Author: Ayaan Hirsi Ali

  • Women Victims of Islam

    Due to the sensitivity of this subject I will start by making a distinction between Islam and Muslims. Islam can be described as a civilization, as a source of spiritual guidance, as a way of life and so on. Most of all Islam is a moral framework, and central to this moral frame is the decree that a believer or follower submit his will to Allah. How this submission should be practiced is worked out in the Qur’an and hadith.

    A Muslim is any one – regardless of race or sex – who subscribes to or testifies to believing, among other things, that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is his prophet. Besides accepting god as Allah, and his prophet, a Muslim also believes in a host of other things like the existence of angels, a hereafter with a range of different heavens and hells, more prophets, and the view that the world will come to an end as predicted in the holy Qur’an.

    Islam as compiled in the Qur’an and Hadith could be viewed as static. The way Muslims believe or practice their religion is dynamic. The individual Muslim can choose to change. As humans they are endowed with reason and, if free, Muslims can, as Christians and Jews have done in the past and still do, progress by means of critical self-reflection. I regularly criticize Islam and especially the treatment of women as prescribed in the Qur’ an and Hadith. By doing that I have annoyed many Muslims, some of whom actually want to hurt me. Despite this, rejecting some of the teachings in Islam is not the same as rejecting Muslims. Muslims deserve to be and should be viewed in Europe and elsewhere like all other humans. What I ask is not to fear Muslims or persecute them for their beliefs. What I expect – both from Muslims and their non-Muslim supporters – is to have the opportunity to think, publish my ideas and engage in societal discussion about Islam as a moral framework without having to fear for my life.

    Having said that, I would like to defend the proposition that in Islam women are subordinate to men. The sexual morality propagated in Islam leads, when put into practice, to cruel violations of the rights of women and girls. By making a statement like this one I know that I am inviting disagreement. I am most interested in the arguments of my critics. Let me demonstrate this inequality. According to Islamic teachings in the Qur’an and hadith: Muslim men are free to go where they want while most Muslim women are confined to their houses. Muslim men do not need permission to leave the house; women do. Muslim men are not obligated to veil their beauty but Muslim women must. A man may divorce his wife as easily as repeating the words “I divorce you” three times in the presence of two witnesses. A woman who wants to leave her husband must prove at least that he does not meet her material needs. She must prove that he is impotent. She must prove that he cannot make her pregnant. She must have the approval of her wali (or guardian). A man may inherit twice as much as a woman. His testimony in matters of conflict is worth twice hers. Just in case there is a hereafter, women know from the prophet that their sort is over-represented in hell, while men can look forward to 72 virgins and companionship with their men folk. It is demanded in the Qur’an that a woman obeys her husband indefinitely. For the man conforming to the wishes of his wife is an option. A man may have sexual intercourse with his wife when and how he wants. Her refusal will invite the curses of angels and the wrath of her husband. If a man rejects his wife in bed the angels are silent and her disappointment may lead her husband to think that she is in the grip of the devil, who fills her with uncontrollable desires. Even though a man may marry four wives provided he promises to treat them equally, a woman has the right to only one man. And even this right is limited by the fact that she cannot do so without permission from her guardian (father, brother, or paternal uncle).

    Some of the Muslims who disagree with me say that I am confused by the way Islam is practiced in war-torn and backward Somalia, my country of birth. According to them I should look at the way millions of Muslims practice their religions in more peaceful and modern countries.

    I acknowledge that there are indeed areas in the world such as the large cities of Indonesia (the world’s largest Muslim country), Turkey, and some North African countries where Islam has somehow found a compromise with modernity. I also recognize that there are thousands of Muslims who treat men and women, boys and girls in an equal manner. However I invite those who disagree with my statement on inequality between the sexes in Islam to compare the consistence between the teachings in the Quran and hadith and real life circumstances in the majority nations with large Islamic populations and especially those whose state of affairs are regulated according to the model of the prophet Muhammad.

    Is one who takes note of the daily suffering endured by girls and women in Saudi Arabia and Iran (two countries based on the sharia) deranged and traumatized? Or is the reality of the Sharia difficult to endure when enforced by those who will tolerate no criticism of Islam?

    Is the high rate of illiteracy among girls and women in the UNDP report on Human Development in 22 Arab-Islamic countries an outcome of the lowly position women and girls are accorded in their religion and culture, or is the report only meant to defame and insult the countries researched?

