
Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Enlightened intolerance - bmmayer1
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/04/ayaan-hirsi-ali
======
duncan_bayne
Islam - the religion - is strongly anti-Jewish, denies equal rights to women
and non Muslims, and denies any rights whatsoever to those who are not members
of an Abrahamic religion. Apostasy is punishable by death, and theft by
amputation. There is no separation of Church and State in Islam; rather, the
State is to be Islamic.

These are not 'radical' positions; they have been upheld by numerous schools
of Islamic jurisprudence and are law in many Islamic states.

Gay? Lesbian? Atheist? Christian? Baha'i? You'd better hope that there is
never a Muslim majority in your country, or you will watch your rights
evaporate and, in some cases, your life threatened or ended. If you doubt
this, track down some local Lebanese Christians or Iranian Baha'is, and ask
them why they left.

Tolerance of evil - for how else would you describe a religion that prescribes
the execution of those who leave it? - is no virtue. I'm saddened, but not
terribly suprised, to see the pitchfork mobs skewer Eich, and refuse to
support Ali. Here's the thing: anti-gay hatred is equally wrong, regardless of
who expresses it, and why.

~~~
waps
Don't forget -we are in America- that islam seeks to re-introduce slavery.
Another one of those non radical positions (America forced most islamic states
to give up slavery in 1950 or so, and they haven't really done so [1], only
legally abolished it).

Oh and islam denies equal rights to muslims as well. Members of the state
apparatus are also elevated, and one of the rights they have is to kill anyone
they please. Also islam prescribes death for freedom of expression, for
singing (yes, really), ... [2]

[1] [http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/johann-
hari...](http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/johann-hari/the-
dark-side-of-dubai-1664368.html) [2] a search for 'asma bint marwan' will
quickly yield the rules for this

The problem is that the moral values the world currently has are distinctly
Christian values. Yes people like to pretend they are atheist values,
"humanist" (you'd think scientific education would prevent people from
thinking moral values are associated with a natural object like that, but I
guess not) ... yet they defend equal rights for all people, equal rights for
the sexes, protecting the weak, they go very far in the rights of children,
pro-adoption, anti-war (in the sense that they are against war unless in
defence), they defend freedom of trade, ... All very much Christian moral
positions (well, especially that specific combination is distinctly Christian.
E.g. islam does have freedom of trade, as it is mostly based on Roman law),
distinct from other religions. If you judge any other religion by this modern
standard it will fail badly. Especially equality is rare.

The problem is that islam is just a very bad example of a religion, but it is
not special. It is not the worst (certainly natural religions are far worse),
but none of it's rules are exceptional at all.

The norm in human history, and likely the majority position of all humans
worldwide is what one would consider bad religions' positions. Death for gay
people, or generally any sex outside marriage. Death for freedom of
expression. Death for sex outside marriage. Religious or physical leaders get
to execute people. No separation between church and state. Neutral or pro
position to slavery. War as the default position due to religious or ethnic
"eternal" conflicts or "holy" wars. These things are the norm, not the
exception.

So what does one do ?

~~~
saleemshafi
since you cited sources, i went and checked.

Your first article is an expose on the wealthy class in Dubai, not a religious
position. Granted, they speak Arabic, but almost no one believes what the
ruling class in Dubai (or Saudi for that matter) does has anything to do with
Islam.

Your second reference is to a story from the 7th century that historians
believe is a fabrication. And, even if it was true, she was condemned to death
for inciting violence, not for singing.

i understand that there is a lot of hostility toward what some Muslims do, and
justifiably so, but that doesn't necessarily represent Islam any more than
Warren Jeffs or Fred Phelps represent Christianity. And, there's no doubt that
some won't agree with Islam's sense of morality, but at least disagree with
the actual tenets of the faith, not corrupt foreign rulers and centuries-old
gossip.

~~~
duncan_bayne
Briefly - as I'm formulating an in depth reply - let's not trot out the
"corrupt implementation" defense. Similar and equally invalid defenses have
been made of communism over the years. Eventually one has to accept that the
supposedly corrupt implementations of a philosophy are representative.

If the majority of Islamic countries interpret Islamic law a particular way,
it's probably safe to criticize Islam on the basis of that interpretation,
especially in the context of evaluating immigration from those countries.

~~~
xtrumanx
> ...let's not trot out the "corrupt implementation" defense... If the
> majority of Islamic countries interpret Islamic law a particular way, it's
> probably safe to criticize Islam on the basis of that interpretation...

That's the reason I've stopped getting into arguments with people over the
internet regarding Islam; I don't agree with you there.

