s why they care less about their “sisters’” preferences than their agenda in deciding whether I should work or how many children I should have. That is why they care more about the rights of the “sisters” who want to live irresponsibly and break commitments than the littler “sisters” who will grow up in broken homes with a parent who is only concerned with what her feelings are.
I think that if the original, real feminists could see what has become of their movement, they’d hand back their voter registration and say it wasn’t worth it.
Oh, and a comment on marriage: I say, civil unions for everyone. It’s a travesty that the government is involved at all in deciding who can or cannot get married. I say leave that to the churches.
Comment by ycw — 03.07.07 @ 8:42 pm
#56 JohnD asks: “What do you think?”
Have a nice day.
Comment by Heliotrope — 03.07.07 @ 9:10 pm
Andrew… let me put my “anthropology” hat on for a moment. I am not going to mention a single word about “religion”.
Every civilization in human existence has had a marriage law or custom that consisted of a contract between men and women (at whatever number, and yes, there have been a few societies were women could have more than one husband). It is as universal as laws against murder (or, at least, we don’t murder people in our own tribe), theft, etc.
Even in gay-friendly societies, such as ancient Greece, marriage STILL existed as a contract between a man and a woman. When a custom/law is as solidly universal as this, there is a reason for it; we just don’t know what that reason is.
You can toy around with the idea that it was set up to protect children of the union.
In recent years, we’ve come to discover that children need a role model of BOTH sexes, at least one male and at least one female, in order to thrive. Children who succeed with only one parent do so IN SPITE of this handicap, due to their own great strengths.
It has become painfully obvious in recent years that young boys who don’t have a good male role model simply do not know how to act like men, and have no clue what men are supposed to do. If his mother is not a good female role model, she is a very poor example for him to use for “how to treat women”. A woman who lets her boyfriends misuse her, for instance, is setting a very BAD example for her son. But who else does he have to imulate?
For reasons unknown to us as yet, it’s easier for a young girl without a mother to seize upon a teacher or other woman in her life as a role model. A young girl with a mother who is NOT a good role model, however, has big problems, and succeeds only when she is clever enough to use her mother as a good example of a bad example. And if there is no father in her life, she ALSO has no idea how a man is supposed to behave, and gets into even more trouble. She has the same problem as a boy with no father… no real example to follow.
Having spent years of research to discover the obvious, however, THIS IS NOT the reason marriage is a contract between men and women.
Virtually all societies had other methods of protecting children when parents died or went bad for one reason or another, usually giving the children to extended family.
We messed up in modern times by allowing the state to step in. The reason so many absentee fathers are absent is because they no longer have a social responsibility to fulfill toward their children. But this is a MODERN anomaly!
This anomaly did NOT exist in far past times when the human race, in virtually one voice, decided that marriage was a contract between a man and a woman. Children of dead parents or problem marriages went to extended family, end of story. A mechanism to protect children already existed.
Until we discover what the REAL reason was, it would be incumbent upon us to NOT mess with the “family” system any more than we already have.
Social re-engineering of the family has already been proven to be a disaster. When you have something like marriage being a contract between a man and a woman being as completely universal as the laws against murder, we don’t need to aggravate the family problem further until we know more about the whys of it.
I just don’t believe “children” is the full and complete “why”… and I’m not alone in this.
Comment by mamapajamas — 03.07.07 @ 9:21 pm
I, too, have heard news reports of the very high birthrates of Muslims living in Europe, and the rapidly decling birthrates of white Europeans. Same thing is happening in Russia. That is how Europe will become Muslim by the end of the century…
I have long know I would never marry a Muslim, or Middle Easterner. I have heard too many stories of women who did whose husbands have taken their children back to their countries of origin, and the woman has absolutely no recourse to get her children back - the U.S. government will not help, likely for purely geopolitical reasons (forget about what is right or wrong in these cases…). Although I plan to marry for life, marriages do go wrong, and if I had children from a marriage gone wrong, I would not want my children lost to me forever.