    Why are Muslim girls and women over-represented in the shelters of the abused and the crisis houses for teenagers who run away from home? Is it a coincidence, or is the strict virginity required in Islam a possible explanation of why these girls are haunted by their families: their fathers, brothers and husbands, the very people who should be protecting them from external harm?

    In order to reject the statement that women are subordinate to men in Islam, my opponents will have to answer disturbing questions like these honestly.

    An argument often heard in defence of Islam is that the cruel treatment of Muslim women is not so much the outcome of the Qur’ an and hadith as God originally meant them to be, as a narrow and opportunistic abuse of these holy sources by men in patriarchal societies. This argument is not convincing because Islam was founded by a man in a patriarchal society. Islam is a tribal religion, founded under tribal conditions and a moral framework whereby those virtues held high in the Arab tribe are made divine. I do not intend to deny that the prophet Muhammad may have improved the position of women in the 7th century AD. For example he contributed to abolishing the custom of burying girls alive at the age of 7 and the right of men to marry as many wives as they wished. But let’s not forget that while these improvements may have seemed revolutionary 14 hundred years ago, now they are horribly outdated.

    Continual reference to the improvements made so long ago does not make the current suffering of women abused in the name of Allah more bearable. All it does is divert the attention from the inhuman treatment of Muslim girls and women today and the fear they live in.

    That, among other reasons, is why it is so important to take a moral stand against those teachings and practices in Islam that degrade women to a species between human and animal. For those Muslims who agree with me, and for those Europeans who do not wish to look away, taking this moral attitude means that we should take action. Debate with Muslims living in Europe, and through words and pictures challenge the sexual morality in Islam held by so many European Muslims; Provide protection from honour killing for Muslim women who are on the run. Introduce a control system as an instrument to eradicate female genital mutilation. (There is controversy on whether this is Islamic. It is remarkable however that many Muslim countries practice FGM. Indonesia, is an example of a country where FGM came with the Muslim missionaries). Interfere through the schools and day care centres with the way Muslims in Europe start their families and bring up their children. Stop financing faith based schools.

    Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a Dutch Member of Parliament and author of the film ‘Submission.’

  • Writers’ Guild Anti-Censorship Committee

    Attacks on JSTO and Behzti and religious hatred law inspired guild to relaunch committee.

  • Governments Should Not Push Religion in Schools

    Some people’s religious certainties are putting everyone in danger.

  • Two Thirds Oppose State Aided ‘Faith’ Schools

    Most respondents against ministers’ plans to increase number of religious schools.

  • Birmingham Rep Riot: Behind the Scenes

    Investigative journalist Amardeep Bassey uncovers the story behind the riot.

  • Two Sides to Animal Rights Story

    Accounts of debate on Parkinson’s and animal research differ.

  • Colin Blakemore

    I can’t help wondering…was it really about the guinea pigs? Or was it mostly about being a Protester, an Activist, a Rebel. Was it more about tormenting people than about rescuing animals. I can’t help suspecting, just as I can’t help suspecting similar things about those four guys on July 7. Zealots are like that. That’s why zealots are mostly so horrible.

    Some protests at Darley Oaks farm have been peaceful. But other activists launched a campaign of intimidation against the Halls, their family, staff and suppliers. Their tactics, denounced as mob rule by some in the medical research industry, included hate mail, malicious phone calls, fireworks, a paedophile smear campaign, paint stripper on cars and arson attacks. The protests appeared to culminate in the theft in October of the body of Gladys Hammond, mother-in-law of Christopher Hall from the churchyard in Yoxall.

    That sounds to me like cruelty for the sake of it, not for the sake of a goal. Just like those shits who gather outside abortion clinics and torment women on their way in.

    Colin Blakemore talked about animal rights and the opposition to it and public opinion on ‘The World Tonight’ last night. He talked to Jeremy about the same subjects in the interview in Jeremy’s book What Scientists Think.

    Ninety-nine percent of physicians in the United States say that it is essential to use animals in medical research; and more than ninety-five percent of British physicians say the same thing. So whilst it is important to listen to maverick opinion, it is clear we shouldn’t put too much weight on it when one considers that the American Medical Association, the Royal Society, the British Medical Association, and the General Medical Council all state that animal experimentation is necessary.