Governments of Islamic countries and their laws influenced by politics and
foreign military powers don't make for an accurate source of Islamic law in my
opinion.

~~~
duncan_bayne
Let's take a concrete example, capital punishment for apostasy.

"... in all the major schools of law in Islam (Hanafi, Hanbali, Shafii, Maliki
and the Shiite Jafari school) there is unanimity that the penalty for apostasy
is death. The difference is only whether an apostate is given the opportunity
to repent or not, or whether he is given a certain number of days to repent.
But it is a fact that Islamic Law demands everywhere that the apostate is put
to death." [1]

Here is Dr. Mohammad Mukadam, (then) Chairman of the Association of Muslim
Schools, stating in debate with Richard Dawkins that the penalty for apostasy
is death:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qvWdWZq8To](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qvWdWZq8To)

Now, let's look at the treatment in law [2]:

* Afghanistan – illegal (death penalty, although the U.S. and other coalition members have put pressure that has prevented recent executions)

* Egypt – illegal (3 years' imprisonment)

* Iran – illegal (death penalty)

* Jordan – possibly illegal (fine, jail, child custody loss, marriage annulment) although officials claim otherwise, convictions are recorded for apostasy

* Malaysia – illegal in five of 13 states (fine, imprisonment, and flogging)

* Mauritania – illegal (death penalty if still apostate after 3 days)

* Oman – legal in criminal code, but according to the family code, a father can lose custody of his child

* Pakistan – illegal (death penalty since 2007)

* Qatar – illegal (death penalty)

* Saudi Arabia – illegal (death penalty, although there have been no recently reported executions)

* Somalia – illegal (death penalty)

* Sudan – illegal (death penalty, although there have only been recent reports of torture, and not of execution)

* United Arab Emirates – illegal (3 years' imprisonment, flogging)

* Yemen – illegal (death penalty)

So. There is complete agreement amongst all major sources of Islamic law that
apostasy should be punishable by death; in many Islamic countries it is, and
in others it is otherwise punishable.

Would you care to provide an "accurate source of Islamic law" that _doesn 't_
manifest this particular evil?

[1] [http://www.answering-
islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/bassiouni_a...](http://www.answering-
islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/bassiouni_apostasy.htm)

[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy#Countries](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy#Countries)

~~~
saleemshafi
Wikipedia is far from an "accurate source of Islamic Law", but you seem to be
a fan, so here you go:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#Opposition_to...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#Opposition_to_execution)

Regardless of whether or not you decide to dismiss these positions as out of
the orthodox, it's a logical fallacy to assume that because some Muslim-
majority states implement some of the penal code describe in Islam, that any
activity by these states is somehow part of or sanctioned by the religion.

~~~
waps
So are we to understand that when your prophet did this, he was wrong ? That
he is not part of your religion ?

How exactly does your argument work ? The islamic prophet killed people for
apostacy. That's a fact, confirmed by both islamic and non-islamic historical
sources. In fact he massacred an entire city for that.

So answer the simple question : was that wrong ? Is it okay to kill
individuals or massacre cities for apostacy ? If he was wrong, then is there
any islamic religion at all ?

~~~
duncan_bayne
You won't get a reply; Saleem is either a troll, or practicing taqiyya (
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya)
).

------
brokenparser
I cite:

> _Of course, Mr Wilders leads the farthest-right party in the Dutch political
> landscape, one with which most Dutch parties have refused to cooperate._

False. The labour party announced a cordon sanitaire with them, but went on to
propose legislation that this right wing party had described in their
electoral programme, almost 4 weeks after the announcement.

The article concludes with:

> _The fact that such statements are not welcomed in American public discourse
> is one reason why the American model of integration and tolerance works
> better than the Dutch model, and why the Netherlands continues to be wracked
> by tensions over Islam and integration—years after those tensions forced Ms
> Hirsi Ali herself to leave._

This is entirely nonsensical.

------
tinco
So, American tolerance seems to be tolerance by religious towards other
religions, where Dutch tolerance is tolerance by non-religious towards
religions.

I don't respect religion, but I do respect your right to have one and exercise
it. Just not to the point where you form a hazard to your surroundings.

I don't know if every Dutch person shares that attitude, and if that attitude
is the reason that our tensions with immigrants are worse than the U.S.'s (or
even if that is true.) But I do know that attitude reflects the kind of free
thinking society I want to be a part of.

------
mrng
"Universities are no longer institutions of inquiry but ‘safe spaces’ where
delicate flowers of diversity of race, sex, orientation, ‘gender fluidity’ and
everything else except diversity of thought have to be protected from exposure
to any unsafe ideas.

As it happens, the biggest ‘safe space’ on the planet is the Muslim world. For
a millennium, Islamic scholars have insisted, as firmly as a climate scientist
or an American sophomore, that there’s nothing to debate. And what happened?
As the United Nations Human Development Programme’s famous 2002 report blandly
noted, more books are translated in Spain in a single year than have been
translated into Arabic in the last 1,000 years. Free speech and a dynamic,
innovative society are intimately connected: a culture that can’t bear a
dissenting word on race or religion or gender fluidity or carbon offsets is a
society that will cease to innovate, and then stagnate, and then decline, very
fast.

As American universities, British playwrights and Australian judges once
understood, the ‘safe space’ is where cultures go to die."

Excerpt from: [http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/australia-
features/9187...](http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/australia-
features/9187741/the-slow-death-of-free-speech-2/) (Hirsi and Brandeis are
discussed in a larger context)