Comment by Miss Ladybug — 03.07.07 @ 9:27 pm
Nothing personal, but I don’t want any more discussion of homosexual “marriage” on this thread. - Admin
Comment by Andrew — 03.07.07 @ 9:33 pm
Let’s keep the discussion on-topic: Muslim brutality toward women, foolish feminism, liberals’ “tolerance” of almost anything, no matter how degrading and dangerous, etc. No more discussion about homosexual or “gay marriage.” Any comments making reference to it will be deleted. Actually, such comments won’t even make it out of the spam filter.
Comment by La Shawn — 03.07.07 @ 9:45 pm
Lashawn’s editorial in setting up the article mentions naysayers and doubters of Chesler’s story.
Prima facie evidence of the US loss of the ablity for critical thinking. Just look at the picture with the article. Women covered head-to-toe. No sunlight on their body, no interaction with the world.
Can anyone really look at these customs and not, by extension, believe the points Chesler makes?
BTF
Comment by big timefan — 03.07.07 @ 9:53 pm
Sorry, LaShawn… I’ll stop talking about it! Didn’t mean to add to the thread drift!
Ross, re: “Me thinks that God phobic leftists, (everybody for that matter) know deep down that Christianity is the truth and it will be Christ who they will have to face on judgment day…not Allah.”
Actually, I think they’re afraid of getting their heads chopped off or stabbed or blown up by a ’splodey dope. Radical Islamists are dangerous people. Radical Christians tend to bless people to death!
Comment by mamapajamas — 03.07.07 @ 10:02 pm
Andrew, re: “What we do not like is when our Christian religion gets mixed up in our politics. It is interesting to me that many people on the religious right does not seem to grasp why Islam is such a threat. It is a threat because it has infused its religious beliefs into the political system and then expects all people of the state to follow it’s rules.”
Being able to offer a prayer for well-being in a public place or display a Creche in the town square or store employees being allowed to say, “Merry Christmas!” is a completely different order of magnitude from religious laws that belong in the 8th Century.
Islamic law has no clear leaders, and is instead interpreted by individual Imams with widely varying educational levels, from professors to country bumpkins. How Islamic law is interpreted in individual cases is the problem, as there is NO central authority to overturn the decisions of a “bumpkin” type Imam. Most Christian faiths DO have a central authority of one type or another that must be answered to.
Comment by mamapajamas — 03.07.07 @ 10:16 pm
Well this blog continued another discussion at wetcanvas.com. It’s nice to make my fellow artists see things from a different perspective. This has been a fascinating discussion to follow. All I can add is that not all Muslims act like they do in the Middle East. The problem is that the radical ones get all the press and have intimidated many of the moderate Muslims into silence, thus perpetuating the problems we see today.
Comment by Greg Laurich — 03.08.07 @ 12:10 am
Lashawn,
I am also sorry. I think I was the one that took us down that road. My wife says I have the attention span of a gnat sometimes.
Mamapajamas, I agree with you on post 75. How have we gotten to this place where people are feeling threatened by the wealth of goodness than can be found in religion, and more specifically Christianity? Why are things getting so polarized? I grew up with Christmas and its icons. My family revels in everything Christmas. I have to admit I say Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas depending on my audience. I would not say Merry Christmas if I knew someone was Jewish, but my Jewish friends would not be offended if I did. They would return the solicitation. What can we do to concentrate on the important things like how people are treated here and overseas? We are spending so much time on beating up conservatives and liberals that we have divided ourselves. Osama would be satisfied. He flew a few planes into buildings and rather than uniting us he divided us.
Where do we find our common ground and build from there? My Grandfather was a Baptist minister, and a kind and gentle man. Liberals are not bad people and neither are conservatives. As a very conservative friend of mine says often, “Andy, we agree on 98% of everything, let’s not focus on where we differ.” He is also a kind and gentle man and one of my best friends.
I also want to thank those of you who have been kind to me today. I have witnessed conservatives being treated poorly on liberal blogs and visa versa. This blog seems a welcome place to share ideas. I am sorry if I took up too much space.
Comment by Andrew — 03.08.07 @ 1:05 am
Greg, re: “The problem is that the radical ones get all the press and have intimidated many of the moderate Muslims into silence, thus perpetuating the problems we see today.”
