In political jargon, a useful idiot, is a pejorative term that was supposedly Lenin's - a term for people who engage in propaganda for a cause whose goals they are not fully aware of, and who are used cynically by the promoters of the cause. Lenin is supposed to have referred to blind defenders and apologists for the Soviet Union in the Western democracies as "useful idiots." Some say that today the term "useful idiots" can be used to describe those who support a malignant cause which they naively believe to be a force for good. In America today, some of the former Muslims are serving the same purpose in support for rising Islamophobia and the disastrous War on Terror with disastrous consequences for domestic civil liberties, the privatization of public treasury and the endless wars abroad.
Ayaan Hersi Ali, a Somali immigrant and the wife of British historian and public commentator Niall Ferguson, is the latest mainstream media's and think tanks' useful idiot. Hersi Ali is the anti-Muslim movement's most visible and flamboyant figurehead. As the most out-spoken of former Muslims, she's relentlessly shrill and coarse in her broad-brush denunciations of Islam and makes preposterous claims, such as Islam will take over the West. She left her Islamic faith after realizing that she didn't want to keep a low profile for ever. A life of atheist promised the allure of money, freedom and camaraderie with many famous peoples. But as it usually the case, however, beneath the veneer of public excitement lies a wounded animal. The traditional and harmful practices such as female genital mutilation and forced marriage left her shell-shocked and traumatized both as a victim and witness to Muslim abuses and violence. It is possible she is still suffering from a case of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and prolonged grief that stem from her life-changing FGM experience, which may have played a role in her apostasy.
Apostasy or leaving Islam, which is seen by many as similar to abandoning a close-knit community, say, a tribe or a clan, is already difficult as it would include risking family rejection, ostracizing by friends and relatives, and the never-ending charges of self-loathing. It can be especially difficult and isolating for women who have grown up Muslim, who faced the charges that they are accused of trying to assimilate into a Western culture that despises them.
To make matters even worse, some Islamic scholars believe too that apostates should be killed, especially if they engage in attacking the faith, and cite as evidence a couple of Prophetic sayings in Islam. Luckily, there is no Quranic justification for this stance and other scholars believe that killing apostates is a pre-modern tradition that no longer applies today. A growing minority of contemporary Islamic scholars, relying on the Quran, hold the view that apostasy in Islam is no longer considered a crime. Baroness Warsi, a Muslima, and UK Minister of State for Faith and Communities, agreed. "One of the things I've done is put freedom of religion and belief as top priority at the Foreign Office," she said. "I've been vocal that it's about the freedom to manifest your faith, practise your faith and change your faith. We couldn't be any clearer. Mutual respect and tolerance are what is required for people to live alongside each other."
Hersi Ali's journey to atheism makes a fascinating reading. It chronicled her birth in November 1969, her story of infibulation at an early age like any other Somali girl, and a claim to escape a forced marriage in Kenya and had sought asylum in Netherlands in 1992. With astonishing rapidity, she launched a remarkable career when she rose through refugee community service and politics to become an elected member of the Dutch House of Representatives in 2003, representing the far-right political group of Dutch politician Geert Wilders, anti-Islam Freedom Party (VVD).
Like all Muslims in the West she faced a defining moment following the Al Qaida's September 2001 terror attacks in U.S. It was with shock and disbelief that people everywhere saw footage of the terrorist attacks in the U.S in New York and Washington. But, alas, instead of this leading to domestic soul-searching and addressing the underlying issues, such as the unconditional support for Israel despite its illegal occupation of Palestinian territories, and the backing of autocratic Arab allies in the Middle East, who ironically happen to produce the most terrorists, it ushered the global "war on terror", with tragic consequences, as shown below.
In 2004, she dabbled with feminist and anti-Islamic activism by writing the screenplay of the Submission, a video about Muslim women suffering from forced marriages and honor killing, with Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh. The film containing juxtaposed passages from the Quran with naked images of an Islamic woman being abused infuriated Muslim fundamentalists. Unfortunately, in 2 November 2004, Mr Gogh, having declined bodyguards of his own, was shot dead by a 26 year-old Islamist fanatic, Mohammed Bouyeri (pictured), a Dutch-Moroccan Muslim, and who then pinned to the victim's body a written threat to kill Hirsi Ali as well, that then forced her into years of hiding.
