Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Tuesday, November 27, 2007 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments |

Document My life under a fatwa

by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, The Independent

Thanks to Linda Ward Selbie for the link.

Reposted from:
http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/article3199090.ece

Born and raised by fundamentalist Muslims, Ayaan Hirsi Ali fled her native Somalia for a new life in the Netherlands. Her talents bought fame as a feminist, writer and MP; her criticisms of Islam made her a target for violent extremists. Johann Hari meets a woman who dared to stand up for her beliefs — and paid the price

ayaanAyaan Hirsi Ali was stabbed into the world's consciousness three years ago. One wet afternoon in November 2004, her friend Theo van Gogh — a film-maker, and descendant of Vincent — left his house and was about to cycle off through Amsterdam. But a young Dutch-born Muslim called Mohammed Bouyeri was waiting for him — with a handgun and two sharpened butcher's knives.

Wordlessly, he shot Van Gogh twice in the chest. Van Gogh howled: "Can't we talk about this?" Bouyeri ignored his pleas and fired four more times. Then he pulled out a knife and slit Van Gogh's throat with such strength that his head was almost severed from his body. He used the other knife to stab a five-page letter on to Van Gogh's haemorrhaging corpse.

Ayaan explains: "The letter was addressed to me." It said that Van Gogh had been "executed" for making a film with her that exposed the widespread abuse of Muslim women. Now, she would be "executed" too — for being an apostate.

She says that, even now, "every time I close my eyes, I see the murder, and I hear Theo pleading for his life. 'Can't we talk about this?' he asked his killer. It was so Dutch, so sweet and innocent." At the trial, Bouyeri spat at Van Gogh's mother: "I don't feel your pain. I don't have any sympathy for you. I can't feel for you because I think you're a non-believer."

This is the story of how a 25-year-old bogus asylum-seeker from Africa came to Europe in search of freedom — only to be nearly murdered here by a Dutchman, on the streets of Amsterdam, for speaking out against religion. The story opens in the blood-strewn streets of Somalia, and it closes amid the shiny white marble of Washington, DC — yet it also ends where it began: with Ayaan's life in danger. This is the story of the refugee who rocked Islam.

****

Her light, slight figure walks into the room so quietly that I would not have noticed her. But then the bodyguards follow: big, with their eyes darting into every corner in search of the long-awaited assassin, and you realise — yes, she is here. The internet is littered with pledges to torture and slay Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Yet, just a few weeks before we meet in London, the Dutch government has stripped away her security detail. She is paying for her own bodyguards now — and she could soon run out of cash.

So how did this soft-voiced woman come to be so hated — and to be abandoned by the country that gave her sanctuary?

The life of her mother hangs over Ayaan as a morality tale, a warning of what she might have been. "I was determined to never let what happened to my mother happen to me," she says, looking away. "I think that has made me the way I am."

By the time her mother gave birth to Ayaan in a hospital on the outskirts of Mogadishu in 1967, she was a broken woman. Like all Somalian women, she had been pressured all her life to suppress her personality, to sublimate everything to men and to God — to become what Ayaan calls "a devoted, well-trained work-animal".

In her youth, her mother had moments when she fought back, briefly and bravely. She insisted on leaving her family. They were desert nomads, in effect living in the Iron Age, with no writing, few metal objects, and a belief that Allah's angels and demons were constantly tinkering with reality. At 15, she walked out of their desert to the city of Aden.

But when her father called her back to be married to a man she had never met, she submitted. There was another flickering moment of freedom: exceptionally for that time and place, she later insisted on a divorce, and got one.

But this was all gone when Ayaan was born. The woman striving for independence had soon remarried, and crashed into the sheer weight of cultural expectation. She had been persuaded that "God is just and all-knowing and will reward you in the hereafter for being subservient". Her personality became deformed by it.

"She remained completely dependent," Ayaan says. "She nursed grievances; she was resentful; she was often violent, and she was always depressed." She would take it out on Ayaan, tying her arms behind her back and lashing her with wire for the slightest misdemeanour.

When Ayaan first menstruated, her mother screamed at her: "Filthy prostitute! May you be barren! May you get cancer!" Ayaan tried to commit suicide not long after. But now she says she knows that "all the abuse wasn't really directed at me, but at the world, which had taken her rightful life away."

When her second husband left her, Ayaan's mother was too infantilised to react. "It never occurred to her to go out and create a new life for herself, even though she can't have been older than 35 or 40 when my father left," Ayaan has written.

She remembers waking up every night as a small girl to hear her mother wailing. Once, she went into her mother's bedroom and placed a hand on her cheek; her mother screamed and beat her. After that, Ayaan would simply crouch at the door, listening to the wails, wishing she knew what to do.

Somali culture began to demand that Ayaan too become a submissive woman who scrubbed away her own personality and sexuality. When she was five years old, she was made "pure" by having her genitals hacked out with a knife. It was a simple process; her grandmother and two of her friends pinned her down, pulled her legs apart, and knifed away her clitoris and labia. She remembers the sound even now — "like a butcher, snipping the fat off a piece of meat". The bleeding wound was sewn up, leaving a thick tissue of scars to form as her fleshy chastity belt. She could not walk for two weeks.

Ayaan soon realised that, in a culture so patriarchal that it could not tolerate the existence of an unmaimed vagina, "I could never become an adult. I would always be a minor, my decisions made for me. But I wanted to become an individual, with a life of my own."

By reading novels, she heard whispers of a world where this was possible. For her, even poring over Enid Blyton and Barbara Cartland seemed transgressive, because they depicted a world where boys and girls played together on the basis of equality, and where women chose their husbands rather than having them forced on them by their fathers. Imagine a world so patriarchal that Barbara Cartland seems like a gender revolutionary.

Yet, on the road to this self-determining life, Ayaan turned first to its polar opposite: the very Islamic fundamentalism that now wants to kill her. Ayaan was taught from infancy to revere the Prophet Mohamed and the Koran, and she believed it all. She desperately wanted to please Mohamed, and his path seemed to her the only one.

So, once her family had moved to Kenya, a country where few people wore the headscarf, she chose to don one. She has written: "It had a thrill to it, a sensuous feeling. It made me feel powerful: underneath this screen lay a previously unsuspected, but potentially lethal, femininity. It sent out a message of superiority: I was the one true Muslim."

She began to go to a prayer group where the texts of Sayyid Qutb and Hassan al-Banna — the intellectual inspirations for al-Qa'ida — were pored over. When the Ayatollah Khomeini declared that Salman Rushdie should be murdered for what a maniac says in one of his novels, Ayaan wanted him dead. "I supported it," she says now, "and the logic of my position is that I would have become a martyr myself, or supported the people [who did become martyrs]."