I agree in part. But the problem of the woman who wrote the article LeShawn commented upon had an entirely different situation… one that has been seen before as I pointed out in my post concerning Betty Mahmoody and the hundreds of cases like hers that came out in the open when she married a highly intelligent, Western university educated Iranian… and went to Iran to visit his relatives.
In short, so you don’t have to go back to reference my post again, as soon as he (and the other husbands the hundreds of wives who complained escaped from!)got home, he reverted back to 8th Century misogynists, becoming completely unrecognizable outside the Western setting.
This appears to be a ROUTINE problem of Western women who marry Muslims who come from a country with a repressive Islamic government. Even if they just VISIT the relatives, as Mahmoody did, their children are “kidnapped” by the local laws. Under Sha’aria, only the father can “own” his children. Women have ZERO rights. This is a very common problem with Western women who marry Saudis.
When children are involved, and the mothers actually have to kidnap the kids to get them out of the country involved, Western child custody courts get involved with their too-frequently multi-culti attitudes, and too often rule to give the father part-time custody… in which case the child gets kidnapped by the local laws all over again… because only the father can “own” the children by Sha’aria law. The decision of the Western child custody court has zero weight in a country under Sha’aria law. Part-time custody is not allowed… period.
The primary reason Betty Mahmoody got to keep custody of her daughter was because we had a distinctly hostile relationship with Iran at the time, so the child custody question never came up.
Comment by mamapajamas — 03.08.07 @ 1:27 am
Andrew, thank you for your kind words :). I agree that liberals and conservatives CAN get along if we treat each other with respect.
In re: “How have we gotten to this place where people are feeling threatened by the wealth of goodness than can be found in religion, and more specifically Christianity? Why are things getting so polarized?”
I’ve been watching this unfold for the past 40 years or so (I’m presently 58). It started with atheists demanding that prayers not be said in school… and winning their case on the basis of the 1st Amendment’s “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”
I remember standing and doing the Pledge of Allegiance and saying the Lord’s Prayer in classes all through my public school years. I can see how standing around waiting while the rest of the class recited the Lord’s Prayer could be extremely uncomfortable to people who are not Christian, and decided at that time that they had a point, actually. Schools were tax-payer supported and not all tax payers are Christians.
So the schools came up with the idea of having a moment of silence instead of a specific led prayer. That, too, was fought by the ACLU, and judges that I regard as extremist supported the fight.
I think it was at this point where the part of the 1st Amendment that said, “… or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” got effectively eliminated from the U.S. Constitution.
Then other things started happening… teachers getting suspended or fired for wearing tiny crosses in the classroom, students arrested for praying on school property, cities sued for having religion-oriented Christmas decorations…
We were no longer free to express our religion in public.
And somewhere along the line, we started fighting back, working to reverse some of the more ridiculous rulings, and fighting to get laws emplaced to back up the “free exercise” clause of the 1st Amendment.
I recall one specific case where the city of Sanford, Florida, bought a stretch of ranch land that had once belonged to the local 7th Day Adventist Church. The problem was that the water tower on the ranch land had a cross on the top, rather large and highly visible. Sure enough, some idiot sued the city to get it removed.
Now, this wasn’t a cross the city used tax-payer funds to PUT on the water tower, it was a case where the city would have to go to considerable expense to remove it.
We fought that case, and won it… but only because pilots from all the major airlines flying into Orlando were using that unique water tower with the cross as a visual landmark to verify their instrument readings!
It’s been a long hard battle to re-establish the “free exercise” clause of the 1st Amendment, and have been labeled “extremists” by the far left because we chose to take a stand. Yes, we can get screechy and hostile just like the other side, but we feel we have a Constitutional matter at hand.
Thanks for asking :).
Comment by mamapajamas — 03.08.07 @ 2:01 am
Andrew… one more comment to throw at you before I retire for the night… I recall a quote from a book I read long ago. I wish I could recall where it was! But the quote is:
Man can learn to tolerate any number of differences of fact, but may never learn to tolerate a difference of opinion!
I thought you’d get a chuckle out of that!
Comment by mamapajamas — 03.08.07 @ 2:12 am
Hmmm… I think we’ve “drifted” this thread again!