    He also talked both on ‘The World Tonight’ and in the interview about what a huge majority – 90% – of public opinion agrees that animal research is necessary, which is a large shift in opinion from what it had been.

    The support from the media, in particular, was quite extraordinary and a big surprise; virtually the entire spectrum made strong statements about the importance of animal experimentation. So the debate served a useful purpose; it produced a kind of national solidarity, which was much needed. This is also reflected in public opinion. The latest opinion poll shows ninety percent of the population in support of animal research. It is significant that there is no other major issue where you get this kind of consensus; we still treat the issue of animal research as if it is highly controversial, as if the public haven’t made up their mind; but they have made up their mind.’

    But, the interviewer pointed out, the opinion poll Blakemore is referring to phrased its questions in a particular way (as opinion polls do). ‘For example, one question asked whether people could accept animal research for medical purposes, where there was no other alternative. But, of course, it is precisely the claim of the animal rights lobby that there are alternatives to animal research.’

    ‘Well, if there are, let’s see them delivered by those people who claim that there are,’ Blakemore responds, when I put this to him…’If there are alternatives, let’s see them. We want them. I don’t know of a single person who uses animals in their research who wouldn’t rather use an alternative.’

    The whole interview is interesting. They all are. The Susan Greenfield one is my favourite, but they all are.

  • Hands Off the Sorghum

    Yet another installment in the continuing series: Behold how women are treated like livestock if not worse in many parts of the world. Sometimes it’s hard to believe what you read…

    Journalists who have visited Niger are reporting finding a strange phenomenon: villages in which women and children are going hungry, while there is still food in their households. Kim Sengupta of the UK’s Independent newspaper found that men had left their families, locking the grain store, while they were away. “They’ve gone away to look for work or look for money and sometimes across the border in Nigeria. And you have this strange situation where there were women in the villages with stocks of sorghum and millet with hungry children, but no access to the food,” he says.

    Locking the grain store – that’s the interesting part.

    There are reports that women are not even allowed to look in the family grain store – that it is taboo. There is widespread polygamy in Niger, and with men taking more than one wife, each woman is given a small plot to support herself and her own children. “There is a tradition that women are more or less supposed to cater for themselves and their children with the produce that they manage to get out of the tiny plots they are given when they are married,” says Moira Eknes of Care aid agency, who has just returned from Niger. “They also have to work on the larger family fields but the production from these large fields they have no control over and no access to,” she says.

    That’s how it goes if you have the bad judgment to be a woman.

    Every day, Minta, a 40 year-old mother of six, fetches water for the household, does the laundry in the river, labours on her millet farm and, if there is food, prepares the family meals before collapsing into bed, exhausted. But during this particularly difficult lean season, there is no food, and the daily grind has become even more unbearable. With her youngest child wasting away from hunger, Minta has had to walk three hours in the scorching sun on an empty stomach in the hope of getting some food aid…For Minta, and the other women at the hospital, the hunger that has reduced her children to skin and bone is just another hard fact of life. At the hospital the women each cradle at least one baby and most have a toddler or two in tow. Some babies – like the one curled in the folds of Minta’s blue tunic – are little more than tiny skeletons…The food crisis that has affected 3.6 million people in Niger, has highlighted the vulnerable position of women in what is a staunchly Muslim and conservative society and the second poorest country in the world, according to UN figures…

    Vulnerable doesn’t even describe it.

    “When you say food crisis, you say women,” Aissata Bagna, a prominent female activist and former health minister, told IRIN in her home in Niamey. “Men can go elsewhere, they can work for food or move away from the village. But the women have to stay behind. They have to take care of the children. They suffer the most,” she said. The wave of democratisation that swept through West Africa in the early nineties spawned the first women’s groups in Niger and increased their political influence. But at the same time, social progress was hampered by the rapid rise of religious fundamentalism, Bagna explained.

    Family values.

  • Women in Niger Go Hungry Despite Food in House

    Women in villages with stocks of sorghum and millet but no access to the food.

  • Women Bear the Brunt of Food Shortages

    ‘When you say food crisis, you say women,’ says Aissata Bagna.

  • Scientists Support Animal Testing

    Research Defence Society declaration says small, vital part of medical research involves animals.

  • Anger at ‘Victory’ for Animal Rights Campaign

    Warning that there could be severe consequences for clinical research in the UK.