What would that girl, who took to the streets to call for Rushdie's death, say if she could see you now? Would she think you should be killed too? For the first time in our interview, Ayaan pauses. A long pause. "What would that girl of 1989 think of this girl?" she repeats. "I think... well... people change." Another pause. "She would at least approve of it. That's why I try to explain — there is a reason why so many Muslims are silent when, in the name of Islam, violence is committed. It's because we believe that jihad is the sixth obligation. Those, then, who are brave enough to commit acts of jihad must deserve our commendation."

Then, one day, as she slid into jihadism, her absent father reappeared and announced that he had found her a good husband. Ayaan thought the potential life-partner stupid and ugly — but she had no choice. He was from the right clan, he had the right fundamentalist beliefs, and he wanted her. She knew what was expected: "A Muslim girl does not make her own decisions or seek control."

****

But she could not — would not — do it. She ran. She ran all the way to the Netherlands, on a plane, to claim asylum. She was terrified when she landed in the heartland of The Infidel. She expected to find depravity on every corner. But she was amazed. Here was a peaceful land that seemed like Paradise.

"In the Netherlands, I saw people we called infidels living an amazing life — men and women mixing, gay people being free, you could say whatever you wanted," she says. "Then I went back to the asylum-seekers' centre and almost everyone was from a Muslim country begging for the charity of these infidels. And I thought, 'If we're so superior, why are we begging from them?'"

She experimented in stepping out on to the streets without her hijab, expecting she would be harassed and raped by the sex-crazed infidel. Nobody looked twice. She began to test other democratic freedoms. She drank alcohol, she found a boyfriend — and she headed for the library to discover the principles that had created this place. She began to pore over the works of Enlightenment philosophy.

"Sometimes, it seemed as if every page I read challenged me as a Muslim. Drinking wine and wearing trousers was nothing compared to reading the history of ideas," she says. "The Enlightenment cut European culture from its roots in old fixed ideas of magic, kingship, social hierarchy and the domination of priests, and regrafted it on to a great strong trunk that supported the equality of each individual and his right to free opinions and self-rule." She found that all this was a profound challenge to the severe Islam she had been pickled in since childhood.

She began to study for a political science degree and was slowly rethinking her faith when, one bright morning in September 2001, the island of Manhattan became swathed in smoke. The chief hijacker, Mohammed Atta, was exactly the same age as Ayaan. She feels like she knows him, and that if her life had taken a different turn — if she had stayed in Kenya, with the jihadis — "perhaps I could have done it." And she says something very revealing: "I realised I could either go mad, join the Bin Ladenists, or step out of the religion."

This fanatical form of Islam was, she realised, around her in the Netherlands. On the night of September 11, a small group of Muslim men took to the streets to celebrate the massacre. The country's domestic violence shelters were disproportionately crammed with Muslim women fleeing male terror. Forced marriages and "honour killings" continued at a startling rate in Dutch cities. But she found that many otherwise good people were reluctant to speak out against this abuse of women and gay people within immigrant communities.

The Netherlands had a policy called "emancipation within your own circle", and Ayaan saw this as a betrayal. Multiculturalism, she believed, was "elevating cultures full of bigotry and hatred towards women to the stature of respectable alternative ways of life. I wanted Muslim women to be aware of just how bad, and unacceptable, their suffering was. I wanted to help them develop the vocabulary of resistance."

She took the great English feminist Mary Wollstonecraft as her lodestar, and began to campaign for the state to log the rate of "honour" killings, because nobody was even bothering to count. This led to the centre-right Liberal Party asking her to run to be a member of parliament.

She accepted, and got one of the highest personal votes in the country. This in turn led her into the path of Theo van Gogh — and to his slaughter. After that, Ayaan was placed under full-time surveillance by security guards and was barely permitted to leave her house.

****

At this point, two Ayaans were born, with clashing and contradictory views on Islam. Sitting here now, I can feel their presence; I can hear them alternate in her mind. I call the first "revolutionary Ayaan", and this Ayaan says about September 11: "This was not just Islam, this was the core of Islam. Mohammed Atta believed he was giving his life for Allah. This is beyond Osama bin Laden, it is based in the basic roots of Islam."

Without pausing, she continues: "You have to ask — is it a fact that the Prophet Mohamed conquered lands using the sword? Is it a fact that Muslims are commanded to commit jihad? Yes it is."

She has no time for what she sees as the ignorant, woolly Islam-is-peace message of Western liberals, insisting: "I see no difference between Islam and Islamism. Islam is defined as submission to the will of Allah, as it is described in the Koran. Islamism is just Islam in its most pure form. Sayyid Qutb didn't invent anything, he just quoted the sayings of Mohamed."

Revolutionary Ayaan believes that the religion cannot be reformed or changed, only defeated. The millions upon millions of Muslims who are not violent — "the wonderful, decent, law-abiding people" — simply do not really follow Islam. They ignore it, or they live uncomfortably with the explosive "cognitive dissonance" of simultaneously supporting human decency and the demands of Islam.

She lists the awkward truths about the Prophet Mohamed. "All Muslims believe in following his example, but many of the things he did are crimes. When he was in his fifties, he had sex with a nine-year-old girl. By our standards, he was a pervert. He ordered the killing of Jews and homosexuals and apostates, and the beating of women." That is why she concludes that "the war on terror is a war on Islam", and "Islam is the new fascism".

But then there is "reformist Ayaan". This Ayaan says the opposite: that internal reform within Islam is both possible and necessary. She insists: "It's wrong to treat Muslims as if they will never find their John Stuart Mill. Christianity and Judaism show that people can be very dogmatic and then open up. There is a minority [within Islam] like [the reformists] Irshad Manji and Tawfiq Hamid who want to remain in the faith and reform it.

"Can you be a Muslim and respect the separation of church and state? I hope a large enough number of Muslims will agree you can, and they will find a way to keep the spiritual elements that comfort them and live in a secular society."

Ayaan's life story is strewn with Muslims who rejected Bin Ladenist fanaticism. Her father, for example, was revolted by the Wahabbism he witnessed in Saudi Arabia, and told her: "This is not Islam — this is Saudis perverting Islam." She hesitates when I ask her about this fracture line in her thinking; I can almost touch the cognitive dissonance.

