Author: Ophelia Benson

  • So long as it’s this hot

    Never mind. I thought B&W was about to be closed down due to circumstances beyond my control.

    Life is precarious you know. You never know when that piano is going to fall on your head.

  • Sufi Muslim Council Launched

    Inayat Bunglawala says it won’t work.

  • Report Cites Increase in Racism Across EU

    Seems to have race thoroughly confused with religion, and vice versa.

  • Sleeping With Someone Else Makes You Stupid

    ‘We have never been meant to sleep in the same bed as each other. It is a bizarre thing to do.’

  • 7 Bloggers Discuss the Case of Juan Cole

    Did Yale decide not to hire Cole because of ‘Informed Comment’?

  • Michael Bérubé on Blogging and Public Writing

    People who see blogging as a waste of time often see writing for magazines the same way.

  • Group of Left Scholars Protest Churchill Firing

    Others on left disagree on grounds that truth matters.

  • Not That Kind of Faith, the Other Kind

    And then this review of books on science and religion. This ploy again:

    Nowadays, when legislation supporting promising scientific research falls to religious opposition…scientists have to be brave to talk about religion. Not to denounce it, but to embrace it. That is what Francis S. Collins, Owen Gingerich and Joan Roughgarden have done in new books, taking up one side of the stormy argument over whether faith in God can coexist with faith in the scientific method.

    Stop right there. That’s the same equivocation Mary Gordon used at that ‘Faith and Reason’ conference.

    Without faith we would be paralyzed. We believe that all men are created equal. That our mothers, or at least our dogs, love us. That the number four bus will eventually come, all these represent a belief in the unseen.

    Faith in God is not the same kind of faith as faith in ‘the scientific method’ just as none of Gordon’s cited versions of faith are straightforwardly ‘belief in the unseen’. There is an immense amount of evidence that ‘the scientific method’ works, so belief that it works is not the same kind of belief as belief that God exists, for which there is no real evidence at all. It’s sly and tricksy to pretend the two things are the same kind of thing.

    PZ has a great post on the review at Pharungula.

  • More Godbothering

    Creeping theocracy, chapter 472. There’s the court-stripping, and that park in San Diego for instance.

    Perhaps you noticed an interesting confluence of events on Wednesday, July 19. On that day, President Bush vetoed legislation that would have authorized the expanded use of federal funds for stem-cell research, the House of Representatives voted to enact legislation depriving the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear any case challenging the constitutionality of the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, and the House voted to purchase a municipal park in San Diego on which a 29-foot-high cross stands.

    Impressive stuff, isn’t it. Very grown-up, very rational, very sane.

    In vetoing the bill that would have funded stem-cell research, President Bush invoked what he termed a “conflict between science and ethics.” But what, exactly, is the “ethical” side of this conflict? Clearly, it derives from the belief that an embryo smaller than a period on this page is a “human life” – indeed, a human life that is as valuable as those of living, breathing, suffering children…What the President describes neutrally as “ethics” is simply his own, sectarian religious belief.

    Yeah, that’s a good one – ‘a conflict between science and ethics’ when he means ‘a conflict between science and my irrational conviction.’ But it’s typical of course. Religious believers have a real knack for assuming they are the only people who ever think about ethics and morality. Hence the feverish need to buy little parks on the opposite edge of the country, just in case we run out of 29-foot crosses some day.

  • Well No Kidding

    There’s an oddity in that piece in the Indy yesterday about Stephen Hawking’s rebuke of the reactionaries on the stem cell question.

    President Bush and some religious authorities, notably the Catholic Church, argue that the microscopic, four-day-old embryos from which stem cells are derived are potential human lives.

    Is that right? I don’t think it is. Because surely everyone argues or rather simply takes it for granted that any embryos, four day old or four second old, are potential human lives. We know that – that’s not disputed. What’s disputed is what follows from that; what’s disputed is whether potential human lives should be as protected as actual human lives. So – why did the reporters put that ‘potential’ in there? To make Bush and the Catholic church sound more rational and reasonable than they are? To make people who disagree with them sound less rational and reasonable than they are? A little of both? Don’t know, but it’s odd.