This came to an end when she was confronted with making of questionable biographical details on her immigrant dossier, involving her application for asylum without divulging the knowledge that she had received an asylum in Kenya and changed her name prior to moving to the Netherlands. Publicly exposed in a chain of fabrications, that led to ending her political career after she was forced to resign from the Dutch parliament. She admitted to the forgery that led to her stripping of her Dutch citizenship as well, and then subsequently decided to move to the U.S.
Right after that, in an article by atheists the well-known Islamophobe Sam Harris and Salman Rushdie, writing, in defending Hersi Ali, went over the top by likening her to Voltaire:
"Voltaire did not risk, with his every utterance, making a billion enemies who recognized his face and could, via the Internet, share information instantaneously with people who aspired to assassinate him."
It is commendable that as a feminist, and who for better or worse, even one without traditional academic, public-policy or journalism credentials, and at least according to her website, AHA she gives a lip service to the plight of girls and women, like herself, who have suffered the pain and indignities of FGM and other gender-based violence. There's no question that female genital mutilation, which predates Islam and crosses religious barriers, which ought to be stopped, is certainly the worst non-death violation as it involves the removal of part or all of the external female genitalia. Although criminalized everywhere, it is still practiced mainly in 28 African countries and by some of their diasporas in the West on the pretext of cultural tradition or hygiene or promoting chastity, and the superstitious and corrupt African leaders remain powerless to end it. The human toll is mounting:Already an estimated 135 million girls have undergone FGM with dire consequences ranging from infection (including HIV) to sterility, in addition to the devastating psychological effects.
But she didn't stop there being a feminist and a human rights activist. She could have joined other Muslim feminists, for example, Irshad Manji and Amina Wadud, who advocated more liberal attitudes toward women in Islam, as neither has left the faith - dispelling any notion of cognitive dissonance in being a liberal Muslim activist.
Since her arrival on the Stateside, she continued to be a full-throated and bitter critic of Islam. In 2007 interview, with the London Evening Standard, she said the most unvarnished public expression of her views to that point, including the "cult of death" comment. In another 2007 interview with Reason magazine, she said it was necessary to "defeat" Islam, by saying:"For starters, you stop the spread of the ideology itself; at present, there are native Westerners converting to Islam, and they're the most fanatical sometimes. There is infiltration of Islam in the schools and universities of the West. You stop that. You stop the symbol burning and the effigy burning". Asked whether she meant "defeating radical Islam?" She replied: "No. Islam, period." When the reporter asked her to further elaborate what she meant by "defeat Islam" she replied: "I think that we are at war with Islam." In a 2010 Wall Street Journal op-ed, 'How to Win the Clash of Civilizations', Hirsi Ali elaborated on her views that Islam "is at war with America" and wrote that Western civilization "needs to be actively defended" against Islam, as widely publicized by the conservative American Enterprise Institute think thank that she had joined.
To paint an entire religion that is practiced in hundreds of diverse cultures, in these all-encompassing terms, only shows the speaker's utter lack of enlightenment rather than a malaise in a world religion. These comments coming from an atheist serve only simple purpose that allow for the construction of a straw man i.e. a distorted and simplistic representation of religion which can be easily attacked, summarily dismissed and ridiculed. Her comments reflect those like the atheist Richard Dawkins who stated, that "The teachings of religion, though not extremist in themselves, are an open invitation to extremism." Specifically, on Islam, he was quoted as saying: "All the world's Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though." This is preposterous. True, but what was the point? Is this due to Islam itself or because that the Muslim-majority countries of today didn't experience an Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution? The following comment attests to the advanced status of Muslims during the Islamic Golden Age which spanned from the mid-7th century to the mid-13th century at which Muslim rulers established one of the largest empires in history:
"The Arabians advanced science far beyond anything we had here in the west; without men like Alhazen and Avicenna we would not have the technology or the scientific understanding we have today. The Guinness World Records recognizes the University of Al Karaouine (in Morocco) founded in 859, as the world's oldest degree-granting university. But Richard Dawkins was right, as controversial as it was, there are more Nobel Prize winners from Trinity College than there are Muslim recipients. Though I have to believe if the Nobel Prize was around in the year 800 we would see an all-Muslim lineup."
