A Muslim woman replies to the Archdhimmi of Canterbury. "Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: What he wishes on us is an abomination," from the Independent (thanks to all who sent this in):
What Rowan Williams wishes upon us is an abomination and I write here as a modern Muslim woman. He lectures the nation on the benefits of sharia law – made by bearded men, for men – and wants the alternative legal system to be accommodated within our democracy in the spirit of inclusion and cohesion.Pray tell me sir, how do separate and impenetrable courts and schools and extreme female segregation promote commonalities and deep bonds between citizens of these small isles?
What he did on Thursday was to convince other Britons, white, black and brown, that Muslims want not equality but exceptionalism and their own domains. Enlightened British Muslims quail. Friends like this churchman do us more harm than our many enemies. He passes round what he believes to be the benign libation of tolerance. It is laced with arsenic.
He would not want his own girls and women, I am sure, to "choose" to be governed by these laws he breezily endorses. And he is naive to the point of folly if he imagines it is possible to pick and choose the bits that are relatively nice to the girls or ones that seem to dictate honourable financial transactions.
Look around the Islamic world where sharia rules and, in every single country, these ordinances reduce our human value to less than half that is accorded a male; homosexuals are imprisoned or killed, children have no free voice or autonomy, authoritarianism rules and infantilises populations.
What's more, different Muslim nations claim to have their own allegedly god-given sharia. In Saudi Arabia, women cannot drive (What in Allah's name could the Koran have warned about cars?). In Bangladesh and Pakistan, they have no such bar to driving, although increasingly Saudi Wahabi Islam is taking over and we see Saudi sharia taking hold.
It is growing in influence here, too. Ten years ago, the only fully shrouded Muslim women around were from the Arab fiefdoms, the many wives of sheikhs often drawn by cartoonists to convey the absurdity and inhumanity of such cloaks. Now all of Europe has these girls and women rendering themselves invisible in public spaces. It is their elected sharia, so they claim without credibility. There is no agreed body of sharia, it is all drafted by males and the most cruel is now claiming absolute authority.
In Pakistan, on the statutes are strictures on adultery introduced by the military dictator Zia ul-Haq. Women activists in that country have given their lives protesting against the injustice of those laws where women suspected of adultery, or rape victims, are punished in hideous ways and the man goes free.
The Iranian theocracy changes its regulations from year to year, capriciously playing with the lives of females. The morality police hound women and girls, beat them up, imprison them for showing an ankle, walking too provocatively or singing in the streets. They fight back but are ground down eventually.
Two Iranian friends chose to die rather than live under the demeaning religious orders. Go to Afghanistan if you fancy a 12-year-old bride – a practice approved by the mullahs. That's sharia for you. Many women, gay men and dissidents came to Britain to escape Islamic tyrants and their laws. Dr Williams supports those laws and, by default, makes the refugees victims again.
Read it all.
It's wonderful to read a letter like this from a muslim woman. Good for her! I hope the Archdhimmi reads and understands it. He needs to have his eyes crazy-glued open so he will see the evil inherent in sharia law.
While I applaud what she says isn`t she contradicting her religion by saying it treats women like dirt yet she still follows it?
Isn`t she picking just the bits of Islam that she likes and ignoring the rest?
She mentions about twelve year old brides but neglects to realise her religions leader, Muhammed, actually fell in love with a nine year old girl and married her age twelve which is where these young aged wives come from by following his example.
somerandomdude,
You are wrong, Muhammed was engaged to Aisha when she was five and slept with her when she was nine.
Another point.
The Independent is not the best source for information on Islam or the Middle-East.
Take Robert Fisk, their “star” Middle-East reporter. His work is riddled with factual inaccuracies.
I am not the only one to notice Mr Fisk’s capacity for factual inaccuracy.