  • Snidery

    I’m not in a position to dispute the substance of this snide review of Hirsi Ali’s book due to the small inconvenience that I haven’t read the book that the snide review is a review of. But what I can do (and will) is point out the snideness, and the markers of same. (Now, you’ll be thinking, ‘But OB, you go in for a certain amount of mockery yourself on occasion, so do you not pause to murmur to yourself about stones and glass dwelling places?’ Fair point. Yes, I do pause, but not for long, for the simple reason that I have invincible Feelings of Superiority – I’ve been told that on very mediocre authority. No actually that’s not why my pause is briefer than that of a hummingbird; the reason is rather that there is a considerable difference between Notes and Comment and the New Statesman. I curb my mockery when writing for publication in places other than Notes and Comment. Also, frankly, I do a better job of it. Dispute me if you will.)

    Snideness. Markers.

    It’s obviously what I’ve been waiting for all my life: a secular crusader – armed with Enlightenment philosophy, the stamp of the liberal establishment and the promise of sexual freedom – swooping into my harem and liberating me from my “ignorant”, “uncritical”, “dishonest” and “oppressed” Muslim existence. At least that is what Ayaan Hirsi Ali thinks I’ve been waiting for.

    Secular crusader, the stamp of the liberal establishment (what the hell is that? and what rock concert does it get you into?), swooping, my harem – and a very odd conjecture as to what Hirsi Ali thinks presented as a fact.

    She soon became a prominent and controversial politician, a brown face made welcome by her shrill denunciations of Islam…However, the publication of The Caged Virgin couldn’t have come at a worse time for Hirsi Ali, a woman who has built her career on portraying herself as a victim.

    Shrill – cf. ‘strident’. And as for the career built on self-portrayal as victim – I would have thought the career was built on a considerable amount of courage along with refusal of victimhood.

    Now that doubt has been cast on the personal history Hirsi Ali relies on to give her arguments authority, her new book reads more like a whimper than a bang.

    Shrill…victim…whimper. It’s all belittling stuff – and sexistly belittling at that; it’s unfortunate when women use sexist rhetoric and epithets against other women. It’s a wonder Alam doesn’t call her a bitch.

    Hirsi Ali is not breaking new ground. Others, such as the controversial Fatima Mernissi and Leila Ahmed, have been here before, except their work is meatier, making reference to classical texts and engaging in important historical debates.

    That’s not so much snide as, in my view, mistaken, even if it’s true. Hirsi Ali doesn’t have to be breaking new ground; she could be just publicizing existing ideas and research, for instance that of Mernissi and Ahmed; more people (at least in certain places) will read her book than will read theirs; there is a place for polemics and simply making existing material more widely known.

    These brave women sadly do not have the luxuries of monetary resources, bodyguards, spin-doctors and PR agencies that she takes for granted.

    That she takes for granted? Really? Does that seem likely, given Hirsi Ali’s history? She started out doing menial work in the Netherlands, after all. And as for bodyguards – she wouldn’t need them if it weren’t for the death threats, so it’s a bit much to throw them in her face.

    It’s all rather nasty, and rather long on sneering and short on substance. Geoff Coupe (who alerted me to the review) has a good comment here – and he has read the book, so is in a better position to argue.

    I can well imagine that if, as Hirsi Ali did, I worked as an interpreter in abortion clinics and refuges for battered women, then I might see the world through a jaundiced eye, but that does not remove the reality of those observations and experiences. One chapter entitled ‘Four Women’s Lives’ gives the stage to others to tell their story. One of the strengths of Hirsi Ali’s book is that she does provide the source references to her claims – although Alam sneers that: “she provides little evidence to back up her claims that the Muslim woman is a caged virgin – sexualised, segregated, denied human rights – and that Islamic theology is responsible for this”. Really, I wonder whether we’ve actually read the same book.

    Anyone want to write a review for B&W? Geoff?