Then "reformist Ayaan" says: "Well, my father was trying to combine the commandments in the Koran with his conscience. He has reached a level of civilisation because he's living in the 21st century, but he was also trying to follow a religion founded in the seventh century. So on the one hand he thinks you should accept that the content of the Koran is the true word of God, and on the other hand he is a decent person. He tried to move on by saying that we should only convert non-Muslims by example, not by violence, and [by saying] that only the Prophet Mohamed can call for a jihad." But then "revolutionary Ayaan" adds: "That's not what the Koran says. It says you can never change the faith."

Is there is a danger that the language of "revolutionary Ayaan" is undercutting the very people "reformist Ayaan" wants to encourage? Does she worry that by calling all Islam "fascism" she might encourage the hard right, who want to deny women like her the chance even to come to Europe as refugees?

"I do," she says. "But the group of Europeans, white Europeans, who want to stop immigration altogether, and who reject Muslims, today in 2007, is not that large. But they could become larger if European governments continue the policy of accommodating and appeasing fascist demands made by radical Muslims. They need to oppose fascist demands by Muslims, and the fascist demands by far-right white groups. I think that if there is equal treatment on both sides, the traditional populations of Europe will say that it's fair play."

As we discuss this, I realise there is something odd about this conversation. It is all so disconcertingly normal. Ayaan is speaking in a level voice, at a level volume. If you didn't speak English and you saw us talking, you could assume that we were discussing bus timetables, or the weather. It's not that she seems passionless — not at all — but that her personality seems to be coiled up within her, and I am only seeing the carefully considered tip of it. When she describes the people who want to hack her body to pieces, it is in paragraphs that feel prepacked. Perhaps it is all she can bear to show.

And so we continue. She looks at me politely and says that Europe needs to be more confident about standing up to Islamic fundamentalism. "When we come here as immigrants, we know it will be different to where we come from. It's a choice to come, and we can always choose to leave. If we do not want to adopt European values, we should expect to be criticised."

For example, she says, the veil she used to wear is "a political statement, it's not just a religious statement. It says: I'm different from you and I reject what you stand for." She stresses that she doesn't want to ban it, just to see it challenged. "I'm opposed to banning of political expression, but I'm very much a proponent of competing political expression.

"The message of liberals is so much better, so much stronger, that you don't have to resort to banning. You can wear whatever it is that you want, you can give out whatever message that you want to give out — but you have to understand that if that message is rejected, then you can't call people Islamophobic and expect to be taken seriously. If you choose to wear a veil, people might ridicule and oppose you. That's their right, too."

****

She speaks with such eloquent intensity because she is arguing against another, younger version of herself. The Ayaan of 2007 is attacking the Ayaan of 1987 — who is damning her right back. If there is a clash of civilisations, it is happening within her. It's hard to remember, as we sit here, that there are tens of thousands of people who want to prematurely bring this fizzing debate inside Ayaan's head to an end — with a bullet.

She fell in love with Holland because of its tradition of unabashed free speech, but it seems the country's politicians have judged that she took free speech too far for them. Last year, the Dutch government began to reinvestigate the lies in her original asylum claim. Ever since she entered public life she had been totally candid about this: she exaggerated the degree of state persecution she faced because being abused by your family isn't enough to be granted refugee status. Now the government was twitchy about the rows she was stirring up — so they suddenly decided to strip her of her seat in parliament. Amid efforts to revoke her Dutch citizenship as well, she fled to Washington and a job with a conservative think-tank.

Her alignment with the American right doesn't seem like an easy fit. She is a militant defender of atheism, feminism and gay rights — all forces they have demonised for decades. She is an illegal immigrant, their ultimate hate figure. But, as our interview goes on, I realise she has depressingly begun to adopt some of their ideas. She wants to abolish the minimum wage. She no longer calls for the closing of all faith schools, but simply Muslim ones, because "they are the only ones that do not respect the division between secular and divine law".

She has even begun to touch on the American hard right's preposterous predictions that Muslims are "outbreeding" the continent's traditional populations and will impose sharia law "within decades". When I challenge her on this, she says that "experts" say it is true.

Then, this month, the Dutch government went further and stripped away her security protection, saying she should pay for it herself. The US government will not pick up the tab — the only mechanism they have for protecting private citizens full-time is the Witness Protection Program, which isn't appropriate.

"Only 11 members out of the 150 MPs voted to keep my security detail," she says. "So it's an overwhelming decision, and when I saw that I did feel betrayed. It's not only a betrayal of me, it's a betrayal of the idea of free expression.

"I think they believe that supposedly provoking Muslims will only make them more angry and hostile. The four large cities in Holland have now got very large Muslim populations, and that number is increasing — the estimate is that they're about 40 per cent. With that kind of electoral power [they think] it's best not to provoke them." Even if that means sacrificing basic Dutch values? "Yes."

She is revolted by the people who claim that it is she, Ayaan, who has "sold out" Muslims. "Tell me, is freedom only for white people?" she has written. "Is it self-love to adhere to my ancestors' traditions and mutilate my daughters? To agree to be humiliated and powerless? When I came to a new culture, where I saw for the first time that human relations could be different, would it have been self-love to see that as a foreign cult, which Muslims are forbidden to practise?"

So here she is, with the last sliver of protection she can afford standing between her and the people determined to murder her, still speaking, still fighting. Her family have said that they will never speak to her again. She knows she can never return to the country where she was born. Is she frightened? She answers quickly, as if reciting a reassuring script. "I know that is what these terrorists want me to be," she says. "So I try not to be scared." Then she pauses, and looks down. "But sometimes. Yes."

She looks up again. "But I am lucky. There are so many crossroads where my life could have become so much worse. If I had stayed in Kenya with the [jihadist] prayer group, if I had entered into the marriage my father wanted... I could have lived like my mother." She nods with confidence. "How many girls born in Digfeer Hospital in Mogadishu in November 1969 are even alive today? And how many have a real voice?"

Ayaan Hirsi Ali was in London to address the Centre for Social Cohesion

Comments 1 - 50 of 80 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #91148 by villageidiot on November 27, 2007 at 12:15 pm

 avatarMight as well say YAY FIRST POST EVER!!

Other Comments by villageidiot

2. Comment #91158 by villageidiot on November 27, 2007 at 12:34 pm

 avatarAyaan is my heroin.

Other Comments by villageidiot

3. Comment #91165 by USA_Limey on November 27, 2007 at 12:55 pm

 avatar
Ayaan is my heroin.


... And my Cocaine

:-)

Other Comments by USA_Limey

4. Comment #91180 by BaronOchs on November 27, 2007 at 1:29 pm

 avatarvillageidiot lol I like the avatar!