Sorry, LaShawn! I’m off to bed now :D.
Comment by mamapajamas — 03.08.07 @ 2:46 am
Andrew, I am not angry at you. You only had to assert that feminists are not shirking their job to get me going! Sorry if it seemed I was attacking you. I wasn’t, rather, this is a hot button issue for me and I feel completely, completely betrayed by American feminists. I’m angry over the topic, not at you.
Thanks for the links — they do my heart good. As for the Yale article, I haven’t had a chance to look at your link but I’m sure it is not the same article because the one I read was written by a graduate student in, I think, Journalism, at Yale, and she was a real prize idiot.
I would still like to see feminists be much more outspoken publicly, and their voices should join the small chorus of voices in our country against Islamism. Instead, the ones who are working on behalf of Muslim women are working quietly behind the scenes. While there may be some good purpose to this method, we NEED to see SOMEONE who represents major feminist organizations come forward and speak out. Phyllis Chesler takes NOW to task, as well as other feminists, because she, too, agrees that they are far too quiet.
I want to mention one more thing — you brought up the idea of the Beit Din in England. We also have Beitei Dinim (plural) in America too, a religious court where religious Jews will take their conflicts before resorting to gentile courts. However, there is something very, very important to remember as a distinction between Jewish law (halacha) and Islamic law (sha’aria): in Jewish law, in the Talmud, we are instructed to “follow the laws of the land” so long as the laws of the land do not cause us to sin against Jewish law. Jewish courts no longer hand down capital punishment judgments, for reasons I explained in another thread, but let’s say, for instance, that they could. They would choose not to, because it would go against the law of the land, which prohibits killing by citizens (unless in self defense). This is quite distinct from Sha’aria, which condones rape and murder of women as proper and just punishment for certain situations. This clearly goes against the laws of the land (at least in Western culture), but Muslims who wish to enact Sha’aria law do not respect that. Europe is having a terrible problem with rape by Muslim men, and especially Norway. When these men are arrested and questioned, they invariably quote Koranic tests which tell them that it is their duty to rape infidel women or Muslim women who have strayed beyond the strictures set by Islam. These are not just a few rogues; these are devout practitioners of Islam! Wake up, America.
Comment by batyah — 03.08.07 @ 3:34 am
Oops, sorry Andrew. It was JohnD who mentioned the Beit Din in the UK.
Basically, to reiterate, a Beit Din will only hand down a judgment that falls within the parameters of the law of that country. What kind of judgments do Sha’aria courts hand down in Western countries? Do they always, without fail, fall within the legal parameters of the host country? I would like to know this, if anyone has information. I suspect that they don’t, based upon the disregard they show for Western culture, the crimes that are committed freely (surely the imams have more control over them than that?), and all the honor killings of females that are turning up all over Europe. Are the Sha’aria court judges to have us believe that they condemn such actions?
Comment by batyah — 03.08.07 @ 7:11 am
Batyah, is was me that mentioned Beth Din.
You say that Beth Din and sharia are not comparable because sharia operates outside of the ‘law of the land’. You also say that ‘Jewish courts no longer hand down capital punishment judgments’.
No Muslim (to my knowledge) has handed down a ‘capital punishment judgement’ in the UK, and neither do they have the power to do so. Capital punishment is not practiced in the UK.
The issue in the Telegraph (given by Heliotrope) was a case of civil arbitration in an unofficial ‘Somali court’ , which the writer ‘forgot’ to say is not ’sharia law’. So it appears that you are not comparing like for like?
I was comparing/contrasting civil arbitration in UK religious communities, whereas you are comparing wahhabist/taliban-type sharia *law* and with a ’somali court’ on arbitration?.
The two practical questions I would ask are:
1. Should UK laws be changed to intervene against *any* civil or criminal altercation where no criminal charge has been made by the victim.
2. Furthermore, should we make illegal religious council arbitration illegal?
Batyah, what do you say to 1 and 2?
Comment by JohnD — 03.08.07 @ 7:17 am
One more thing and then I’ll try to shut up.