Take , Efraim Karsh , author of “Islamic Imperialism: a history,”
In his review of “The Great War for Civilization: The conquest of the Middle-East,“ he states
” It is difficult to turn a page of The Great War for Civilisation without encountering some basic error. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, not, as Fisk has it, in Jerusalem. The Caliph Ali, the Prophet Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law, was murdered in the year 661, not in the 8th century. Emir Abdallah became king of Transjordan in 1946, not 1921, and both he and his younger brother, King Faisal I of Iraq, hailed not from a “Gulf tribe” but rather from the Hashemites on the other side of the Arabian peninsula. The Iraqi monarchy was overthrown in 1958, not 1962; Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the mufti of Jerusalem, was appointed by the British authorities, not elected; Ayatollah Khomeini transferred his exile from Turkey to the holy Shiite city of Najaf not during Saddam Hussein’s rule but fourteen years before Saddam seized power. Security Council resolution 242 was passed in November 1967, not 1968; Anwar Sadat of Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979, not 1977, and was assassinated in October 1981, not 1979. Yitzhak Rabin was minister of defense, not prime minister, during the first Palestinian intifada, and al Qaeda was established not in 1998 but a decade earlier. And so on and so forth.”
While I am dubious that Islam CAN be reformed into something compatible with modern Western society, I at least want to give the benefit of the doubt to women like this author.
One thing I have noticed in these debates,though, is that the left-wing dhimmi multiculturalists have chosen to BETRAY and ABANDON the tiny percentage of TRUE moderate Muslims, and have instead chosen to support their conservative Muslim oppressors.
"...these ordinances reduce our human value..."
That says it all.
The irony in this letter is astounding. Written by a "modern muslim woman", one Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. Curious surname, "Brown", as it suggests she is married to a kafir.
She states
Ooookay. Identifying oneself as a "modern muslim woman" . . . suggests she, by self identification, will raise her own daughters as 'modern muslim women' . . . which leaves one begging for a clear definition of what defines a "modern muslim woman".
As "modern muslim woman" do they accept Muhammed as their prophet, uswa hasana al-insan al-kamil?
If so, she clearly has quite the imagination to re-define all of islam, not just sharia
.For, without sharia - there is no islam.
With all her clarity on the heinous aspects of sharia . . .why does this woman think she is Muslim at all?
Maybe this is why there is such a problem with so-called moderate Muslims not standing against violence. They identify themselves as adherents to a religion that seeks conquest and uses bloodshed to achieve their goals, but they say to themselves, "I'm not like that." Well, either you are for me or you are against me. Either you are a member of the team, you show up to practice, where the uniform and play in the games or you don't.
What is it about Islam that makes people want to identify themselves with it but then deny it has anything to do with violence and oppression when the bullets start to fly? I'm not talking about taqiyah, I'm talking about Muslims who really believe that they have to be Muslims but are in denial about the whole game plan?
The glib answer to that, justamomof4, is that she fears a charge of apostasy, of course. (And that may be part of it.)
But I would imagine it has to do with a deeply-held sense of identity. (Think Hugh's Muslim-for-identification-purposes here.)
I constantly marvel at how any Muslim who thinks through his religion's tenets can possibly conclude anything other than "this is anti-life, and I cannot be a part of it". But then I remember that loyalties to ideas go oh-so-much-deeper than logic.
I'd guess that for many a "modern Muslim" moving completely out of this identification would be either a gradual process, or something they just cannot envision (Irshad Manji?).
These “moderate” Muslims must realise that you must accept or reject Islam, there is no third way.
When you are dealing with Islam you are at a crossroads.
I suppose you can take two options.
You can turn to Christ…..
Or you can follow the path chosen by Robert Johnson, when faced with a similar decision.
You are wrong, Muhammed was engaged to Aisha when she was five and slept with her when she was nine. -posted above
Actually, I think the numbers are 7 and 9.
I hope the Archdhimmi reads what Yasmin has written. He needs to. Do you think he will?
You can turn to Christ…..
Or you can follow the path chosen by Robert Johnson, when faced with a similar decision.
Posted by: Odyessus at February 10, 2008 10:03 AM
Please explain, Odysseus.
Dr.Williams the druid. He is an arrogant man who needs to resign, but he wont, as he believes in his own head that he is actually some type of a vessel for god. What a nut job.
Ahhh Darcy……….. you are not familiar with the history of the Blues.
Robert Johnson was a Blues singer and guitarist who allegedly acquired his musical powers by going to a crossroads at midnight and selling his soul to the devil.
Allegedly…..
Did he really?