Other Comments by BaronOchs

5. Comment #91181 by Homo economicus on November 27, 2007 at 1:29 pm

 avatarI hope that this account helps people understand why so many of us, like Hitchens remarked at AAI, would stand between her and an assassin's hand.

Other Comments by Homo economicus

6. Comment #91188 by Ashley1319 on November 27, 2007 at 2:16 pm

Ayaan is truly my heroin. I can't believe that she lived that kind of life, and is such a sweet and passionate woman today. I do find it sad that she is starting to adopt conservative policies, like only abolishing Muslim faith schools. Indoctrination is indoctrination, no matter what your religion. However, I can understand why she wouldn't see christian/jewish faith schools as much of a threat, they must look crazy secular compared to what she was raised in. Anyway, FSM bless you Ayaan Hirsi Ali, stay alive and keep giving hope to others!

Other Comments by Ashley1319

7. Comment #91189 by monkeychops on November 27, 2007 at 2:28 pm

The author of the article says:

She has even begun to touch on the American hard right's preposterous predictions that Muslims are "outbreeding" the continent's traditional populations and will impose sharia law "within decades". When I challenge her on this, she says that "experts" say it is true.

Can anyone tell me why the predictions are preposterous? AC Grayling is similarly dismissive in Against All Gods but he doesn't explain why and I can't work it out. Does anyone have any thoughts on why these writers dismiss the demographic arguements?

Other Comments by monkeychops

8. Comment #91194 by USA_Limey on November 27, 2007 at 2:40 pm

 avatar
Ayaan is truly my heroin


Help groups are available for those with this chemical addiction to Ayaan.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

9. Comment #91200 by Watts_Pete on November 27, 2007 at 2:53 pm

Ayaan is my heroin,

Other Comments by Watts_Pete

10. Comment #91201 by Watts_Pete on November 27, 2007 at 3:14 pm

She has even begun to touch on the American hard right's preposterous predictions that Muslims are "outbreeding" the continent's traditional populations and will impose sharia law "within decades". When I challenge her on this, she says that "experts" say it is true.


Preposterous in the US perhaps, where the Christians usually do a pretty good job of breeding too - but certainly not in Europe. US Christofascists arent quite in the same league as the Islmofascists, but are "touching" on it. They're quite fond of mutilating male genitals, albeit to a lesser extent - historically they've mutilated female genitals too. they hate gay ppl. they expect women to be subservient. some of them even practice polygamy. If the Christianists get total control, they may well start advocating the death penalty for homosexuality and perhaps even adultery (by women) - again. Certainly harsh punishment.

So the US safe from Islamism by Christianism is hardly good news.

Here we dont even have that. I'm a pessimist. It's the tide of history. civilizations flourish from barbarism and become progressive and liberal. Women are emancipated, free to choose who by and whether and when to have children, and often choose not to - and the civilization is overrun by the barbarians. Luckily ours should last me out.

P

Other Comments by Watts_Pete

11. Comment #91204 by Steve Wrathall on November 27, 2007 at 3:28 pm

 avatarWatts_Pete said "civilizations flourish from barbarism and become progressive and liberal. Women are emancipated, free to choose who by and whether and when to have children, and often choose not to - and the civilization is overrun by the barbarians. Luckily ours should last me out."
You've hit the secular paradox on its head. Free to choose means free to demographically die out, while ideologies that enslave women exponentially grow. This problem is exacerbated by the environmentalist ideology which instills a self-loathing guilt about the carbon footprint of every baby we bring into the world.

Other Comments by Steve Wrathall

12. Comment #91211 by Arturo on November 27, 2007 at 4:04 pm

Ayaan Hirsi Ali stands strong on her views about Islam. We need a strong female figure to bring change and hope for all other people living overseas trying to escape the madness of Fundamentalist religion.

Good Luck to you Ma'am

Other Comments by Arturo

13. Comment #91227 by Gymnopedie on November 27, 2007 at 5:27 pm

Her "hard right" views aren't that absurd... many libertarians advocate doing away with the minimum wage, for example. As for the outbreeding topic, it seems like the answer is somewhat commonsense. As mentioned earlier, when women are essentially enslaved by the male population, they lose their reproductive rights and simply become incubators. Why wouldn't they try to outbreed the "infidels"? The males can basically abandon responsibility to his children and have multiple women in his possession to have them birth children to him. That isn't pointing out any fact that it is happening, but it makes it seem less absurd when you try to understand the context of the situation. Once you go head deep in this shit-for-brains barbarism, anything goes!

Other Comments by Gymnopedie

14. Comment #91228 by Vinelectric on November 27, 2007 at 5:27 pm

 avatarVery interesting conversation.

The emergence of "reformist Ayaah" heralds the next logical step for the woman's efforts. Everyone's had a go at pointing out the shrotcomings of the Islamic belief so now it's time to come forward with practical and realistic soultions.

She's a brave woman but loses the points on insisting that Islamism is a pure form of Islam. You don't see the Wahabbi/Islamist men washing the clothes and help cleaning the house like Muhammad used to. You don't see their wives leading scholarly circles, running their own businesses and being at the forefront of the political scene as Muhammad's wives did but nevertheless it is this form of Islam that we now have to deal with.

In fact you'll find that women in countries with moderate Islamic leadership (e.g Jordan and Egypt) are actually quite comfortable with fighting against the Pharonic genital mutilation, sexual taboos, subversion...etc all whilst conforming to Islam as a faith. Reform isn't just possible it is actually happening and is refreshingly forthcoming. Unfortunately that is unheard of in the countries in which Ayaan grew up viz. Saudi Arabia and Somalia.


By the way that nine year old girl (Aisha) was already engaged at age six and was going to marry another middle aged man before her father offered her to Muhammad as a token of friendship (!!!!!). Crazy as it sounds but it was the norm then. Don't ask how, I can't explain it!!!

It's embarrasing even within the muslim community but Aisha's status as one of the most influential figures, not just among muslim women, but in Islam in general seem to overshadow her premature matrimony to Muhammad.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

15. Comment #91230 by Gymnopedie on November 27, 2007 at 5:40 pm

Vinelectric, I'd love to know where this reform in Islam is happening (or at least in any relevant form). She simply means (I assume) that Islam and Islamism are one in the same. The closer you adhere to the Koran and the Hadiths, the more you are going to violate human rights. Advocating warfare against the unbelievers, beating women, raping nine year old girls... this is part of Islam and cannot be readily avoided, or at least I don't see how. If Muhammad is the ultimate and perfect example of a human life, then raping a nine year old girl is Okay!

How do Muslims reform this? View it as a metaphor?