  • Al-Guardian & the Brotherhood

    In his Guardian columns, Faisal Bodi, news editor of the Islam Channel TV station, has said many strange and wonderful things. In March, during the Abdul Rahman apostasy case, Bodi championed the orthodox punishment for those who leave the Religion of Peace™ – despite its being rather permanent and involving ritual murder: “It is an understandable response from people who cherish the religious basis of their societies to protect them… from the damage that an inferior worldview can wreak.” In a climate of cultural equivalence, it’s somewhat refreshing to hear a Guardian columnist openly refer to an “inferior worldview”. Though I suspect one might disagree with Bodi’s estimation of which worldview is less enlightened.

    Taken in isolation, Bodi’s advocacy of Islam Taliban-style might seem little more than an attempt to be contentious. But in matters of Islamist zeal, a remarkable pattern of endorsement runs throughout the Guardian’s commentary. It began, more or less, in January 2004, when the paper published a speech by Osama bin Laden in the form of a regular opinion piece, prompting waggish comments about the al-Qaeda figurehead being “recruited as a Guardian columnist”. Dubious humour aside, at least readers were clear about the author’s political affiliation. However, the Guardian has subsequently published no fewer than 14 opinion pieces by members of, or advocates of, the Muslim Brotherhood, the radical group whose militant ideas directly inspired bin Laden. Curiously, the commentators’ links with the group were not disclosed to readers.

    One recent example, a piece by the Brotherhood’s Egyptian vice-president, Khairat el-Shatir, is the first to acknowledge the writer’s membership of this illegal organisation. In Shatir’s article, titled ‘No Need to be Afraid of Us’, we were, improbably, told: “The success of the Muslim Brotherhood should not frighten anybody: we respect the rights of all religious and political groups.” Shatir’s reassurances are at odds with comments by the Brotherhood’s president, Muhammad Mehdi Akef, who last year told the Egyptian newspaper al-Arabi: “Islam will invade Europe and America because Islam has a mission.” Speaking in December, Mehdi described the Holocaust as “a myth” and insisted that, when in power, the Brotherhood would not recognise Israel, whose demise he “expected soon.” Mehdi views “martyrdom operations” in Palestine and Iraq as a religious duty and has described all Israelis – including children – as “enemies of Islam.” And yet Guardian readers are assured that the Brotherhood “has long espoused non-violence.”

    In January, the Egyptian weekly Roz Al-Yusouf invited Ragab Hilal Hamida, a Brotherhood MP and former member of the jihadist group Jama’at al-Takfir Wa al-Hijra, to clarify earlier comments expressing support for bin Laden. Hamida promptly obliged: “’Terrorism’ is not a curse when given its true [religious] meaning. From my point of view, bin Laden, al-Zawahiri and al-Zarqawi are not terrorists… I support all their activities.” When asked if such statements might reflect badly on the public perception of Islam, Hamida replied, “Islam does not need improvement of its image.”

    The Guardian’s comment editor, Seumas Milne, seems to be unfamiliar with the Brotherhood’s less conciliatory statements to non-Western journalists, including the group’s ambitions for “the widespread implementation of Islam as a way of life; no longer to be sidelined as merely a religion.” Nor, it seems, is Milne aware that the Egyptian Brotherhood’s own website directs young Muslims to a website for children that celebrates jihad and homicidal ‘martyrdom’, albeit with colourful cartoons.

    It isn’t clear why Milne continues to give a platform to the Brotherhood and its affiliates. Like many other refugees from the Communist Party of Great Britain, Milne may be vicariously titillated by the revolutionary intent of Islamic fundamentalism. Though one has to wonder how contempt for pluralism and free speech along with the theological mandate of arbitrary murder have become such obvious causes for a “progressive” newspaper. Granted, the Brotherhood shares with much of the left a hatred of U.S. ‘imperialism’, which is, allegedly, the cause of all evil in the world. Though, again, I’m not sure how these anti-imperial credentials sit with the slogan that still adorns the Brotherhood’s literature and website: “Islam will dominate the world.”