Could religion be the cause of human suffering or simply a mitigating factor? Faith, after all, despite its imperfections, gives people meaning, hope and provides answers to existential questions and builds a sense of community based ideally on justice, charity and honor. Christopher Hitchens, well-known atheist himself, provides some interesting insight: "What's innate in our species isn't the fault of religion. But the bad things that are innate in our species are strengthened by religion and sanctified by it.. So religion is a very powerful re-enforcer of our backward, clannish, tribal element. But you can't say it's the cause of it. To the contrary, it's the product of it." Chris Hedges, exposes the foolery of Dawkins, while echoing the realism of late Hitchens, when he wrote in his 2009 book, "I Don't Believe in Atheists": "The danger is not Islam or Christianity or any other religion. It is the human heart-the capacity we all have for evil. All human institutions with a lust for power give their utopian visions divine sanction".
While being an atheist is fully acceptable, even commonplace, at least to those of us in the West, it doesn't give one a license to attack orthodox religion nor atheism offers anything in return. Wayne Jackson's comment sums up by saying that "Atheism is a totally negative system. It denies much and affirms nothing. It robs one of hope and offers emptiness in exchange, asserting that there is no transcendent Cause for the universe, and that man is a fortuitous combination of molecules. Morality does not exist, or if it does, man, as his own god, determines its nature". Some might think that atheists, particularly those who converted from Islam, would be content with simply not believing in God and leave the others to themselves, but you would be surprised.
As a member of a coterie of the former Muslims (murtids), atheists like Nonie Darwish and Amal Farah, another Somali atheist, (a partial list here) who view Islam as a politically driven religion, barbaric at its core and expansionist by nature, daily regurgitate a different brand of sexism and racism along with the usual mix of lies, myths, rationalizations, character assassination, and out-of-context Koran quotes as typical tools used in attempts to make Islam look bad and lot more as heard all over the corporate and Zionist media.
It is the hallmarks of freedoms of religion and expression both to respectfully hold a different opinion within any religion or subject. Healthy intellectual exchange and criticism often lead to dialogue over long period, which in turn leads to better understanding and diversifying of intellectual thought. But there is a difference between critiquing Islamic practices and spreading irrational fear of Muslims, thus blurring the line between intellectually commenting on a religion and inciting hatred of its adherents.
There are certainly statements in Islamic religious texts that could be perceived as violent and dangerous - but there are similar statements in virtually every religious text, especially those authored over 1000 years ago. Without smearing its holiness, the Bible declares stoning an appropriate punishment for, as an example, engaging in premarital sex or worshiping "pagan" deities, even for cursing out one's parents. Most people don't take the Quran - or the Bible - in a completely literal way. They find the moral teachings in those books to be enlightening - teachings that, for the most part, promote peace and love.
According to a much discussed Pew survey of 2013, while claiming many Muslims support Sharia, it makes clear that Muslims do not "think their religion should dictate what happens in society." Most Muslims indicate that if Sharia ever gets implemented, it should apply only to Muslims and that most of them believe that freedom of religion should be abslutely available to all believers. The Pew survey explains that sharia:
"offers moral and legal guidance for nearly all aspects of life-from marriage and divorce, to inheritance and contracts, to criminal punishments. Sharia, in its broadest definition, refers to the ethical principles set down in Islam's holy book (the Quran) and examples of actions by the Prophet Muhammad (sunna). According to the survey findings, most Muslims believe sharia is the revealed word of God rather than a body of law developed by men based on the word of God."