Other Comments by Gymnopedie

16. Comment #91232 by Spinoza on November 27, 2007 at 5:55 pm

 avatarWhy the obsession with Aisha???

A LOT of cultures, and A LOT of people, for A LOT of the history of mankind have married young girls.

In fact, my great-grandmother was married at 12 or 13 (to an older man, obviously).

It seems quite anachronistic to read the story of Muhammed and Aisha as a story of INTENTIONAL child abuse or rape.

Religion is awful and false enough without us having to read things into it that either aren't there, or would take ridiculous amounts of work to establish (which is just to say, it's a bit silly to try and claim Aisha was raped and that THIS, of all reasons, is why Islam is reprehensible).

Islam is reprehensible in the here and now, not because of some story about the marriage of a man to a child (which went on not just in the Arab tribal world, but in China, and in Europe, and in the indigenous worlds of North America...) but because it has not changed since then.

(and before you jump on me... let me remind you, I'm an atheist... just playing devil's advocate because I see serious errors in the way people at this website deal with religion).

In fact, as much as I find religion sickening, childish, stupid, false, and dangerous... I find the lack of knowledge of religion and world history, and the attitude espoused by some people on this website quite stupid.

Obviously there is a difference, an ignorant atheist will (probably) not commit murder in the name of atheism (except by proxy, as a soldier?)... but the attitude is not dissimilar. And I don't like it.

Please grow up, some of you.

Other Comments by Spinoza

17. Comment #91233 by BAEOZ on November 27, 2007 at 5:58 pm

 avatar
By the way that nine year old girl (Aisha) was already engaged at age six and was going to marry another middle aged man before her father offered her to Muhammad as a token of friendship (!!!!!). Crazy as it sounds but it was the norm then. Don't ask how, I can't explain it!!!

The version I've read is that Mohammad dreamed of Aisha when she was six. Asked her dad, a close confidant of his, for her hand. Her dad was reticent, but Mohammad convinced him that as god's prophet it would be ok. Aisha then got sick which delayed the "wedding" and he didn't get to "deflower" her until she was nine.
Whatever the case. Muslims will point to Mohammad and say that he's morally perfect or near enougth to it [and thus so is Islam]. This may have been the case in the 7th century. (Although, ordering murders and taking slaves seems rough in any time.) It clearly isn't now. God never chooses timeless messengers. They always seem to jade and their messages are surprisingly similar to what any person of there era would have thought. Not what an omniscient god would have known. His religions have little or nothing to say to us now morally. And of course have no evidence of said deity. :)

Edit: Spinoza made my point first. That Islam is reprehensible now. Whether it wasn't back then is irrelevant.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

18. Comment #91234 by Bonzai on November 27, 2007 at 6:03 pm

 avatarI agree mainly with Spinoza that we shouldn't judge historical figures with today's moral norm.

However, there are some Muslims who think that they should imitate Mohammad in every respect because they think he was the perfect human prototype. After the Islamic revolution in Iran the age of marriage for girls was changed to 9 to reflect that. This can be a problem. It is actually quite ironic because idolatry is the worst sin,--apparently the only unforgivable sin,-- in Islam. It is still idolatry even when the object of idolization happens to be Mohammad.

Now maybe Vinelectric can shred some light on this, I am under the impression that there is actually no consensus on how old Aisha was when she married Mohammad. Some Muslims claim that she was actually in her late teens or early twenties citing different sources. Does it make any sense or is it an attempt of PR damage control?

P.S. I encountered a guy on a muslim forum who bristled at the suggestion that Mohammad was a pedophile but for a very strange reason. His argument was that a 9 year old was not a child, but a young woman ripe for marriage because she has started her period! I suggested that perhaps we shouldn't judge Mohammad with our moral but this guy definitely should be locked up.

Other Comments by Bonzai

19. Comment #91237 by BAEOZ on November 27, 2007 at 6:19 pm

 avatarBonzai. I've heard the same justification too. Women (girls in this case) are no more than property to be used to make babies when physically able.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

20. Comment #91238 by Crazymalc on November 27, 2007 at 6:20 pm

 avatarComment #91200 by Watts_Pete on November 27, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Ayaan is my heroin,

but thanks to the mutilators

I can't get my coc aine.


What a reprehensible thing to say.

Other Comments by Crazymalc

21. Comment #91239 by Crazymalc on November 27, 2007 at 6:20 pm

 avatarGreat article.

Can't wait to read her new book

Other Comments by Crazymalc

22. Comment #91240 by Spinoza on November 27, 2007 at 6:21 pm

 avatarRight... the criticism of Islam (and Catholicism!!!) should be that it takes medieval values to be perfect and immutable... when experience has shown us clearly otherwise.

It's not a "Hey Islam is disgusting because Muhammed was a rapist!"...

That doesn't even make any sense...

Islam is disgusting because women STILL haven't been given very many (if any) rights.

Muslims will argue with you and say that the Surah (Surah 4 if I recall correctly) on Women dictates that women are "equal" to men, because if a man divorces his wife, she gets half his stuff (money and property).

But they always ignore the fact that it's the man who gets to do the divorcing... and a woman who has been divorced is not likely to ever be married again.


... and then there's this:

34. Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).

...

128. If a wife fears cruelty or desertion on her husband's part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best; even though men's souls are swayed by greed. But if ye do good and practise self-restraint, Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do.


The epitome of backwards-talking contradiction laden gibberish.

Other Comments by Spinoza

23. Comment #91261 by Gymnopedie on November 27, 2007 at 8:11 pm

Spinoza – Yes, child marriage at the ages of 6 to 9 might have been common in the time. The problem with Islam here isn't just with the fact it hasn't changed its stance on this, it is that Muslims still insist that Muhammad is the greatest and most perfect example of a person in the history of the world. I in no way said that Muhammad was the first and only man in the world to marry an extremely young girl and have sex with her, so I'm not sure what the criticism about not knowing world/religious history is about.

We must absolutely judge historical norms in our time when people claim that historical norm should still be the norm and is a moral one in our time. Hopefully we can all see the difference here. Also, I definitely would not consider any moral judgment made in the past immune to criticism. Why can't we look back and say if something is moral or immoral? I can only assume we can look back at history and find moral reforms to praise that people have started. This means we recognize that something must have been immoral prior to the reform. Maybe there is some obvious point here I am missing.

Bonzai - The general consensus, according to the Hadith, is that the marriage was consummated at the age of 9, which is to say enough for this topic. Muhammad was the one that set the precedent that once a girl begins to menstruate, she is a woman (and marriageable).