    Guardian readers are, however, spared such troublesome details. It’s not entirely obvious whether these omissions are a result of Milne’s ignorance, or of some deeper sympathy with delusional bigots. Either way, I’m inclined to wonder if the Guardian would publish a regular series of propaganda pieces by members of Stormfront or the BNP, championing the benign ambitions of white supremacist groups, without reference to the writers’ membership of those groups, and without any subsequent challenge or contrary point of view.

    Here’s a small taste of the views that go unchallenged in the Guardian’s comment pages. In July 2004, Sohaib Saeed, a Brotherhood activist and spokesman for the Muslim Association of Britain, insisted criticism of the Brotherhood’s foremost cleric, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, should only be raised “in appropriate times and places”. Alas, Saeed neglected to specify which times and places might be permissible. We were, however, informed that Qaradawi is a “shining example of moderation” and asked whom British Muslims should follow if not the Brotherhood’s “esteemed” spiritual leader.

    The following month, Anas Altikriti – whose father happens to be the head of the Iraqi Muslim Brotherhood – warned of “catastrophic consequences” if the right continued to “smear and demonise” Islam. That these “smears” are very often statements of fact passed without comment. And labelling as “rightwing” anyone who asks inconvenient questions is itself a form of demonisation, if only to Guardian readers.

    And let’s not forget the Guardian’s former trainee journalist, Dilpazier Aslam, whose enthusiasm for radical Islam will, of course, be sorely missed. Readers may recall that Aslam is a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, a supremacist movement banned in Germany and much of the Middle East – chiefly for circulating the kind of xenophobic literature that one would think rather at odds with the Guardian’s multicultural ethos. The Hizb newsletter proclaims a “clash of civilisations is not only inevitable but imperative” and in October 2002 the group’s Danish representative, Fadi Abdelatif, was prosecuted for distributing an anti-Semitic leaflet titled And Kill Them Wherever You Find Them.

    Many of the Guardian’s non-Muslim contributors also seem determined to sanitise Islamic radicalism for purposes of their own. Last September, Natasha Walter downplayed Hizb’s anti-Semitic hysteria and stressed the group’s “espousal of decent things like women’s rights.” But according to Hizb’s own on-line draft constitution, those “women’s rights” would involve compulsory segregation of the sexes, limited voting and enforced “modesty”. Evidently, Ms Walter was too busy describing Hizb as an “alternative to capitalism” to actually read what these anti-capitalist revolutionaries wish to bring about.

    One month later, Madeleine Bunting conducted a bizarre Hello-style interview with the Brotherhood’s moral compass, Yusuf al-Qaradawi. In it, she enthused about his “horror of immorality and materialism”, his “independence of mind” and his mastery of the internet. However, Bunting was careful to skip over the actual content of Qaradawi’s website, which propagates the cleric’s “problematic” endorsement of suicide bombing, executing homosexuals and the beating of disobedient women. One wonders if Ms Bunting chose not to question Qaradawi’s beliefs for fear of receiving similar chastisement.

    Elsewhere in the Guardian, Seumas Milne has argued that extremists should be given a voice within the media, rather than being driven underground. Well, a public testing of ideas is one of the virtues of democracy, and even the most poisonous views can be countered with contrary facts and a healthy dose of ridicule. But a public testing of Islamist ideology is precisely what is missing from the left-leaning press and from the Guardian in particular. What we see instead is an unchallenged platform for those who don’t wish their ideas to be tested at all.

    This unilateral concession and failure of courage should concern everyone, irrespective of their politics and religion. As Islamic zealots invariably claim to speak on behalf of “all Muslims”, it’s imperative that their beliefs are challenged unapologetically. Yet what we find in the Guardian is a non-debate between advocates of the Brotherhood like Azzam Tamimi, who defends suicide bombing as a measure of pious “desperation”, and those, like Iqbal Sacranie and Karen Armstrong, who disingenuously deny terrorism has anything to do with conceptions of Islam and the teachings of its prophet.

    Unfortunately, this denial of reality sidelines Muslim reformers and serves the cause of the extremists. Whether through ignorance or embarrassment, moderate believers say ‘Oh, terrorism is nothing to do with Islam’. Then the jihadists prove them wrong by pointing out the relevant verses from the Qur’an and Sunnah, using Mohammed’s own instructions and example as their mandate. Consequently, it is the jihadists who gain kudos as more knowledgeable and “authentic”. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote in her book, The Caged Virgin: “The central figure in this struggle is not bin Laden… or Sayyid Qutb, but Mohammed.”