  • Resist Intimidation, Scientists Urge

    Hall family was subjected to a six-year hate campaign by fanatics.

  • Declaration on Animals in Medical Research

    Text of Research Defence Society endorsement of animal research.

  • Kim Sengupta Reports From Maradi, Niger

    The women do all the hard work while men hoard all the food.

  • Animal Rights and Medical Research

    Some UK animal rights campaigners take the movement to have won a great victory. More rational proponents of animal rights may well think the victory is decidedly Pyrrhic.

    The Darley Oaks Farm in Newchurch, Staffordshire, which has been breeding guinea pigs for medical research for more than 30 years, has decided to stop because of a campaign of intimidation by ‘activists’. The owners of the farm and employees have received death threats, and the body of a relative was stolen from a churchyard in October 2004 and has never been found. Suppliers of the farm were also subject to intimidation, as the BBC reported:

    Rod Harvey supplied fuel to the farm and endured four years of abuse from activists before he was forced to cease trading with the Halls. The 63-year-old businessman said he received threatening letters, including one accusing him of being a paedophile which was then sent to a number of people he knew.

    Scientists and the government expressed anger and frustration at this outcome. By coincidence, a declaration of support for animal testing for medical research was published the day after the news of the Darley Oaks Farm decision, on August 24, 2005. The declaration was signed by more than 500 UK scientists and doctors, including three Nobel laureates (Sir Paul Nurse, Dr Tim Hunt and Sir John Sulston), 190 Fellows of the Royal Society and the Medical Royal Colleges, and more than 250 professors. The Department of Trade and Industry condemned the campaign of intimidation:

    It is wholly unacceptable that a small minority of animal extremists should mount a campaign of fear and intimidation in an attempt to stop individuals and companies going about their lawful and legitimate business.

    the Guardian reported that the closure of Darley Oaks Farm caused worries about the possibility of medical research in the UK:

    ‘They will make Britain a place where we cannot do clinically relevant research,’ warned Roger Morris, a leading CJD researcher at King’s College London. ‘When we talk to colleagues in Europe and America, Britain is seen as a place where you cannot do animal research.’

    And Simon Festing from the Research Defence Society pointed out that guinea pig research had led to 23 Nobel prizes in medicine.

    It is appalling that a small bunch of criminal extremists can close down a legitimate business supplying animals to medical research.

    The Guardian quotes Colin Blakemore, the chief executive of the Medical Research Council, on the issue:

    I was involved in the original declaration 15 years ago. It is as important now as it was then to show that scientists and doctors are fully aware of the importance of animal research to science and medicine. Of course animals must be cared for properly and never used unless absolutely necessary. This is how we do research and it would be illegal to do it any other way.

    Blakemore discussed the issues in some detail in an interview with Jeremy Stangroom in What Scientists Think.

    [T]he Royal Society has recently published a pretty comprehensive study which says that virtually every medical advance in the last century has depended on the use of animals in research at some point; or with the statement from the Department of Health, in its evidence to the House of Lords committee on animal experimentation, that the National Health Service could not operate without the foundation of the knowledge which animal research has built. The overwhelming view of the scientific establishment, and I’m not using that expression in a pejorative way, is that animal research is necessary for progress in medical science…Ninety-nine percent of physicians in the United States say that it is essential to use animals in medical research; and more than ninety-five percent of British physicians say the same thing. So whilst it is important to listen to maverick opinion, it is clear we shouldn’t put too much weight on it when one considers that the American Medical Association, the Royal Society, the British Medical Association, and the General Medical Council all state that animal experimentation is necessary.

    It would be nice if all medical research could be done with computer modelling, but unfortunately that is not the case. It would also be nice if leopards and eagles and pythons all ate lentils instead of sentient animals, but that is not the case either.

    Recommended Reading

    Jeremy Stangroom, What Scientists Think

    External Resources

  • You Call That a Campaign?

    Pat Robertson is a funny guy, but Madeleine Bunting is just silly. (I know, that’s grossly unfair. PR is funny because the stuff he says is so loony. He’s not funny at all, really, since a great many people listen to him and think he makes sense. But look, living in the US these days, you have to laugh at people like Patto if you don’t want to go plain nuts.)

    A campaign is being orchestrated through the media to destroy the credibility of many of the most important Muslim institutions in Britain, including the Muslim Council of Britain.