Well who knows? Robert Johnson wrote a song about this entitled “Crossroads” and Eric Clapton once said he thought that the crossroads referred to are simply a metaphor for all the decisions we have to make every day, decisions between right and wrong, decisions which cannot be fudged, where a third way is not possible etc.
A lot of metaphors can be read into the history of the Blues. Why were so many of the singers blind? Why were two death certificates issued for Robert Johnson when he died? How did they end up in the possession of Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards?
This is a quotation from Deltahaze website
“In southern black communities it was a well-known notion that one could go to the crossroads and sell one's soul to the devil. The concept dates back to African Folklore. The diety Esu was believed to be the guardian of the crossroads, and was an intermediate between gods and humans. When Christianity was brought to African Culture, these pagan gods were labelled as being similar to the devil. Hence, the concept that one could find the devil at a crossroad. In celtic tradition, the bodies of the unholy were buried outside of town near crossroads to preserve consecrated ground.”
And here are the lyrics to the song
I went to the crossroads, fell down on my knees
I went to the crossroads, fell down on my knees
Asked the Lord above, have mercy now, save poor Bob if you please
Standin' at the crossroads, tried to flag a ride
Whee-hee, I tried to flag a ride
Didn't nobody seem to know me, everybody pass me by
Standin' at the crossroads, risin' sun goin' down
Standin' at the crossroads baby, the risin' sun goin' down
I believe to my soul now, po' Bob is sinkin' down
You can run, you can run, tell my friend Willie Brown
You can run, you can run, tell my friend Willie Brown
That I got the crossroad blues this mornin', Lord, baby I'm sinkin' down
I went to the crossroad, mama, I looked east and west
I went to the crossroad, babe, I looked east and west
Lord, I didn't have no sweet woman, ooh well, babe, in my distress
The main point I would wish to make is that with Islam you are either for it or against it, there is no third option.
Do I think that Blues is the devil’s music? Well, put it like this, it gets monotonous very easily, there is a very limited range to what can be done with the 12 bar structure.
Give me J.S. Bach…….. or Verdi or Mozart or Beethoven.
I have read that apostates of Islam describe it as a satanic cult masquerading as a religion.
Lets hope and pray they see the light of Christ.
Actually, Muhammad was having "dreams" with naked Aisha before they got married. Since they got married when she was around 7, it's safe to say that Muhammad was having wild dreams with a girl aged 6, 5 or 4! What an example for mankind! We have tons like those in state prisions.
Despite what she writes against the comical miscomprehending Archbishop, no one should trust Alibhai-Brown, for several reasons. She has been, for too long, a steady defender of Islam against those whose offense is to know too much about it.
And then there is another question, that must be asked of her and of others like her. If the Shari'a, the Holy Law of Islam, is so obviously based on a view of women that, today, we find intolerable, and if there is no mechanism by which source of that Shari'a, the Qu'ran -- received as the uncreated and immutable and literal Word of God -- can be changed, then why should anyone who is born into Islam continue, if living in the West, even if out of filial piety, or lack of imagination (why, I didn't realize I could stop being a Muslim?), or simple embarrassment about the whole thing -- not give it up?
If Alibhai-Brown can tell something like the truth about the mistreatment of women, why doesn't she go further along in her moral indictment, and discuss what for Infidels and thinking Muslims the most disturbing matter, which is the attitude toward non-Muslims, and the clear division, for Muslims, of the world into two kinds of humanity -- Muslims and Unbelievers. To the former, all loyalty and support are owed. To the latter, nothing but permanent and implacable hostility (which can be, if necessary, hidden with smiles and wiles, in order to further the cause of Islanm) are to be given.
Does Alibhai-Brown not know this? Of course she does. Why does she not write about it? And why does she, knowing this about Islam, and in the safety of the West, not become an apostate along with the other intellectually and morally advanced people -- see Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, and many others -- who through no fault of their born, were born into Islam, and then, had the chance, while living in the West, to have their doubts deepened, as they took full advantage of freedom of thought and freedom of speech, until they fully analyzed the hold of Islam on the minds of men, and for themselves at least, became free-thinkers and free men.
She, or any others who already see through this or that aspect of Islam, could follow the same path, the path of truth, which I shall now express macaronically: fi sabil veritas.