    Any realistic response to the Brotherhood and its affiliates must include a frank discussion of the theology from which they claim legitimacy. Yet the prevailing climate remains one of deference, evasion and blatant double standards. Islamists may well react to any questioning of their beliefs with umbrage, threats or howls of impropriety. But what is more troubling is that the mainstream organ of the British left is giving a preferential platform to fascistic ideas, shielded from any meaningful opposition or factual correction, at least in its print form. Perhaps this bias and timidity is part of an attempt by the Guardian to siphon readers from Q News or the Muslim Weekly. But a fear of offending any strand of Muslim opinion – no matter how bigoted and grievous it may be – has left the Guardian critically hamstrung on a defining issue of our time.

    © David Thompson 2006

    dt online

    With thanks to the Daily Ablution and Harry’s Place.

  • Irshad Manji on Signs of Reform

    Empowerment of women and ability to exercise freedom of conscience are crucial.

  • Asians in Media on the Brick Lane ‘Protests’

    ‘It was all taking place in a sweet shop that could barely hold 20 people.’

  • Fareena Alam Reviews Ayaan Hirsi Ali

    Lots of sarcasm, scare quotes, words like ‘shrill’.

  • Normblog Welcomes New Journal Parrhesia

    They plan to pursue knots which occur between discourses. How does one pursue knots?

  • Outsiders Can be a Useful Corrective to Insiders

    Being inside a religion is not the best way to do objective research on that religion.

  • Do You See Any Misogyny?

    I don’t see any misogyny. Do you see any misogyny?

    Afghanistan’s notorious Department for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, which was set up by the Taliban to enforce bans on women doing anything from working to wearing nail varnish or laughing out loud, is to be re-created by the government in Kabul. The decision has provoked an outcry among women and human rights activists who fear a return to the days when religious police patrolled the streets, beating or arresting any woman who was not properly covered by a burqa or accompanied by a male relative.

    Whores. Putains. They just want to go outside and walk around and work and do stuff. They even want to laugh aloud! Can you believe it?

    “This is a very bad idea at a bad time,” said Sam Zia-Zarifi, the Asia research director of Human Rights Watch. “We’re close to the edge in Afghanistan. It really could all go wrong and it is alarming that the United Nations and western governments are not speaking out on this issue.”…“They haven’t even bothered to change the name,” said Malalai Joya, a courageous female MP whose outspokenness means she has to travel with bodyguards and move every day because of threats to her life. Joya, 28, was physically attacked in parliament in May after she criticised warlords.

    Well what kind of whore gets herself elected as an MP and be’s outspoken and criticizes warlords? With whores like that around, of course it’s time for some Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice – duh.

    “In my opinion what we have in power under the mask of democracy are the brothers of Taliban — fundamentalists, warlords and drug lords,” she added. “Our country is under the shadow of their black hands. They are against women and re-creating the [department] is proof of this.” Afghan women recall with horror the department’s religious police who ruthlessly enforced restrictions on women and men through public beatings and imprisonment under Taliban rule from 1996 to 2001. Women were publicly beaten for wearing white shoes or heels that clicked; using lipstick; or going outside unaccompanied by a close male relative. The department banned women from educating their daughters in home-based schools as well as working or begging, leaving thousands of widows with no means of supporting their families.

    So they starved; big deal. What else should happen to whores?

    The government’s decision to re-create the Taliban religious police is seen by critics as the most shocking in a series of backward steps designed to appease conservatives.

    Backward steps all over the place, from reinstating the Department for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice to deciding to keep forced marriage legal at the behest of the [expletive] MCB. Backward backward backward.

  • What Misogyny?

    Misogyny? What misogyny?