    Yeah, a campaign – she cites all of two features, one in the Observer and one on Panorama. That’s a campaign? And, that’s a campaign compared to all the cuddly fond admiring references to the MCB in the media? Why doesn’t she fret about the considerably larger ‘campaign’ being ‘orchestrated’ through the media to inflate the credibility of the MCB, and to portray it as far more benign than it is? What about that then eh?

    The impact of this campaign – in the Observer and particularly in John Ware’s Panorama documentary last night – will be a powerful boost for the increasingly widespread view that there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim: underneath, “they” are all extremists who are racist, contemptuous of the west, and intent on a political agenda.

    Well that’s just stupid. Shockingly stupid. Part of the point of that Panorama was precisely that there is such a thing as a moderate (not anti-secular, not misogynist, not Kaafir-hating) Muslim, and that they are ignored while the MCB gets all the attention. Part of the point was precisely that ‘they’ are not all extremists who are anti-secular misogynist Kaafir-haters, and that’s exactly why the MCB should not be treated as representative or average or ‘moderate.’

    First on the charge sheet were examples of the former: the “conviction that Islam is a superior faith and culture which Christians and Jews in the west are conspiring to undermine”, and a “distaste for western secular culture”. This is ridiculous; I’ve yet to meet a member of any faith who doesn’t believe in the superiority of their beliefs, while fear of being undermined is similarly common. Since when has “distaste” become a cause for suspicion?

    Oh, please. If you met some Christians who routinely referred to all non-Christians by an epithet – infidel, say – wouldn’t you feel uneasy? I would! I have in fact met one or two Christians like that, and they damn well do make me feel uneasy. I think journalists should point out that habit of mind.

    What is deeply troubling is how exacting British society is becoming of its Muslims. A new set of “cricket tests” are being imposed on British Muslims – they are expected to sign up enthusiastically to every aspect of western secular society and to jettison any part of their intellectual heritage that is critical of the west. They are expected to keep their faith entirely out of politics (yet faith plays a crucial role in US politics).

    Every aspect of western secular society? Are they? Not that I’ve seen. But women’s rights and gay rights – yes, critics generally do think Muslims should accept those as a part of western secular society that the people who live in it do not want to abrogate. I don’t think that is troubling. What’s troubling is to refuse to expect that, and to shrug and turn a blind eye to, say, ‘honour’ killings or forced marriage of children. And as for the role ‘faith’ plays in US politics – what of that? Has Bunting never seen a single article in the Guardian or the Observer or program on the BBC that criticizes the role ‘faith’ plays in US politics? I wonder what she would find if she typed ‘faith US politics’ into the Guardian’s search box. More than one article, I bet.

    Alexandra Simonon has a good reply on the Letters page.

    It’s a shame there are still people, like Madeleine Bunting, who believe some ideologies are extremist in one culture, but normal, or moderate in another. We should not accept the idea of “their world” and “ours”, as having totally different sets of values. The Muslims who fight bigotry and terror are not less authentic – and they are not “westernised” either.

    And Terry Sanderson of the National Secular Society has another.

    Why are the official, government-recognised spokesmen for the “Muslim community” all theocrats? Why is there this unquestioned assumption that all Muslims are mosque-going, Qur’an-reading religionists, to whom only their faith matters? I know from experience there are plenty of Muslims who aren’t particularly religious, who don’t want to wear hijabs, who want to go down the local for a pint with their mates from work, who enjoy watching EastEnders and reading Harry Potter. Why don’t we ever hear their voices on official committees and on TV debates? Why is it only imams and “scholars” of religion? When Mr Blair opens his new Muslims schools, the preachers will be able to tighten their grip even further.

    Why indeed. Why don’t we hear from Maryam Namazie or Azam Kamguian or Ibn Warraq as often as we hear from Iqbal Sacranie? Who ‘orchestrated’ that arrangment, Madeleine Bunting? Write an article about that, why don’t you.

  • Society for the Prevention of Kindness

    Jesus Christ. There is just no limit to human disgustingness, is there.

    I am here to talk about her catastrophic childhood in an industrial school — a euphemism for workhouse — in Ireland in the 1940s and 1950s, and as anyone who survived this experience will confirm, it is a painful subject. There, incarcerated by 6ft walls and under the tutelage of the Sisters of Mercy nuns, Kathleen was beaten, starved and humiliated to a point where she felt worthless and wanted only to be invisible. Her education was scant; instead she was put to work scrubbing floors, in the laundry and, barefoot and dressed in rags, in the surrounding fields…Denied water between what passed for meals, she drank from toilets.

