Hirsi Ali is, amongst other things, an anti-Islam intellectual, former Muslim and Dutch MP, Somali immigrant who fled from an arranged marriage and victim of 'female circumcision'. What I found striking was her perceived right-wing attacks on the Islamic religion and how it is "not compatible with the modern Westernised way of living". Hirsi Ali does not shy away from words such as "backward" and "terrible" to describe her focused scrutiny on the values of the Koran and Islam, and its treatment of women. Is she qualified, justified in making such statements, especially when there are women within Islam who may agree with her views of the oppressive nature of their faith (although once again, there are many who say they are empowered, etc.)?
Ayaan Hirsi Ali in action
Criticism of religion in any form or shape, of course, should be delivered with backing from research, evidence, and so on if it is to carry any meaningful weight and be validated by others. Otherwise it more or less comes off as arbitrary hate-speech. As Hirsi Ali mentioned, there are plenty of those who dismiss Christianity and religion in general, most notably the ever-vocal Richard Dawkins. But despite the Western world being left in the wake of an essential fear and distrust of the Islamic religion, why has there been such limited criticism of its fundamental teachings, as there have been with Christianity?
Is it mostly the fear of being labelled racist or bigoted or close-minded in some way or other? Is it the political correctness which dictates that one can only pick apart what one has created - ie. the West has no right, no entitlement to examine the flaws of the Middle East? Is it the fear of retaliation, reprisals, greater rifts between the two societies?
Hirsi Ali asks "Why are Muslims so hypersensitive to criticism and why don't they do anything with it except to respond by denying it or playing the victim?" She goes on to suggest that it is due to the religion's "gradual indoctrination". But is this not similar to the way other faiths are instilled into their believers? Is it only Christians who "just shrug their shoulders and don't respond"?
I am no scholar in either religion, as a general opponent to religion itself as a concept. Perhaps my entire argument would be more qualified if it were (perhaps I shall revisit this in several decades time).
See her full and (very interesting!) interview here:
http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/books/a-clash-of-civilisations-20100618-ym9d.html
[discoread]
2 comments:
We studied Islamic law briefly in Law this semester, and I read a very convincing argument about the ability of Islam to be compatible with democracy. What is relevant to this debate is that it addressed the place of women in Islamic society, and suggested that Islam has served to raise the status of women in Arabic societies and suggested that it was the overpowering influence of previous cultural traditions that kept women in reduced circumstances. It suggested that Islam had, in so far as it could, mollified the effects of cultre and sought to protect women. Without having done any more research into the subject, from this I would suggest that it would be better to criticise accepted practices in dealing with women, than to criticise Islam by infering that it encourages such treatment of women.
As for criticing other cultures/religions/societies, it is useful I think for being informed, appreciating what you have and evaluating where your own culture/religion/society can be improve. However, I would be very cautious of publicising my criticism if I was not willing to receive criticism back.
Fascinating article by the way. I highly recommend it!
Post a Comment