And Sana Saeed wrote a really great piece about the myths of sharia:
"So what does Sharia actually mean? The actual definition of the Arabic term is "path to the watering hole." It consists of moral and ethical principles meant to guide Muslims towards what will nourish their soul. According to Islamic law specialist Dr. Sherman Jackson, Sharia is everything "from honoring one's parents, to helping the poor, to being good to one's neighbor.""
While lacking any academic credentials, these islamophobic figures, in their scorched-earth view of Islam, wage a campaign that reduces an entire scripture of 114 chapters and over 6,000 verses and whole civilizations with thousands of years of history, culture, art and poetry to a few de-contextualized verses, and their criticism of Islam as grossly simplistic and desperate attempt to malign a world religion and a human civilization comparable to others. For a religion, unlike Christianity and Judaism, that didn't experience Renaissance, the Reformation, the Enlightenment, and Industrial Revolution, Islam has been comparably tolerant at the beginning as well as it is today, and slowly Muslim societies are improving the core human rights conditions in their countries, as explained in detail by Syed Maududi, a great Muslim scholar of the 20th century:
"...when we speak of human rights in Islam we really mean that these rights have been granted by God; they have not been granted by any king or by any legislative assembly. The rights granted by the kings or the legislative assemblies, can also be withdrawn in the same manner in which they are conferred. The same is the case with the rights accepted and recognized by the dictators. They can confer them when they please and withdraw them when they wish; and they can openly violate them when they like. But since in Islam human rights have been conferred by God, no legislative assembly in the world, or any government on earth has the right or authority to make any amendment or change in the rights conferred by God. No one has the right to abrogate them or withdraw them..."
Need for Reformation?
Does Islam need Reformation or do Islamic societies need Enlightenment? Since the Sept 11, 2001, there have been many calls from within Islamic societies or outside of it pushing for a reformation of Islamic practices. The West's Reformation of 16th century is the supposed template for today's highly diverse Muslim countries. This would be a movement to counter the fundamentalists and theocratic regimes that would pave the way for desirable outcomes like human rights and separation of religion and state.
Salman Rushdie, the author of Satanic Verses, explains it this way: "What is needed is a move beyond tradition-nothing less than a reform movement to bring the core concepts of Islam into the modern age, a Muslim Reformation to combat not only the jihadi ideologues but also the dusty, stifling seminaries of the traditionalists, throwing open the windows of the closed communities to let in much-needed fresh air." Saudi activist Mansour al-Nogaidan, for example, concurs with him by saying, "Islam needs a Reformation. It needs someone with the courage of Martin Luther...Muslims are too rigid in our adherence to old, literal interpretations of the Koran. It's time for many verses-especially those having to do with relations between Islam and other religions-to be reinterpreted in favor of a more modern Islam." This argument posits the view that certain millstones inherent in original Islam need to reinterpreted consistent with new values of modernity such as gender, governance and human rights. But the problem lies not in the original Islam but the latter interpretations since the 10th century that led to theocratic despotism, today's resource curse corruption and lack of freedoms.
Early Protestants called for a return to the spirit and practices of early Christian community without the power of the dogmatic and oppressive church and the ancillary power structures. Islamist fundamentalists today are similar to the 16th century Protestant reformers demanding a simpler and pure form of Islam. Similar to Christian reformers, Islamists are calling to return to the simple faith of Muhammad and the "rightly-guided caliphs" who followed him in the seventh century who promoted Ijtihad. This independent juristic reasoning was the way Arabic scholars applied and interpreted the Quran and the collected sayings of the Prophet. But around the 11th century of our age, stricter theologians like Al-Ghazali came to see this reforming process as too corrupting and pestilent by "leading to errors of over-confidence in judgment." So they closed the gates of ijtihad, and they've stayed closed. What replaced it was taqlid, an unquestioning imitation of established jurists and schools.
It was the Enlightenment rather than Reformation that radically reoriented the European politics, philosophy and culture in "long 18th century" (1685-1815). The movement claimed the allegiance of a majority of thinkers during the 17th and 18th centuries, a period that Thomas Paine called the Age of Reason. In his essay "What Is Enlightenment?" (1784), the German philosopher Immanuel Kant summed up the era's motto in the following terms: "Dare to know! Have courage to use your own reason!" A typical poetic voice of the Age of Reason in England was Alexander Pope (1688-1744). In his most famous book, An Essay on Man (1733), Pope expressed the optimism and respect for reason that marked the era. He described a Newtonian universe in the following often quoted lines:
All are but parts of one stupendous whole,
Whose body nature is, and God the soul ...
All nature is but art, unknown to thee;
All chance, direction, which thou cannot see.
All discord, harmony not understood;
All partial evil, universal good
And, spite of pride, in erring reason's spite,
One truth is clear: Whatever is, is right.
Atheist road show
While the absence of belief maybe as ineluctable as having one, a reasonably educated person could understand that leaving one religion is not the same as abandoning religiosity, with its various dimensions (belief, spirituality, and practice) at all at the personal level. It seems Hersi Ali and other so-called former Muslims didn't learn of the universal Golden Rule, found in all religions, i.e: "That which is hateful to you do not do to another...the rest (of the Torah) is all commentary, now go study." as said by Rabbi Hillel 2000 years ago.
Instead, Hersi Ali and other former Muslims have embarked on a long road show to smear Islam without offering anything in its place, such as any semblance of enlightenment. She is building her career on the notion that Muslims are dangerous terrorists, singling them out much the same way the Westboro Baptist Church blames gays for all of America's woes. This clearly shows that when Muslim women challenge gender injustices in their communities, their struggles are often hijacked by Western Islamophobes to bolster the racist claim that Muslims are uniquely or particularly misogynistic. It was hardly surprising that her campaign became a fodder for propagandists, particularly on her views on gender, was used by the right-wing media as grandiloquent portal to attack the practices of Islam and then highlight Hirsi Ali's view that Islam is a religion of violence and a "cult of death." Following each controversy on her road show, the right-wing media rushed each time to defend her comments, some using her life experience to whitewash her Islamophobic vitriol. Evelyn Alsultany, author of Arabs And Muslims in the Media, spoke for many when she wrote that Hirsi Ali "has not promoted any kind of true understanding of Islam, but has provided justification for the public and the government to perpetuate racism." Alsultanty explains further:
While she has brought attention to oppression that some Muslim women face, she has done so by simplistically blaming Islam. As a result, she has powerfully contributed to naturalizing the idea that Islam in and of itself is the enemy of democracy and civilization. This idea has serious consequences. It has led to Muslims in the West facing a spectrum of experiences, from hostile questions about their faith to hate crimes. It has provided justification for the U.S. to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, that has negatively impacted the lives of Muslim women through war.
One of the latest episode in 2014 where Hersi Ali was in the news again involved when Brandeis University, which had earlier nominated Hirsi for a honorary degree, decided she was not an appropriate candidate for the honor, following a protest by Muslim students and faculty. "We cannot overlook that certain of her past statements are inconsistent with Brandeis University's core values," the university said. It added, "For all concerned, we regret that we were not aware of Ms Hirsi Ali's record of anti-Islam statements."
The Change.org petition by Brandeis students, while it acknowledges the legitimacy of Ali's grievances with Islam, but condemns the "hate speech" through which she expresses them. The petition quotes her as saying: "Violence is inherent in Islam - it's a destructive, nihilistic cult of death. It legitimates murder .. the battle against terrorism will ultimately be lost unless we realize that it's not just with extremist elements within Islam, but the ideology of Islam itself ..".
According to the Brandeis Muslim Students Association,"
"There is a fine line between freedom of speech and hate speech. Hirsi Ali has shamelessly passed this boundary as her remarks no longer regard her experiences, but rather condemn an entire religion and other minorities as a result of her prejudices and biases. Instead of encouraging respectful discussions and debates, she incites and supports insensitivity and irresponsibility by abusing freedom of speech as a way to justify her hate speech."
A letter from Council on American-Islamic Relations sent to Brandies, referred to Hirsi Ali as a "notorious Islamophobe.": "She is one of the worst of the worst of the Islam haters in America, not only in America but worldwide," Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the group, said. "I don't assign any ill will to Brandeis. I think they just kind of got fooled a little bit."
But even as Brandeis admitted that Hirsi Ali's past statements "are inconsistent with Brandeis University's core values," they still described her as an "advocate for women's rights." The ensuing media coverage of the controversy presented Hirsi Ali as a "feminist," a "women's rights advocate," and a "vocal critic of women’s oppression." Even progressive commentators have called her a "fierce advocate for the rights of women, particularly Muslim women."
The latest event before this note was written down was in September 16, 2014, this time at Yale university, where Hersi Ali's visit attracted similar controversy as a consortium of 30 student groups signing a letter protested her appearance, but her speech went off without much theatricals. The Muslim student group, just like those in other schools that she had visited, while sadly repeating the mantra that she lacked the scholarly credentials necessary to speak authoritatively on Islamic issues, and sought to have another speaker be present to challenge Hirsi Ali's statements, condemned her harsh talk against Islam on campus. They added that her harangue would make them feel uncomfortable being on campus, and wrote that they feel that would invalidate their experiences as Muslims in Yale.
While her previous campus critics have included members of religious groups, especially Muslims, at Yale this time the critics include Ali's fellow ex-Muslims and atheists. "We do not believe Ayaan Hirsi Ali represents the totality of the ex-Muslim experience," members of Yale Atheists, Humanists and Agnostics posted on Facebook Friday (Sept. 12). "Although we acknowledge the value of her story, we do not endorse her blanket statements on all Muslims and Islam." The students' statement continued: "We believe Ayaan Hirsi Ali represents a sadly common voice in the atheist community that attacks and provokes, rather than contributes to constructive criticism or dialogue."
Sharon Kugler, the Yale university's chaplain, expressed similar sentiments in a statement: "We understand and affirm Yale's commitment to free expression within an educational context," Kugler stated. "We are deeply concerned, however, by Ms. Ayaan Hirsi Ali's long record of disparaging, and arguably hateful, comments about Muslims and Islam. To better represent the whole Yale community and its educational goals, we recommend the organizers consider actions to expand the event, such as allowing concerned students to present their perspectives, or adding a scholarly voice to create a more nuanced conversation." But much of the struggles are off the campuses where there are dire political implications, especially in America, on how Islam is defined and demonized in media.
The propaganda of Islam's inherent extremism has been used by neoconservatives in halls of power in U.S. and U.K. to sanctify the endless war on terror from 2001 on. To frame the conflict as a simple struggle between good and evil that is easily understandable to all audiences, it conveniently ignores the possibility of roles of Western interventions in Palestine and the Middle East, the crippling pre-invasion Iraqi economic sanctions, the subsequent illegal invasion of Iraq, the faking by Washington as 'honest broker' in the Middle East conflict, despite the endless settlements building in Occupied Territories, as well as the internal brutality that exists under Muslim dictatorships, who are being supported by the West, in creating terrorists who then unleash their fury in engaging in terror against the America. The neoconservatives' hypocritical stance of defending of Hersi Ali positions was less about defending of freedom of expression but smearing of Islam, while defending the sanctity of their own holy wars against Muslim states.
The dominant mainstream media and propaganda in America distort much of Islam in order to make Zionism, the Jewish ideology that promotes violent grabbing of lands in Israel and neighboring countries, and then of making Judaism look more civilized but with disastrous results for others. These include 750,000 Palestinian refugees who remain still stateless, the demolishing of 280,000 Palestinian homes since 1967, and turning their land over to Jewish immigrants, and over a million and half Iraqis killed in the U.S. War and occupation in Iraq. Even neoconservative David Brooks admits he saw Iraq war as necessary for the 'peace process'. He said that the peace process is in essence the pacification of Arab countries. And so it required the invasion of Iraq and, prospectively, getting rid of Qaddafi, Assad, Khamenei, and Hamas, or in short defending Israel as a regional hegemon. What remains unsaid is that the only way this could be accomplished is that Americans are to be pacified first to acclimate to and to dissipate according to a year-long chronology of holiday marketing, corporate indoctrination and Pro-Israel brainwashing, by a horde of these neoconservatives, who have at their disposal the use of a nearly universally subservient media, largely owned and operated by Zionists, while the country is being led blindly into endless war.
Conclusion
Since 9-11 terrorist attacks on America, the growth of Islamophobia, or anti-Muslim racism, has been dramatic throughout Europe and North America. There have been numerous attacks on Muslims, on their mosques and community centers. In addition, series of laws targeting Muslims have been passed in many states. The War on Terror, as it is still fought in Afghanistan, Iraq and Yemen boosted Islamophobia. The government and media coverage were at first keen to stress this was not about Muslims, but that rapidly changed as continuous wars were declared on political Islam everywhere.
Islamophobia is defined as "socially reproduced prejudices and aversion to Islam and Muslims, as well as actions and practices that attack, exclude or discriminate against persons on the basis that they are or perceived to be Muslim and be associated with Islam". Under the guise of defending freedom and American values, the supporters of endless wars and islamophobia activists, many of them former Muslims, are together orchestrating a campaign of whipping hatred against Muslims. This includes pressuring Muslims from practicing their religion, closing their religious schools, abridging their political rights, and even making a case for their deportation. A growing chorus in the American Right and Islamophobes claims that Muslims, who comprise just 1% of the population, are doing terrorism against the Judeo-Christian-inspired constitution and even seizing power. These accusations have helped to foster anti-Muslim hostility, reflected in the rise of anti-Muslim prejudice and increased attacks on Muslim-Americans and houses of worship.
The recent book, "The Muslims are Coming!':Islamophobia, Extremism, and the Domestic War on Terror", Arun Kundnani writes how supportive but meaningless theories espousing a 'clash of civilizations' have become more common to explain the 'otherness' of all Muslims, and in the public mind Muslims have become synonymous in the eyes of some politicians and the press with 'extremists' and 'terrorists'. Even as the wars have spread to countries such as Libya, Somalia and Mali, this attitude has become more widespread. One prominent American atheist, Sam Harris, has even gone so far as to say that "the people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists". These anti-Muslim toxins were injected into the mainstream media by a cadre of former Muslims like Sam Harris and Hersi Ali, and not by right wingers alone, who do have an irrational and intense hatred against Islam and other minority faith groups. Bestselling authors like Ayaan Hirsi Ali are accorded that statuses of "new heroes", in the Republican party's and Jewish lobby circles' crusade against Muslims. The Zionist ploy is to employing this crusade against Islam all over the world as a cover to on-going depopulating of the remaining Christians and Muslim dwellers in historic Palestine and turning over their lands to Jewish settlers recruited from America and Europe at present. These "professional" former Muslims have long provided respectable cover for this bigotry and, more often, plain ignorance of mainstream western commentators on Islam.
There's no question that the tragic story of Hirsi Ali's life exposes powerfully the life-long humiliations and wounds suffered by many women in patriarchal cultures, and there is no measure of rationalizing it in any way that could fathom the depth of the pain. However, it is wrong-headed approach to blaming it on Islam alone as there are other factors as well, notably prehistoric cultural practices alien to the original religion itself, which are also the cause of the mistreatment of women. Gender inequality and oppression in the textual reality (the Quran) does reflect this excessively patriarchal culture, as this inequality also derives from the Qur'an itself, to the extent that it even matters, which states unambiguously: "Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other"(Qur'an 4:34). But there is no question that she be compelled to feel free to say that Muslims are predisposed to kill unbelievers and mutilate female bodies, however much of these opinions do distress many Americans who scorn what they see as hate speech, which is defined as speech being outside the law, which attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation. There is little reason, however, for most of her opinions to claim serious intellectual attention.
Further readings on societal groups that promote or benefit from Islamophobia:
Dr Mohamed Bali
29 Sept, 2014