Other Comments by Gymnopedie

24. Comment #91268 by Spinoza on November 27, 2007 at 9:25 pm

 avatar
it is that Muslims still insist that Muhammad is the greatest and most perfect example of a person in the history of the world.


Not all of them will say that, at least not in so many words... intellectual Muslims, like intellectual Christians... will dance around it.

Religions make people double-talk. They speak in contradictions, often without thinking twice...

I have called friends of mine on this MANY times, to the point where they will finally admit it... but of course, rather than conceding my point, they will retract and say "well, there is probably a way for it to make sense but I'm just not doing a good job."

It's very easy to avoid criticism that way.

Let's not make it EVEN easier for them, by saying things that are so easily denied.

Other Comments by Spinoza

25. Comment #91272 by villageidiot on November 27, 2007 at 10:31 pm

 avatar
Ayaan is my heroin.

It's spelt heroine, idiot.

Other Comments by villageidiot

26. Comment #91274 by villageidiot on November 27, 2007 at 10:35 pm

 avatar
Comment #91180 by BaronOchs
villageidiot lol I like the avatar!


Thank you, but it is just a bunch of smiley faces.

Other Comments by villageidiot

27. Comment #91276 by eXcommunicate on November 27, 2007 at 11:08 pm

 avatarIn regards to the propensity for theists to "out breed" secularists: Am I the only atheist who wants as many children as I can afford? :) I love children (currently have two very beautiful kids). I want a whole squadron of precocious, intelligent, beautiful children who will hopefully grow up to be active and socially, politically, and environmentally conscious atheists. :)

Other Comments by eXcommunicate

28. Comment #91277 by mnlandon on November 27, 2007 at 11:15 pm

This makes me sad. We have so far to go in righting these wrongs. Shame on the Netherlands for not doing everything possible to protect this bearer of a torch of the Enlightenment.

Other Comments by mnlandon

29. Comment #91281 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 28, 2007 at 12:12 am

 avatarCan anyone tell me why the predictions are preposterous? AC Grayling is similarly dismissive in Against All Gods but he doesn't explain why and I can't work it out. Does anyone have any thoughts on why these writers dismiss the demographic arguements?

Something I prepared earlier.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tSeonq9lVM

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

30. Comment #91283 by Goldy on November 28, 2007 at 12:26 am

 avatarRegarding Mo's marriage and ages of consent...from Arab News
Marriage at an Early Age
Jerman Ahmed Al-Shihry • Al-Madinah

When the Prophet, peace be upon him, first married Khadijah bint Khuwalid, he was 25 years old and she was 40. Later, when he married Aisha, he was 45 and she was only 9. Age differences in the Prophet's cases were not meant to serve the purpose of enjoying various women or merely tasting the pleasures of the flesh. The women were chosen by him in order to comply with the religion that is meant to organize the Muslim Ummah and provide what is permitted instead of encouraging what is forbidden.

Who was the husband of Khadijah and Aisha? He was the best of human being and the seal of all prophets. Any woman living at that time would have been happy to have been chosen by the Prophet as his wife.

I am writing this article after one I read in Al-Watan newspaper, entitled "70-year-old man marries 12-year-old girl in Asir." The article said that the employees in the Asir Medical Center were shocked when a 70-year-old man and a 12-year-old girl came for a blood test in order to marry.

I must say I wonder if any of us have the right to compare ourselves and our actions to anything done by our beloved Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. The answer of course is absolutely not! There are no comparisons or similarities and it's simply wrong for such old men to marry young girls — and justify their doing so by saying that their role model is the Prophet. They are conveniently forgetting to mention the enormous difference between his sublime purpose and their own twisted desires.

In our materialistic world, we witness many marriages of this kind which are harmful to the Muslim family. When old men marry young girls, there are social disadvantages and the possibility of crimes. We shouldn't allow someone so old to possess a young girl or woman just to satisfy her male guardian's avariciousness.

We shouldn't wonder about the unpleasant reactions the young girl might have — whether to herself or to the old man she's married to. If she commits a crime, then we are the ones responsible. I would prefer to have my daughter with a young man who is nearly dead than with one who is old and nearly dead. When the poor girl wakes up from this horrible nightmare, she may well take violent revenge on anyone. And when she does, she must not be blamed; it is we who are responsible and we who must take responsibility for the calamity.

I remember reading a piece about Aisha's age. I'll try and find it. As it is, can we judge the morals of yesterday with the morals of today? For some societies, it is the zeitgeist (do I use this word correctly) that makes our morality. For others, it is a strict adherence to ancient texts.

Other Comments by Goldy

31. Comment #91284 by theillestatheist on November 28, 2007 at 12:34 am

This story should be on prime time news. Us atheists get to hear about it because we visit this site but a lot of people that I know have never even heard of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. If we`re going to beat these nutters, everyone needs to know what`s going on.

Other Comments by theillestatheist

32. Comment #91285 by Fanusi Khiyal on November 28, 2007 at 12:41 am


It's not a "Hey Islam is disgusting because Muhammed was a rapist!"...

That doesn't even make any sense...

Islam is disgusting because women STILL haven't been given very many (if any) rights.


Actually, the one determines the other. Muhammad is uswa husana, al-insal al-kamil, the excellent example, and the perfect man, to be imitated in all things. If he says women are inferior, they are to be treated as such. If he says that taking a nine year old girl when you are fifty is okay, then it is. And, btw, these point were cited in the Undercover Mosque documentary that was posted here a while ago.



Can anyone tell me why the predictions are preposterous? AC Grayling is similarly dismissive in Against All Gods but he doesn't explain why and I can't work it out. Does anyone have any thoughts on why these writers dismiss the demographic arguements?


Actually, they can't. The figures don't lie. Throughout Europe, birth rates are below the replacement figue of 2.1 per couple. In some areas they have utterly collapse. The demographic conquest of Europe isn't something dreamed up by conspiracy ntus, but stated, in so many words, by many mainstream Muslim preachers. There was an article about this in a mainstream Pakistani newspaper. So did the ruler of Algeria, not to mention many within the West. THose of us who saw the Undercover Mosque documentary may remember that the preachers were saying they needed to bide their time until they were sufficient in number. You can still find that documentary on this site.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tSeonq9lVM


Look what the worm dragged in. Right at beginning it dismisses the claim that Muslims engage in rape because of their religion. However, from Darfur to Australia, there have been rapes justified by Sura 4, verses 23-24. To give one example, the Mufti of Australia Sheikh Taj al-Din al-Hilali said that women are usually - 90% - of the time responsible for being raped.