Dr.Williams the druid. He is an arrogant man who needs to resign, but he wont, as he believes in his own head that he is actually some type of a vessel for god. What a nut job.
Posted by: leonthepigfarmer
I doubt that he believes in God at all. He enjoys the celebrity and the money that comes with the J_O_B.
Christianity is full of men who are educated to believe that the whole of the Bible is myth. They should be kicked out of the Church, but instead are teaching in the seminaries.
Can Islam be Islam without Sharia?
http://www.salemthesoldier.us/jonsson_shariah_economics.html
Here is a great cartoon about how many in the West see Islam.
http://michnews.com/artman/images/islam4.jpg
I agree with somerandomdude, justamomof4, Hugh, and others. What Yasmin Alibhai-Brown says is all true, and is a fine response to Rowan Williams, but she is railing against the treatment of women within Islam, not Islam itself. Not the treatment of infidels (men and women) by True Believers. It seems to be the "particular" version of Saudi Wahhabism "created" by "bearded men" that upsets her.
I'm sure that she sees as the solution the creation of a more moderate Islam, that keeps the basic 5 (some say 6, 7, or 8) Pillars of Islam, and marries that with Judeo-Christian values of tolerance and equality. This would allow her to keep her sense of identity, and also keep the benefits of Western development that are so obviously superior in her mind. Unfortunately, this Islam exists only in her mind; and there are too many mechanisms within Islam to guarantee that it will never become extant.
At some point she'll have to make up her mind. Either accept Islam as it is, or reject it for what it is, because it hasn't changed in 1400 years and it's not going to change now. Not for her and not for the few other extremists who think they can twist Islam into something it's not and never has been, which is a true Religion of Peace.
Islam is world conquest. All other aspects of this so-called religion are vague, confused and contradictory. This woman hasn't an Islamic leg to stand on.
from hughes post above
" why should anyone who is born into Islam continue, if living in the West, even if out of filial piety, or lack of imagination (why, I didn't realize I could stop being a Muslim?), or simple embarrassment about the whole thing -- not give it up? "
I think the answer to that is probably part filial piety, but also a real fear of being murdered or even having loved ones harmed.
With law becoming concerned with dietary habits and the innermost thoughts of people it is less able to assure the physical safety of people. Back in the old days when a Muslim family might be the only ones in the city they could easily follow their conscience without putting their loved ones in danger.
The JW/DW watch sites have numerous articles about the rise of "honor" murders done with the honor of Mahometanism at stake. So it is not an UNfounded fear, or irrational.
I would guess that with identity politics it might also be useful, you would not want to be called into the jefes office and be told, well since you have converted from druidism to anglican we have to let you go, your value was in our outreach to druids.
I suppose if others who had left Islam in the west were able to live openly without fear instead of under guard and in hiding as ayaan and others have had to do their might be more people leaving the old worlds religion for the freedoms of the west.
Politically, if those who communicated threats to those ex-muslims were found and deported post haste it might make the climate more tolerable for dissenters within the moon gods milieu, but it seems that protection of diverse thoughts somehow goes against modern multiculti diversity ideology.
Ms. Alibhi's alibi
Bottom Line: Even assuming she is sincerely a "reformist" Muslim, Ms. Alibhai's alibi in the defense of the Koran and Mohammed -- "Your Honor, they were elsewhere during the past 1400 years of Islamic atrocities..." -- won't wash. Too many witnesses, Muslim and otherwise, have seen them at the scenes of the crimes, bloody swords in hand.
Unfortunately, this Islam exists only in her mind; and there are too many mechanisms within Islam to guarantee that it will never become extant......because it hasn't changed in 1400 years and it's not going to change now. Not for her and not for the few other extremists who think they can twist Islam into something it's not and never has been, which is a true Religion of Peace.
Posted by: special_guest
*****
While I tend to agree with you about the likelihood of reforming Islam, I still think we need to judge people on the actual values they espouse, as opposed to what they call themselves. While I wouldn't put a lot of faith in moderate Muslims being a sizeable or influential group, I still would have to consider this woman to be more of an ally than the "Christian" Archbishop.