I have known women in America who got charmed into marrying Muslim men. There stories have frightening similarities to Betty Mahmoud’s story. That should come as no surprise. One woman I knew was stupid enough to cheat on her Muslim husband (dumb, dumb). He found out about it, promptly called ALL his relatives in Syria (I mean, like, dozens of people) and told them that his wife was a whore. He later regretted doing that, was in “love” with her or let’s say, emotionally attached to her (you could almost feel sorry for the guy) and wanted to stay with her. He had a whole slew of cousins who were immigrating to the US and wanted to live in their town. He told her never to open the door to any of them unless he was home because he was afraid they might try to kill her. Even though he had told them that he loved her and didn’t want anyone to hurt her, in their culture, often other male relatives will do the killing as a “favor” to the husband, whose emotions might be too bound up in the wife, rendering him incapable of fulfilling his duty in restoring the family’s honor. For a while she and her family considered trying to hide the children among relatives while she sued for divorce, but she was afraid that a divorce court in the US may not see her side of things (her word against his regarding the murder threat) and might award joint custody or at least visitation rights. I am not in touch with her anymore (he forbid her to have a Jewish friend) but as far as I know, they are still together.
I have seen many American women around Target and WalMart, dressed in hijab or burkas, and I’ve been fascinated by their attraction to Islam and Muslim men. As in my friend’s case, Muslim men can be extremely charming, and there is something else that they are offering that we should ALL WAKE UP TO; they are offering a seemingly moral life and family and marriage to women who have not been very lucky on the dating scene. A Muslim man will not care if you are fat, homely, unpopular, uneducated, unambitious. He will not expect sexual relations from you until after marriage. He will be happy to start a family immediately so that you can have that baby you are hungering for. There is nothing to converting to Islam; it’s as easy as pie. He will pay off all your debts before marriage, even if they have to borrow from family back home, because debt and buying on credit are against their religion. He will absolutely take responsibility for your parents and try to support them too. A Muslim husband will not cheat on you (well, except for taking another wife if he can get away with it)and he will never come home drunk and he will hold down a job and feed you and put a roof over your head.
How many American men offer this attractive deal to a woman who has been more or less unlucky, maybe even shunned because she’s not pretty or thin, in the marriage market? Sounds pretty good, doesn’t it? It’s something to think about. Later on, the women will learn about the evil lurking beneath the surface of Islam, and as Bob Dylan says in one of his songs, “even Satan sometimes comes as a man of peace.” But by then, it is too late. She’s a fly in the spider web.
Comment by batyah — 03.08.07 @ 7:26 am
This is in response to Greg Laurich’s (post #76) statement:
Greg dont be so easily fooled that so-called moderate Muslims are not willing to fight in jihad…against Americans in America. They are most willing, but they have to be tempted a little more than the extreme Muslims we see today in the Mid-East and Asia. In most cases this tempting comes in the form of a reputable Islamic scholar who issues a fatwa stating that it is permissible now to fight so-and-so country, region or people in jihad, and overnight you will see Muslims who were once considered moderate become the raving lunatic jihadist Muslism you see on TV.
I know this first hand because while I was a Muslim, I had non-Muslim friends, worked in a non-Muslim environment and in general seemed everybit as a moderate Muslim; HOWEVER, if the ailem (scholars) in Saudi Arabia had issued a fatwa then all bets were off the table, and I was assuredly ready to protect and defend “my” religion. I have sense left that nonsense and change my ways 180 degrees.
Comment by Jeff Turner — 03.08.07 @ 8:55 am
Oops!! two typos in my post “since” not “sense” and “changed” not “change”
Comment by Jeff Turner — 03.08.07 @ 9:06 am
As my dear old departed Daddy used to say: Figures lie and liars figure. This is why I have not ever trusted public opinion polls. Way too easy to manipulate.
As to the problem with Islam, I have always been fascinated that liberals - most particularly the ultra left wing variety - who preach tolerance on a daily basis would be so enamored of one of the MOST intolerant “religions” in the world. Their credo is so simple - and to give them credit, they don’t disguise it - if you are an “unbeliever” you must die. For the jihadists, that makes life really very simple: it’s black or white kind of thinking. And THIS attitude is why they must be resisted and/or fought with all our abilities. Their ultimate victory wo