The video contains the usual nonsense - such as assuming the Islamic totalitarians would bother to go about their business by votes. You may observe the continual riots in France, by Muslims, to see how foolish that is. Or you can look at what has happened to Christian and other indigenous populations whenver Islam expands into an area.

The point is the following: even a small group of determiend radicals can pull the rest along with them. We saw this with the fascists, and we saw this with the communists. Such groups can emerge and spread like wildfire.

But there is a crucial difference. Fascism and Communism represented something new, something grafted onto a different culture. The Islamic totalitarians have no such barrier - they are working with a culture that justifies this warp through weft.

Another key point is how the demographic shift is occurring to increase the population of young Mulsims with respect to young Westerners. A revolutionary cadre is always filled of youn men - this is the group you turn to if you want people to fight and die. This is who the Nazis recruited, and this is who their modern equivalents are turning to. The point is we are approaching a point where the population of young Muslims is at ~ 1:2 with respect to young europeans. You can take a look at Lebanon to see what that means.

For all this video insists on 'evidence based reasoning' it says that the Muslims are too economically weak. Let's see now - Arab rulers have taken ten trillion dollars of oil money out of the soil, which has mainly gone to bankroll jihad, by any and all means. That's not nothing. They may not be able to dominate economically, but they don't want to. They want to dominated through the old law of the sword. And with a Europe increasingly unwilling to fight back, this is the way things are going.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

33. Comment #91298 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 28, 2007 at 2:07 am

 avatarThe objections raised to my video are familiar. So here is something I prepared earlier.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0lRffYTStw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Coi14j5q-vU

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

34. Comment #91306 by Vaal on November 28, 2007 at 2:25 am

 avatarHow sick can you get? A 50 year old man having sex with a 9 year old child. If I had met Mohammed, I would have given him a good beating!

Other Comments by Vaal

35. Comment #91309 by Fanusi Khiyal on November 28, 2007 at 2:34 am

*nods* Vaal those were dark and terrible times. What's really sickening is that there are still, today, those who engage in these practices, such as the Ayatollah Khomeni, and the preachers on Undercover Mosque. This is because of Muhammad's example, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

36. Comment #91312 by villageidiot on November 28, 2007 at 2:41 am

 avatar
Comment #91298 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 28, 2007 at 2:07 am
avatarThe objections raised to my video are familiar. So here is something I prepared earlier.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0lRffYTStw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Coi14j5q-vU


'ello there; i'm new so i was just a-wondering if briancoughlanworldcitizen (on this site) =
TheModestAgnostic (on YouTube)

Other Comments by villageidiot

37. Comment #91316 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 28, 2007 at 2:54 am

 avatar'ello there; i'm new so i was just a-wondering if briancoughlanworldcitizen (on this site) =
TheModestAgnostic (on YouTube)


He does indeed.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

38. Comment #91330 by hungarianelephant on November 28, 2007 at 4:06 am

 avatarThe issue of demographics is real, but there is a fairly simple solution, at least insofar as it consists of Islam treating women as breeding machines.

Science is very close to developing sex-choice drugs. Instead of getting sniffy about this, we could actively encourage it, and make it available cheaply. You can guarantee that the nutters will always assume that it is some other family's job to produce seven daughters for marriage to their seven sons. And within twenty years, supply and demand will ensure that women have become immensely valuable.

In the meantime, it would be nice if the British government would kindly stop allowing families to import unwesternised women from Pakistan for arranged marriages.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

39. Comment #91334 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 28, 2007 at 4:25 am

 avatar 38. Comment #91330 by hungarianelephant on November 28, 2007 at 4:06 am
The issue of demographics is real, but there is a fairly simple solution, at least insofar as it consists of Islam treating women as breeding machines.


No the issue is hopelessly overblown. Muslims represent about 5% of the EU population, and will be over 50% nowhere in the EU before 2050. It is far likelier that homegrown fascists will be elected into power in EU member states as an ironic reaction to the perceived threat of Islam, than that a demonised and despised minority will magically "seize power". Without either sheer physical numbers, or electoral power how is this to happen exactly? Magic is the only answer.

Even the Nazis had to win an election with a sizeable chunk of the population onside (45% I think?) before they could really get their program underway.

We don't even see Sharia law in Turkey, almost 100% muslim!!! Nah, it's pure scare mongering to grease the slide to mass slaughter. Or maybe just hysteria, don't want to get too paranoid:-)

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

40. Comment #91342 by hungarianelephant on November 28, 2007 at 5:15 am

 avatar39. Comment #91334 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 28, 2007 at 4:25 am

I assume you mean by this that in no EU country will Muslims be in a majority by 2050. That's debatable. If current migration patterns continue, both the Netherlands and Belgium are likely to become majority Muslim states in that timescale. (If Belgium still exists, of course.)

But that's somewhat beside the point. It is entirely likely that London, Birmingham and Leeds will have a majority of Muslims within two generations. Even now, with around 3% of the population, Muslims are treated as a special interest group to be pandered to with obscenities such as laws against "inciting religious hatred". Odious characters such as George Galloway can get themselves elected. It's wishful thinking to imagine that you don't have problems until you get to 45%.

I really don't think Turkey is a shining example for our future. Do you?

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

41. Comment #91345 by irate_atheist on November 28, 2007 at 5:19 am

 avatar40. Comment #91342 by hungarianelephant -

Well, I for one don't expect to see Turkey voting for christmas, if that's what you mean.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

42. Comment #91346 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 28, 2007 at 5:28 am

 avatarOdious characters such as George Galloway can get themselves elected. It's wishful thinking to imagine that you don't have problems until you get to 45%.

I never said or meant that. We will continue to have problems, and terrorism. Brace yourself. However it is extremely unlikely that an Islamic party will ever be elected in an EU member state, or that muslims will simply seize power. For the reasons I've clearly articulated. It is worth repeating that culturally specific fascists will be in power in various EU states, long before muslims.

I really don't think Turkey is a shining example for our future. Do you?

Again, you seem to be reading stuff I'm not writing. My point was not to hold Turkey up as a beacon of sanity, merely to point out (reasonably I thought) that if Turkey doesn't have Sharia law with almost 100% of muslims, how likely is it to become legal in EU countries even in the next 150 years?

The case for a muslim takeover has to be made. Either through sheer numbers and violence, or through fewer numbers through the electorate. Yet, there is no polity of muslims in any EU member state where 100% of them support Sharia law, the highest numbers are perhaps 50%. There are also no countries in the EU that will have 50% muslim populations before 2050, and this still only means 25% for sharia law, which pushes the deadline for the introduction of sharia law to functional infinity.