Odyessus:
You are so right about Fisk. I just gave up trying to go through his much-acclaimed book about Lebanon "Pity the Nation." That this book could be considered "fair" and "ballanced" reporting, as Fisk's admirers claim, is incomprehensible. Bias against Israel and America oozes out of every sentence, no matter how stylish and metaphor-studded.
When he writes that the Jews have also claimed--like the "Palestinians"--that Palestine has been their homeland for "hundreds of years," one has to conclude that the guy is not misinformed; he is simply lying, with a straight face, for it is impossible not to know the Jews were there for thousands of years before any Arab set foot.
Watch some of Fisk's speeches and interviews on YouTube, if you have the stomach. Insufferable. Full of himself under a veneer of civility, good-humored self-deprecation, thoughtfulnesss and well-wrought sentences. The very image of condescension of the "holier-than-thou."
I'm really surprised at this. Whatever is going on in her head?
She is the one who routinely spouts out against Bernard Lewis for misunderstanding Islam; who, at 9/11, simply couldn't believe it was an Islamic plot... I agree with Hugh, Isabella the Crusader and others.
Could she be going through some much-needed self-examination, at last?
I'm reminded of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's speech at the Centre for Social Cohesion debate about how it was possible to remain a Muslim once you actually knew anything about Islam. She typified it by 3 main reactions.
1. You go mad trying to square the internal contradictions.
2. You disengage and try to not think.
3. You live with this 'sense of contradiction'.
The fourth option, which Ayaan did not mention, but was the one that she took, was that you leave Islam altogether.
Where is Ms Brown on the Ayaan Scale? Any ideas?
From the comments here, I see that Ms. Brown has a 'past', when it comes to discussing Islam.
This is too bad, because I thought her op-ed piece to be a good one. The way I see it, if Ms Brown is telling the truth about her opinions and those of other women in similar straits, this should be enough.
Why should she be expected to speak for infidels? Shouldn't the infidels who would be affected by an adoption of Shariah speak for themselves? Shouldn't the gays who would be affected, offer their own opinions?
Goodness--should one person have to speak for everyone?
Pat Condell on Sha'aria in England.
Boston Tea Party said
And I agree with you on both points. Other than the word "espouse"; what Muslims espouse is not necessarily what they really believe (I'm referring of course to taqiyya and kitman).
The point is that, yes, this article by Ms. Alibhai is good, but we shouldn't mistake the enemy of our enemy as necessarily being our friend. That principle does not apply when dealing with Dar al-Islam, with its tribal loyalties, Sunni vs. Shi'ite vs. Sufi vs. Ahmadi schisms, and its "me against my brother, my brother and I against our cousin, etc." shifting allegiances. That is the mistake that the West constantly makes in dealing with Dar al-Islam; we see the world through the prism of a Cold War dichotomy: "You're either with us, or against us". With Islam, there is no such immutable clarity. I would accept what she says in this article, without accepting her or Rowan Williams as a true ally. Neither would stand up to protect core Western values without qualification (the same applies to White Supremacists).
Uh, to clarify myself, there is an immutable clarity in Islam on the distinction between True Believer and kufir. What I mean is that Sunni Iraq was happy to "be allied with" the U.S. in its war with Iran, because that was to the advantage of Iraq. They did not then (nor do they now) share the goals or values of the kufirs.
Sunni Saudi Arabia was willing to "be allied with" the U.S. in the first Gulf War against Iraq, because non-Wahhabi Iraq was threatening Wahhabi Saudi Arabia. The Saudis did not then (nor do they now) share the goals or values of the kufirs.
They are not our "allies"; they are willing to have us do their fighting for them. Those are not the same thing.
somerandomdude says....
"While I applaud what she says isn`t she contradicting her religion by saying it treats women like dirt yet she still follows it?"
I couldn't agree more. The entire letter sounds like one big contradiction to me.
I just wanted to say that Armoured Passionfruit is a Great Name, and to agree: Alibhai-Brown is awfully conflicted.
I have never been a big fan of her work, and somehow i doubt that she will ever get the picture, but we must live in hope.
special_guest said:
What I mean is that Sunni Iraq was happy to "be allied with" the U.S. in its war with Iran, because that was to the advantage of Iraq. They did not then (nor do they now) share the goals or values of the kufirs.