    The lives of young women might be ruined by the Government’s failure to make forced marriages illegal, a senior police officer has warned. Commander Steve Allen of the Metropolitan Police said that a decision by ministers last month to drop proposed legislation had been greeted by some ethnic minorities as a signal that forced marriage was acceptable. His concern about the about-turn, which was partly prompted by fears that the new law would stigmatise Muslims, is shared by a Crown Prosecution Service director and the head of Scotland Yard’s Homicide Prevention Unit. The head of a South Asian women’s charity said yesterday that girls were already suffering the consequences of the decision.

    A couple of questions. Why is there more worry about possible stigmatization of Muslims than there is about the wrecked lives of women? And why is there such a worry anyway when the new law was intended to help (among others) Muslims – Muslim girls and women subject to forced marriage?

    Although the proposal was welcomed by many victims’ groups, some organisations complained that it would increase racial segregation. The Muslim Council of Britain gave a warning that such a law might become “another way to stigmatise our communities”.

    Oh. That’s why. Because the MCB piped up, that’s why. And when the MCB speaks, unfortunately, the gummint listens. Victims’ groups can welcome all they like, but if the MCB squawks about ‘our communities’ – well that’s that. Misogyny? What Misogyny?

    Mr Allen, who tackles honour-related violence…, told The Times: “…For me the persuasive argument is about the message we send out. We have already received feedback from community groups suggesting that the decision not to make it a criminal offence means it must be all right.”…Nazir Afzal, the Crown Prosecution Service director for London West, said that a new law would have helped campaigners in minority communities to stamp out forced marriage. “I have heard it said that a new criminal offence would be just another stick to beat the Muslim community with, but my belief is that we should be carrying our own stick,” he said…”I hear dialogue from victims but I don’t hear a great deal from Muslim men.”…Jasvinder Sanghera, of the Nirvana Asian Women’s Project, which helps victims, said: “A new criminal offence would have given the victims the power to say to their family, ‘You can’t do this to me. It’s against the law.’ It’s a chance missed and it’s already doing damage. Political correctness is not an excuse for moral blindness.”

    Read the whole article; read it and wonder yet again why the MCB outweighs Jasvinder Sanghera and Nazir Afzal.

  • Misogyny

    Want to read this book. I’m intensely and permanently interested in misogyny, and where it comes from and why it’s so pervasive and universal and chronic and hard to get rid of.

    You see, darling, I could have said, lots and lots of grown-up men don’t like women. For as long as there have been two genders, men have made enormous efforts to enforce and institutionalise the oppression of the female. Even in a supposedly enlightened and “post-feminist” society such as ours, hatred of women stinks out the whole shooting-match like a bad drain. Young women are bitches and sluts who absolutely force men to rape them by not wearing enough clothes. Old women are either invisible or grotesque, and when they get too old to shag, they have the temerity to take a man’s money if he goes off in search of something fresher.

    Because men, of course, as we all know, never get too old to shag, hence all those Hollywood movies (written directed and produced by men) featuring men in their sixties and seventies pairing up with gorgeous women in their twenties. Harrison Ford, Warren Beatty, Jack Nicholson, Woody Allen, they’re all out there collecting the glowing glimmering sparkling women age 25. Women are not people but consumer goods – when they get a little worn and chipped you’re supposed to trade them in for a newer one. Misogyny is pervasive and universal and chronic and hard to get rid of.

    Every year, an estimated 5,000 women are murdered globally by their own relations for damaging the family “honour”. Millions of girls have their clitorises cut off and their labia stitched together. Millions more are expected to go about their lawful occasions shrouded from head to foot.

    Millions are forcibly married to men not of their own choosing. Millions are aborted. Many millions are raped, beaten, coerced, exploited, overworked and underpaid.

    This prejudice, he says, is the oldest of the lot, and runs so deep that it is almost invisible. “Was there,” he wonders, “a women’s history BC — ‘before contempt’?” If so, he has not found it…Misogyny is “a Gordian knot of interwoven dependencies” and can be attributed to the basic natural differences between men and women. But as Katharine Hepburn says in The African Queen, “Nature, Mr Allnut, is what we are put into this world to rise above.”

    Damn right. Be careful not to hold your breath while waiting though.

    External Resources