    Denied water between meals. For what? For what purpose? For what monstrous purpose? Is it the Jane Eyre thing again, Catholic version instead of Protestant? You’re poor therefore you have to be given especially bad treatment, treatment that goes beyond mere neglect to outright sadism, so that – so that what? So that you’ll know ‘God’ hates poor people?

    …the quality of their mother’s care counted for nothing when the NSPCC charged her with being “destitute” — ie, unmarried — and sent her daughters to St Vincent’s Goldenbridge, an Industrial School. Kathleen was 5. There she was put to work threading rosary beads on to wire that cut into her hands, and she was beaten…By the time Kathleen and her sister escaped a year later, they had scabies and ringworm and were painfully thin.

    She was allowed to stay home for awhile but then she was raped by a neighbour and her mother tried to push for a prosecution –

    unwittingly giving the NSPCC the proof it needed that she was an unfit mother and that her children needed “protection”. This time her daughters — there were now three — were committed to Mount Carmel Industrial School in Moate, Co Westmeath, until their 16th birthdays…But as she describes the eight years of persistent neglect and abuse that she endured, it is the emotional deprivation that is most disturbing. The girls were not allowed to talk to each other, which meant that there was no friendship or solidarity between them, no care for each other, no way of expressing how they felt — indeed they learnt not to express their feelings. Kathleen felt lost and alone and as she cried herself to sleep each night (and then invariably wet the bed), she could only conclude that she was a very bad girl.

    It’s the NSPCC that got her sent there. Funny way to prevent cruelty to children.

    We had no rights. We were fortunate that the nuns gave us a roof over our heads or we’d be walking the streets of Dublin. They had such power. When people visited we were threatened to within an inch of our lives. We had to say, ‘I’m very well, thank you, I’m very happy, thank you, we have lovely food, thank you’. You did it because you were within 6ft walls, there was no one to talk to and if you talked, you knew what you would get.

    Sounds exactly, to the letter, like Mary McCarthy’s Memories of a Catholic Girlhood. If you haven’t read it – lose no time.

    Thousands of children in Ireland were tortured, robbed of their childhoods, by the religious…How could they call themselves religious and treat children in this manner?…How could they have thought that they were doing good by beating us? Well, if you’re obsessed by the Devil, you need it beaten out of you, and that is what we were told. They were evil, sadistic people.

    Also sounds exactly, to the letter, like that account of ‘exorcists’ and ‘witchcraft’ in small villages in Kinshasa. It seems safe to assume that immense numbers of children are treated this way around the globe.

  • Pat’s a Sweetie

    Pat Robertson’s a funny guy. He has his own ideas about things. Kind of deranged ideas.

    Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson has suggested that American agents assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to stop his country from becoming ‘a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism.”

    For what? Muslim extremism? Er – why would Venezuela be that, especially? Is the Patster maybe a little confused?

    We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don’t need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator…You know, I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war … and I don’t think any oil shipments will stop.

    True, true, very true – assassination is a whole lot cheaper than starting a war – let alone continuing one! I tell you what, that can get really expensive. Can cost even more than filling up the gas tank on the SUV, hahaha. On the other hand, the consequences – what nowadays we like to call ‘blowback’ – of assassination can turn out to run up the tab quite a bit. Considerably more than the cost of the assassination or ‘take-out’ itself. Like the assassination of that one measly archduke and his wife, for instance – golly, that ended up being expensive. If you count the cost of the whole rest of the 20th century, which you kind of have to – whoo-ee. We’re talking serious money here. Plus body count. The body count, once all the numbers were in, was really quite high.

    But, hey, so Mr R thinks a little short-term – nobody’s perfect.

    Robertson has made controversial statements in the past. In October 2003, he suggested that the State Department be blown up with a nuclear device. He has also said that feminism encourages women to ‘kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.”

    Oh, is that controversial? People are so picky.

    A helpful Pat-watcher collected a few more pungent remarks of his so I’ll share a few with you. A little Tuesday treat.

    If the widespread practice of homosexuality will bring about the destruction of your nation, if it will bring about terrorist bombs, if it’ll bring about earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor, it isn’t necessarily something we ought to open our arms to.

    No indeed! Very true. And if the widespread listening to Pat Robertson will bring about volcanic eruptions, floods, traffic jams, tsunamis and possibly the sun veering off course and crashing into the earth – well then. ‘If’ is such a useful little word.

    Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals — the two things seem to go together.

    The three. That’s three things – the three things seem to go together – Hitler, homosexuals, and Satanism. ‘Seem’ is another useful little word.

    God’s pattern is for men to be the leaders, both in the church and in the family…I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that’s the way it is, period.

    Poor ladies. But if they will listen to Pat Robertson…

    The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.

    And to make fun of Pat Robertson. Yup. Send me in, coach.

  • Sharia Law and the Globalization of Political Islam

    I am very pleased to be here amongst you all, next to Ayaan Hersi Ali and Irshad Manji. It is hard to find opportunities such as this; to be able to share the idea of having a better life for all and identify with the supporters in an audience such as yourselves. So I will make the most of these moments by giving the focus of this discussion to the topic of this conference, Sharia Law and the Globalization of Political Islam.

    I need to emphasize that I am talking about political Islam as a movement. As a movement it is very active in politics and is after its own state. Other aspects such as culture and laws serve its political desire and its political needs.

    I also need to highlight that Islam, as an ideological, theoretical and ethical religion, has enough resources available not only to sustain itself, but also to expand its activities globally. I also will discuss the relation between Islamic terrorism and political Islam. I will then expand my discussion to the move for the establishment of Sharia court in Canada and its relation to political Islam.

    The movement of political Islam has its own characteristics. It differs from fundamentalism and radical Islam; these terminologies do not describe the movement that I am about to discuss.

    Fundamentalism is a name given to certain groups that act as sects and focus on returning to original values and beliefs in personal and social life. If this is so, then all Islamic groups can be called ‘fundamentalist’ because no changes have been accepted in Islam since its coming into existence. Also, any social group which has tendencies to rely on pre-historic origins can be called fundamentalist yet not be involved in politics at all. The reality is that most Islamic groups are very involved in society.

    We call this movement political Islam simply because it precedes a political power. It has a varied and wide ranges. After the revolution of Iran in 1979, this movement organized itself as a state, realizing that it is able to achieve its goals socially, culturally, and religiously on a macro level.

    This movement rides on the mass of people who are oppressed and isolated. The ones who are out of patience with discrimination and oppression and have no hope for social improvement by parties in power and have no hope for modern and progressive alternatives. This movement appears as anti-western, not necessarily anti ‘western government’, but rather anti ‘western values and standards’. Their conduct is primarily in the form of opposition to the freedom of women, women’s civil liberties, and freedom of expression. It is misogynistic and goes against modernism. It is extremely anti-secular and anti-socialist.

    This is a movement that will not hesitate to do anything in order to push back its opposition and gain recognition by the states in the West. This is sometimes done through terrorizing people by implanting bombs in the busiest streets, cinemas, subway stations, hospitals and schools. This creates a parallel power structure within the surrounding societies. This movement will do anything to penetrate the legal system, whether it uses a bad piece of legislation such as the Ontario Arbitration Act 1991 or by taking the law into its own hands by preaching upon complete different human relations within society. This is done by removing civic culture where citizens are free and equal, and replacing it with ethics laid down in the Sharia.

    This movement has no actual economic or social plan, but it is aware that any form of democracy in countries such as Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Egypt would end up in a mass secular uprising and the growth of labor movements. Even in Saudi Arabia no sheik could survive more than a few days if true democracy were allowed to exist. This movement was nourished by Western governments during the cold war and its purpose was to suppress and neutralize the increasing people’s movement, which it only achieved by violence and the enforcement of brutal laws and traditions. Now political Islam has taken on international dimensions. The notion of fundamentalism was put forward in order to rescue sections of political Islam that still have some use in the Middle East.

    The terror that this movement has committed outside its region, presents just a fraction of its aggression towards humanity. Imagine its aggression and its hostility towards people in places where this movement runs its own state and has absolute control of law and regulations. Imagine what will happen to its opposition in places where it has its own army and police! In those places anyone who shows opposition, in any way possible, will be arrested, tortured and executed. No one will be safe at work, school, on the street or in their home.

    I would like to strongly stress the point that one needs to know about the characteristics of political Islam in order to be able to identify its active members and separate them totally from the people whose faith is Islam. We should not put these very different groups into one category. To make my point clear, Political Islam is similar to fascism in Germany. Have you ever heard of German people in general being identified as Fascist?

    There should be no connection made between political Islamic groups and people whose faith is Islam.

    Another point that needs to be emphasized is that of separating the idea of a country from the religion of the people living there. No one calls Canada a Christian country, although Christianity may be the religion of the majority. In the same way no-one should call Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan Muslim countries . It is a huge political misdirection that is done intentionally in order to mislead the whole world about the real situation in the Middle East and North Africa. By calling them Islamic, people in those countries are blamed for the inhuman actions of States, of reactionary groups and of the Political Islamic movement. By lumping them into one category, it makes it appear as if all people in those countries hate the secular nature of society. It is as if women in Iran and Afghanistan love the “veil” being imposed on them and love to be disfigured by a jar of acid to honour their culture. The stark reality is that this type of mis-identification is legitimizing the oppressive governments and reactionary movements. If left unchecked, this mis-identification will create a comprehensive social, legal, intellectual, emotional, geographical and civil apartheid.

    Islamic terrorism is a military section of Political Islam. This movement works by causing fear among people and aims to solidify its position in the Middle East. In fact, it is a power struggle for more recognition. It is telling the western governments to leave the Middle East and Africa and to validate political Islam by supporting Islamic states. Political Islam with its terrorist action clearly says that if you don’t recognize Islamic states, terrorism is what people in the West will face. The September 11 terrorist crimes against humanity that slaughtered thousands of innocent people in the USA was not an isolated act.

    The reality is that terrorism is an act to push the parties in power in the West to choose between the “Bad” and the “Worse”. It should come as no surprise to anyone if they see another dictatorial and backward regime after the Taliban in Afghanistan or after Saddam Houssein in Iraq. As I said, the Western states need to choose between bad and worse.

    The establishment of Shari’a court in Canada is part of a global political move by Islamists. This has nothing to do with people’s personal faith. As I have said before, this move to be recognized and to gain credibility needs to get involved socially, culturally, and legally. It needs to put pressure on the parties in power in the West to get involved and to play a role in the social metabolism, especially in education, economics and law. So it should not come as a surprise that Sharia law has come to the University of Toronto where two professors have been hired to teach sharia law and regulation. The more this movement gains credibility, the more it can attack secularism and our progressive achievements. There should be no doubt that their first attempt is to target women’s hard earned accomplishments. Once more I need to emphasize the fact that the establishment of Sharia court is the next step towards further ghettoizing and isolating a section of society. In the name of “respect for multiculturalism” and the shameful ideas of cultural relativism which leave people at the mercy of their own culture, the state has left the doors wide open for religions and adherents of old traditions to promote religious schools and centers; to legalize arranged and forced marriages; to segregate boys and girls at a very young age in school, on school buses and in playgrounds; to prevent girls from obtaining equal opportunities in all aspects of their lives; to see but to ignore honor killings, and so on. In reality the initiators of Sharia court would never say that they want sharia court in order to oppress women and children or to attack today’s norms and standards; instead they claim they are practicing their religious rights because their number have grown to 600,000.

    What is the solution?

    I can’t issue a specific prescription to get rid of this monster, but I know that the guiding principle of our movement, that we should not allow humanity to suffer more than it has to, is totally removed from political Islam. Don’t forget that today we are challenging a Political movement which has no respect for life.

    It is our duty to cherish humanity and respect it dearly, irrespective of class, nationality, race, gender or religion. Values such as freedom, well-being and the happiness of all must be put at the centre of our Universe. We should stand for equal and universal rights, and freedom for all human beings. Secularism should come forward in full force for the separation of religion from the state and from education. Any attempt to undermine freedom of religion must be prevented. Any law and regulation that is in violation of the principle of human equality must be immediately repealed, and all cases of discrimination by any individual, authority or institution, should be voided. We must denounce this policy of multiculturalism that keeps the minority community from playing a major role in society. This policy keeps the minority community in a cultural, political and intellectual quarantine. Instead we must promote integration.

    Finally I invite you to join us in this campaign and build a strong power to oppose Sharia /faith based court in Ontario. The first step in this regard is to compel the government of Ontario to withdraw this discriminative legislation and become more loyal to secular law.

    Thank you.