Sunni Saudi Arabia was willing to "be allied with" the U.S. in the first Gulf War against Iraq, because non-Wahhabi Iraq was threatening Wahhabi Saudi Arabia. The Saudis did not then (nor do they now) share the goals or values of the kufirs.
They are not our "allies"; they are willing to have us do their fighting for them. Those are not the same thing.
***
Yep, I agree. And similarly, even if we 'win' the Iraq war, I hardly think a Shia-led Iraq is going to be a huge supporter of Western values and interests.
From this site:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/minette_marrin/article3341738.ece
Archbishop, you’ve committed treason.
I hope he annoys everyone, not just muslims.
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown has, as usual got her own agenda here.
Tear yourself away from this comment - go online - and familiarise yourselves with her many previous rants and Id doubt youde agree with anything else the woman has ever said.
With Alibhai-Brown - its a simple case of putting her own best interests first, what-ever the issue!!.
Thanks, Odysseus. I got it - Robert Johnson the Blues singer.
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown remains a Muslim because it suits her vocation of victimhood. She's made a good living out of it. Normally she is attacking white men for being anti-Islamic, now she's found one who is pro-Islamic. It doesn't matter to her - they're all oppressors of Muslims.
justamomof4
"The irony in this letter is astounding. Written by a "modern muslim woman", one Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. Curious surname, "Brown", as it suggests she is married to a kafir."
If I remember correctly she is a "Ugandan Asian" and they were the core of the professional class's in Uganda and fairly westernised. Along with the rest of their community she and her husband were driven out by Idi Amin. When they got to England he ditched her for an Englishwoman after which she met and married Mr Brown.
She is a bit of a loose cannon and the Independent aims to out-liberal and out-Dimmi the rival Guardian. However it is worth mentioning that 5 years ago she said she got more hate mail from fellow muslims than any other group. She also made a short TV programme - which I have not seen - entitled "Why are Muslims so Hated?" This is not something any kuffur could do in Britain without ending up in jail.
Don't nobody diss the blues.............
Ms. Brown's comments are nice to hear, but.............Will she address the other flaws of Islam as well? Time will tell. Will further letters trend towards the critical thinking that we practice in the West? Or is this but a "false image, proceeding from the heat oppressed mind"?
"false creation, proceeding from the heat oppressed mind"
Jeez, you'd think I could quote Shakespeare after all this time.
I have a question to her - why does she follow a guy who has raped, enslaved, murdered, etc etc etc - we all know his reputation on this board - ?
Ok, so she doesn't want sharia law - only a masochist would want those laws. But in the meantime continuing along as a muslim she is saying ok to jihadists whose primary duty is to.... bring sharia law to the land.
Sort of sounds stupid to me.
Yeah, I would love to ask all these masses of 'moderate', 'peaceful' muslims why they follow such a creep as mohammed.
Urgh, how to explain this...
People tend to define themselves as parts of a grouping, one way or another. We're social creatures, made for relationship.
In some cases, this is a self-identification (I am a conservative). In others, it is 'inherited' (I am a Chinese) or defined by fiat (I am a Malaysian citizen). In at least one case, it is 'inherited' but the status-keepers encourage self-identification (I am a Christian).
Most times, these identifications/labels are just that - they provide a convenient shorthand to position yourself in relation to others you will interact with. They can provide a sense of belonging, community, fellowship. And one other thing - they are shallow. Superficial.
I'm sure you've heard of cultural Christians - Sunday Christians - Christmas Christians. People who will not darken the door or a church except when they are 'christened', married or carried in by six pallbearers. Well, my guess is that Ms Whatever-Brown is one of those cultural Muslims.
One is as internally consistent as the other - not very - but that is the power of the group-identity. I am not a very patriotic Malaysian; my rights are not as protected, I pay the jizyah in a very subtle manner (although when everyone knows it, how subtle can it be? But I digress), I will never see a non-Malay/Muslim as PM, etc. But I would still defend Malaysia when 'outside'.
Yes, she's... er, eccentric. But also human, I should think, at least human enough to believe 6 impossible things before breakfast. Which, believe me, I know Islam to be.
If you really think Slam is a pile of doo doo and is sexist racist homophobic & anti semitic why do you still follow it.
Ah, I know, if you leave the true believers will kill you !!
How enlightened.