These are akward facts which must be integrated into the equation, and atheists should know better than to credulously swallow the tripe being fed them by the right.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

43. Comment #91352 by Fanusi Khiyal on November 28, 2007 at 5:45 am

Wonders never cease - brian has said something intriguing:


Science is very close to developing sex-choice drugs. Instead of getting sniffy about this, we could actively encourage it, and make it available cheaply. You can guarantee that the nutters will always assume that it is some other family's job to produce seven daughters for marriage to their seven sons. And within twenty years, supply and demand will ensure that women have become immensely valuable.


That's certainly a possibility. Of course, this hinges on these drugs not being pronounced haram, but it is worth thinking about.


It is worth repeating that culturally specific fascists will be in power in various EU states, long before muslims.


Which is what I have been saying all along. Fortunately, the Islamic totalitarians have the same organisational skills as a ham sandwhich. Before they completely overrrun Europe, we will see further incidents of catastrophic terror that will cause the shift from Lockean liberalism to Hobbesian conservatism, and the world of Islam will be crushed.

Of course, some of us would prefer a future that doesn't hold a hideous war, the return of fascism, and genocide, and would, in fact, like to do something to stop that.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

44. Comment #91366 by hungarianelephant on November 28, 2007 at 6:56 am

 avatarFK – Actually it was me. Declaration of haram is certainly a potential problem with it, although that in itself would create a neat culture vs. religion conflict. The bigger problem would likely be a generation of sexually frustrated Muslim men ...

briancoughlan – I think we are perhaps talking past each other. We're agreed that there will be problems, and I certainly agree that a fascist "response" is likely to happen somewhere in Europe before a Muslim "takeover" (my bet is France, but I wouldn't stake the house on it).

Still, the point remains that you do not need to be in control, or in majority, to be in power. Suppose the Muslim Democratic Party holds the balance of power in the Netherlands – hardly an unlikely scenario in a PR system. Then suppose that Rotterdam City Council decides that it wants to ban alcohol advertising, and force pubs to take down their signs. Will they get away with it? Of course they will. Next, it prosecutes someone who "insults the Prophet" for inciting riot. And on it goes by a thousand cuts.

Of course, we don't need Islamists in Britain to take away our liberties. That's NuLab's job. But the extent to which they have got away with it so far is hardly cause for encouragement.

Turkey has held off sharia law through an autocratic secular regime which only developed an interest in human rights when a large bribe from the EU looked a realistic possibility. Even so, its grasp appears to be slipping. I understand the point you were making was related to numbers, but if we find ourselves in anything approaching Turkey's situation, I will not want to stick around.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

45. Comment #91375 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 28, 2007 at 7:26 am

 avatarStill, the point remains that you do not need to be in control, or in majority, to be in power.

This is a good point, but as we often see, small parties that get too greedy simply collapse the coalition they have joined. As a result of that dynamic, I don't see Sharia law being introduced anywhere based on the machinations of some minority party.

Also it's not just Turkey that has Muslim majorities without resorting to Sharia.

It seems self evident to me that "home grown" fascism is a greater risk and threat to us all, due to their electability, than islamic fascism. Thus all this obsessing about an imminent, medium term or distant islamic takeover seems terribly misplaced.

I think both fascist regimes and radical muslim ones are incredibly unlikely, thus there is little value in worrying about them when we have real and immediate issues such as global warming, inadequate global governance and islamic terrorism to deal with.

Filling peoples heads with speculative "what if" scenarios of cultural collapse in the 22nd century simply strikes me as a waste of valuble time and energy.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

46. Comment #91390 by mrjonno on November 28, 2007 at 7:58 am

Few points

The US is far more likely to become a theocracy long before Europe does.

Electoral systems make a big difference too. The UK and US have the 'first past the post system'. Effectively if you get 40-50% of the vote you get 100% of the political power , if you get 0-40% you get zero political power. With proportional representation (which you get in the rest of Europe) every vote counts (which is more democratic in some ways but has the disadvantage it allows small extreme parties to grow)

When it comes down to it a far right police state scares me a million times more than a few muslim nutters who at worst will blow up a train or building

Other Comments by mrjonno

47. Comment #91401 by robotaholic on November 28, 2007 at 8:36 am

 avatarI swear her biggest threat is Hitch - lol

Other Comments by robotaholic

48. Comment #91403 by robotaholic on November 28, 2007 at 8:37 am

 avatarand I'm tired of being educated about muslim this and islam that - I don't even wanna hear about it- I just wish it would go AWAY

Other Comments by robotaholic

49. Comment #91455 by Steven Mading on November 28, 2007 at 11:00 am

mrjonno wrote:
Electoral systems make a big difference too. The UK and US have the 'first past the post system'. Effectively if you get 40-50% of the vote you get 100% of the political power , if you get 0-40% you get zero political power. With proportional representation (which you get in the rest of Europe) every vote counts (which is more democratic in some ways but has the disadvantage it allows small extreme parties to grow)

Actually, the big problem with proportional representation is that it codifies and makes into law the concept of political parties being more important than individual candidates. You vote for a party, to give that party seats in the government. You don't vote for a person (not technically). In the US you vote for a person, and the fact that this person's advertisement campaign happens to be backed by funding from a private club known as a "political party" is merely a common practical convention rather than being enforced by anything in the constitution.

That being said, I still do prefer the proportional system to what we have in the US now, but I think an even better system than both of the above is one of the runoff types where you can vote for a third-party candidate without throwing away your vote, because you'll have a chance to go for your second-best choice if your preferred choice gets eliminated. This method allows compramise candidates to win in races with multiple factions (candidates who are not necessarily anyone's first choice, but are most people's second choice. (There's many different systems for doing this, with pro's and con's to them, but all are better than the first-past-the-post system. Most start with the notion of not merely voting for one candidate, but voting for a ranking of candidates: "this is my first choice, then this is my second choice, then this is my third choice, etc..."

Other Comments by Steven Mading

50. Comment #91529 by Spinoza on November 28, 2007 at 1:57 pm

 avatar
and I'm tired of being educated about muslim this and islam that - I don't even wanna hear about it- I just wish it would go AWAY


That is as abhorrent as their view that everyone else should just convert or go away.

Why is it that the public intellectual atheists all advocate teaching world religion in a historical context, and reading the scriptures of religions as works of literature... But the "fans" of these intellectuals don't seem to get it. Wise-up people, advocating self-imposed ignorance is NOT a good way to go about "being" an atheist.

Other Comments by Spinoza
Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: