Feminist leader Naomi Wolf howls as her justifications of Islamic misogyny are exposed

Coincidentally, this is just the kind of thing that I was reading about in an essay by Nick Cohen at Standpoint. More evidence of hypocrisy and double standards to add to the above, here:
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/08/creating-catastrophe

Oops, sorry folks, wrong link. Try this:
http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/2041/full

"Many of the Muslim women she spoke with said that revealing get-ups cause men to stare at and objectify them."

CAUSE men to stare? CAUSE men to objectify women? Oh, please!

Lets be clear on one thing: anyone caught staring or objectifying women is making a personal choice to behave that way. Women cannot CAUSE a man to stare, etc. The decision to stare lies squarely on the shoulders of the person doing it.

The Book of Naomi also allows men to marry up to four wives, and to have sex with slave girls also: "If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice" (Naomi 4:3).

----------------------------------------------

Time to re-read that excellent piece by Raymond Ibrahim, in which Mein Qurampf was exposed as describing the ones "that your right hand possesses" pretty similarly to how Buffalo Bill talked to his prey in The Silence of the Lambs; the difference here is that the aforementioned character is fictional, whereas Mein Qurampf has given inbred bedouin savages "divine permission" to refer to and treat slave girls as objects for centuries:

-----------------------------------------------

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/023923.php

Oddly enough, the Arabic relative pronoun used to indicate these captive women is "ma": ma malakat aymankum, literally, “what your right hands possess” (see Shakir’s acclaimed English translation which most literally translates this). In Arabic, when one refers to a rational being (i.e., a human), the word used is min, which means “who(ever)”; ma, on the other hand, refers only to things or animals—trees, rocks, dogs and cats—very much similar to the English “it.” Thus, in proper Arabic the phrase might have been min malakat aymankum: “who(ever) your rights hands possess.”

For long I assumed this was but a stylistic matter. However, the highly revered Islamic scholar al-Qurtubi (d.1273) also makes this observation in vol. 5, p.12 of his authoritative 20-volume Tafsir Al Koran (Exegesis of the Koran). He points out that members of the human race should be referred to with min (who), whereas only “inanimate objects” or “brute beasts” should be referred to with ma (what).

---------------------------------------------

As a side note, if "min" is the Arabic pronoun to refer to rational beings, isn't it just plain outrageous that male mahoundians would use that, and not "ma", to refer to each other?

Naomi WOlfe from wiki

"In 2006, Scotland’s Sunday Herald carried an interview in which Wolf claimed that, while meditating, she had a visual experience in which she was a 13-year-old boy sitting next to Jesus.[6][7][8] She told the paper, "I absolutely believe in divine providence now, absolutely believe God totally cares about every single one of us intimately."[9] Wolf has subsequently declined to discuss the matter in interviews.[10]"

she is a very articulate wacko

dumped by her husband, Donald Shipley, she needs to make some money and get attention and this is it

she is a loser

I am just beginning to read Jonah Goldberg's book "Liberal Fascism" a premise I have not entirely bought into. Liberalism = Fascism? Naomi Wolf certainly is giving Goldberg's premise a good deal of credibility.

and then she met Jesus

http://www.arlindo-correia.com/240106.html

She needs to be given a one way ticket to darfur or Saudia Arabia. As a white woman she would sell for a high price.loooooooooooooool

AUSTIN-
Interesting link. Rather bewildering but as one gets to the last few sentences of the article the diseased narcissism of this woman comes through "I, I, I....me, me, me."

good post Proud_Kafir -- just one quibble:

"Thus, in proper Arabic the phrase might have been min malakat aymankum: “who(ever) your rights hands possess.” "

That should be "whom(ever)..." since the relative pronoun is in the accusative as being the object of the verb. Does Arabic, by the way, have different cases? Would "min" for example change form depending on whether it is in the nominative, or the accusative, case? (Or for that matter does it have additional cases that English does not have, but which other languages have, like Greek and Latin, such as ablative, genitive, etc.?)

Steve Klein,

I prefer the term "Leftist" to "Liberal". The appropriateness of the term Fascism with regard to Leftism is amply defended and enriched in this long and intelligent essay that argues that Hitler was a Leftist Socialist:

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id9.html

I just finished reading the fifteen pages of comments after the Salon article http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/05/veil_debate/index.html . To the commenters' credit, the overwhelming majority of them reject Tracy Clark-Flory's apologizing for hijabs and abayas in the West, using many of the same arguments as would be found here. Apparently we're not the only Islamophobes out there!

One of the commenters used a wonderful analogy that neatly encapsulates, in a way I hadn't seen before, the Leftist's treatment of culture. Below are segments from commenter "CindyLu":

"It's great that Academics have the luxury of a Disney View of Other Cultures...

"You know I'd love a Disney-Age-of-Aquarius-Group-Hug where we could view the rigorously veiled women of the Disney world in a Small World ride with tea cups. Maybe after that the ride could go through white-sheet land and take a tour of every one-down, oppressed groups while seeing them holding hands, swaying....

"It is a shame that the Disney-ride-anthropologists can't articulate any cogent argument that any other culture could be oppressive or wrong if in private women still seem to smile, laugh occasionally and still have a sex drive."

Disney-ride-anthropologists. Perfect! One can see how this concept is embraced by a wider world of adherents than Disney producers with their rides and movies; it applies to most of public broadcasting in the U.S. in general, e.g., the CPB (Corporation for Public Broadcasting) and NPR (National Public Radio) offerings, as well as many National Geographic print and film productions. It's a world where foreign cultures are defined entirely by their exotic locales, dress, food, music, dance and art, in other words, all the external manifestations of a culture but without any of the underlying world views, including especially religious, behind it.

Of course, there's never anything bad in any culture that doesn't exist in equally bad, if not worse, form in other cultures, especially our own. There are only smiles and dances and good food and sunsets and so on. No one ever gets hurt, except perhaps their feelings when "misunderstandings" occur, and these can always be solved with group hugs. Any evil that appears is because of Western interference of or destruction of idyllic primitive cultures. The Crusades are part of this, of course, with their unprovoked attack on peaceful Muslims in the Holy Land.

Sound familiar? Commenter CindyLu over at Salon hit it right on the head.

Why do liberals support the most oppressive ideology in history?

In fact, there is a logical reason, if you understand the liberal mindset.

One thing that all liberals have in common is that they never got over their teen angst, that is, rebelling against authority simply for the sake of rebellion is cool. In the minds of most liberals, Christianity and Judaism are associated with "The Establishment". So, in the minds of liberals, support for other religions = rebelling against authority = I'm cooler than you.

It has long been noted by critics of modern feminism that feminism harbors a latent puritanism (one of those critics being the formerly politically incorrect and therefore refreshing Camille Paglia, who has recently revealed herself to be a woefully illiterate defender of Islam). One detects it, for example, in the autobiographical detail from the Godmother of Modern Feminism herself, Gloria Steinem, when she recounts how in her misguided youth she worked as a Playboy bunny at some swanky club but then she woke up to the "sexual objectification" of women that the Playboy culture exploits. And of course Steinem didn't stop with Playboy, but by extension indicted the whole of male-dominated popular culture (Western of course) as indulging in this kind of sexual objectification of women, principally through its various cultural media, and foremost through "Madison Avenue" as the purveyors and controllers of pop fashions in clothes, images, desires, etc., through television, magazines, movies, etc.

Over the years, various feminist activists have become strange bedfellows with conservative Christians in their common cause of trying to stamp out, or at least radically delimit, things like nude dancing clubs, topless clubs, pornography in various modes (which depending on the extremism of the puritan involved, can be a concept embracing all sorts of images and media), and of course prostitution.

To such feminists, the puritanism of Islam provides two appealing factors:

1) it has the spice of being, in their minds, "ethnic" and non-Western, and thus, it is untainted with the distasteful association the feminists might have now and then in their common cause with Christian conservatives who share their puritanical views about society and culture;

2) and more broadly but closely related to #1, Islam also appeals to the feminists' own anti-Western proclivities insofar as most of them are Leftists, and Leftism is inherently and essentially anti-Western.

All this is explicating from the largely Islamo-illiterate POV of the Western feminists, and leaves undiscussed the massive fact that Islam is not "puritanical" in the sense by which we know it in the West when we think of religious prudes and Amish villagers; rather Islamic puritanism reflects a grotesque schizophrenia about sexuality, by which certain anti-sexual attitudes and superficially ostensible social values of "modesty" are bizarrely intertwined with a demonically depraved culture of hyper-sexuality including rape, abuse, profound misogyny, pedophilia, sexual slavery, and orgiastic frenzies of ultra-violence against women.

Regarding this:

"How interesting that the same things that Western feminists have scoffed at for decades -- "marriage, the bonds that sustain family life, and the attachment that secures a home" -- become warmly appealing when they see them in the Islamic world."

This is what I don't understand! It's not just "official" feminist writers who defend this ideology, it's "regular" people too - the same women who cannot STAND Christianity and call it a patriarchal, oppressive religion! (It's not, but that's how they view and no amount of facts will sway them.)

And yet I have seen these very same types of women continously defending Islam. If someone could make sense of this for me I'd love to hear it. Because it leaves me baffled.

MO
They are scared stiff. They think that the Mooslims will suicide bomb them and they are afraid to say a word. Amazing is that Christians dont kill them or threatern them, yet they degrade the bible. Quran called them vilest creatures, stupid and bad, yet they say and do nothing.

Robert, Naomi Wolf doesn't speak for me, but I am a feminist -- how could I not be? I'm female and I like equality, with no strings attached. What else would you call me?

Equating me with Wolf though sends shudders down my spine. Her thinking is as far removed from mine as is the Ayatollah Khomeini's or Mirabel Morgan's (ugh!).

Wolf obviously spoke to the wrong people.I've lived in a Muslim country and the sexuality there is definitely not "appropriately channeled." How naive is she? And she credits this "appropriate channeling" to Islam?

Her essay is atrocious. I feel she is a borderline convert -- among other things. And she just had to trot out the tired old comparison of mini-skirt versus the veil -- give me a break already.

What we need here is a new term for women like me, and for like-minded women who post here -- not organized feminists, not credential laden academic feminists who've lost touch with reality, not multi-culti types who think "West evil; rest of world great."

And when I read criticism here of "Where are the feminists on the issue of Islamic mysogyny?" etc. I think what must be meant here is "Where are the mainstream feminist organizations?"

I do a lot of work on my own for feminist causes worldwide, most especially in activism for Muslim women, but I do it alone. Feminism means equality of female and male -- nothing more, nothing less.

Robert, please don't denigrate all feminists because of Naomi Wolf. We don't deserve it.

But Westerners should recognise that when a woman in France or Britain chooses a veil, it is not necessarily a sign of her repression.
..........................

This assumes that because these women are not residing in a Muslim country, that wearing the veil is completely non-coercive--a personal choice. This does not consider the overwhelming influence--and, often times, threat--of family and community.

Consider the Aqsa Pervez case, from civilized, open-minded Canada. Living in a free society did not stop young Aqsa Pervez' being murdered for not wearing the hijab.

Mo and Tilly,

"This is what I don't understand!"

Feminists tend to like Muslims because they perceive them to be "ethnic" peoples, with charmingly non-Western, non-white cultures. And at the same time and complementing this, they tend to denigrate their own Western culture. When you factor these two facts in, it's perfectly easy to understand.

Tilly, the fear of being blown up is one part of the equation, but not all of it. See above.

This is an easy one. Naomi Wolf is a useful idiot. If she isn't, who the hell is?

gravenimage,

"This assumes that because these women are not residing in a Muslim country, that wearing the veil is completely non-coercive--a personal choice. This does not consider the overwhelming influence--and, often times, threat--of family and community."

The "Undercover Mosque" series done in the UK uncovered, in mosques deemed to be "moderate" and mainstream in England, preachers advising their congregation to hit girls who refuse to wear the hijab.

Naomi Wolf may yet surprise us all. She may yet, that is, not do what at this point would be the most obvious thing, which would be to go whole hog, and end her silly Spiritual Search, and simply convert to Islam. Gosh, it worked for Yvonne Ridley. And Ingrid Mattson. And any number of Western women who married some liquid-brown-charmer (interested in them not only for the Green Card they would help to insure, but also for the salary they brought in, or the likely future inheritance) and now happily hijabbed (it's like belonging to a special club -- it gives one importance, like Huey and Dewey and Louie in the Junior Woodchucks of America), and those women, having converted without much understanding of Islam, also fail to consider One Big Thing: the children whom they raise as Muslims will be raised up brainwashed in a faith that stunts moral and mental growth. And what mother, if she really thought about it, would want such a thing for her children? But they don't know it, as yet, because they marry a Muslim, and convert to Islam, oblivious to much that is in the Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, and without really understanding the history of Islam over the past 1350 years, and know little about the attitude toward almost all forms of artistic expression in Islam, and toward free and skeptical inquiry, and toward the Believer himself, who is taught to be a "Slave of Allah," who should never question any part of Islam.

Some -- a little late - find out more, sometimes by reading, but usually through grim experience. Adn their children? Their children, having been brought up in a family suffused with Islam, sometimes -- but how often? -- manage to fight their way to mental freedom.

If Naomi Wolf does the unsurprising thing, and converts to Islam, perhaps she can find a gig as the ex-Jewish counterpart to the ex-Catholic Ingrid Mattson, and teach at the Hartford Seminary. If she does get such a job, I suggest she not visit the nearby home of Mark Twain -- he didn't like what he saw of Islam's effects in the Middle East. And the other attraction that Hartford offes -- the Wadsworth Atheneum -- is full of statues, strengst verboten in Islam, and paintings, most of them also unacceptable in Islam because, you see, they depict human figures.

Oh, well. She can always learn to recite the Qur'an in this or that recitation style. Perhaps Ingrid Mattson can join in.

"but inside, women were as interested in allure, seduction and pleasure as women anywhere in the world."

Come on, Naomi, we all know that Muslims Do-It! So why the line of questioning about their sex life? It still doesn't solve the problem of how women are Slaves to a bizarre dress code. The details of their sex life is a secondary issue, and it doesn't address the main issue. We know they get-it-on behind closed doors. So what.

Plus, I'm trying to imagine the line of questioning that Naomi had for the Muslim women about their sex life during her travels to the ME, because you don't just stumble upon this kind of information without asking certain questions, right? Gosh! ...not even my BF knows what kind of allure & seduction I use on my own husband, let alone what I find pleasurable in the bedroom. The entire topic of their sex life is nothing more than a silly distraction from what's important.

Naomi the "feminist" ...now that is funny.

Islam has never treated women with respect,dignity or love...

Support for the 'sexuality' hidden behind the veil. How touching.
I guess the lack of consideration for the clitorectomies, the honor killings for apostasy, the 1/2 worth of a women comapared to a man in legal testimony, all that is just that 'hidden sexuality' being fortified by Vit B Mo'

Oh yes.... the storehouse of vigor of it all.
What's scary is the blinders that come with or without hijabs.
Being numb as a boot and dead from the neck up isn't just for ordinary folks, as we all know.

It has a special flavor when sung by the elites.... oh naomi wolfe, I bet you never put it all together to show that hidden sexuality is just the point. It's all hidden. It's all stored.

And they don't get it. Tyranny loves tyranny. It justs like it in a pretty style. Because fashion is of course.... everything

Mark

Can anybody tell me where in the Muslim world women are recognized as spiritual beings? I must have missed something, but a tilth is not a spiritual being, not in my books, anyway.

As for women wearing veils in Western countries, most of them are not forced by husbands and/or family, they're simply brainwashed. I can see that when I go to Islamic websites and read the comments of women who take pride in their veils and stuff like that. I sometimes comment there as well, but my posts are normally rejected. They're deluding themselves into the idea of feeling free, not to be objectified. That's pure moronism. It's exactly the other way round, women are only perceived as objects of sexual desire, nothing else, not their ideas, their personality etc. are of importance, they're mere objects. That's why they have to cover themselves. Remember that moronic Australian chief imam who said that uncovered women are like uncovered meat.

There is another very important issue that these stupid Western feminists ignore, the total lack of romantic love in Islam. Romantic love is the drive of most of our great poetry, our novels, our songs and films. Arguably it's also the drive of some corny songs and minor works of art. It's an essential part of our culture and not only of Western culture, you find this concept all over the civilised world. But not in Islam where women are not respected, they're degraded, where toddlers are seen as objects of sexual desire, perversion to the power of ten.

But how can we explain all this to these stupid bitches, the likes of Naomi Wolf? I wish my good old friend Siggy Freud were still alive, I can imagine he'd enjoy analysing that moronism.

Women with the mentality of Naomi Wolf are not feminists but haters of Western Civilization. They want to see Western Civilization end as we know it even though they do not have the slightest idea what lies in store for women. Objectivity or even the slightest interest in history is foreighn to them. They want change for the sake of change. And as we are learning, change for change sake is rarely a good thing.

I noticed that in her many demands for apologies, Naomi says that she acknowledged the bad things that go with veiling.

The only problem was that I didn't notice it in her article. All I found was the following:

"I do not mean to dismiss the many women leaders in the Muslim world who regard veiling as a means of controlling women."

-That isn't much of an acknowledgment. I wonder if she even knows what she writes.

P.S. I also noticed that Naomi's new article is the same as her old article; the one Hugh dealt with last year.

How does she account for the fact that there are more rapes in the Islamic world than the overly exposed Western world? I think Wolf is worthy of an honor mutilation to teach her what Islam is all about.

"women truly and legitimately see dressing scantily in public as repressive and experience covering up outside of their home as freeing...."

It's only truly freeing if a woman has a choice in what she wears, whether at home, or out in public -- and that currently is not the case within Islam. And if Hefty bags weren't mandatory, and a woman still wanted to wear one while out in public, then by all means, knock yourself out. But if a woman wants to wear a tank top and capris, like what I'm wearing now, and dress in a manner that's cool and comfortable, especially on warm days like today, then she should have the freedom to do that also.

I cannot think of a more moving & devastating condemnation and deep analysis of the left's attraction to & ultimately support of Islam than Jamie Glazov's presentation here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8jNwvvLJo

Defending Wolf's piece, Ms. Clark-Flory writes:

"...Wolf is trying to force a shift in the perspective of her Western readers so that we might seriously consider the possibility that some Muslim women truly and legitimately see dressing scantily in public as repressive and experience covering up outside of their home as freeing."

I am unutterably sick and tired of this intellectually dishonest dichotomy between 7th-century Arabian dress and being "scantily clad"--as if the majority of non-Muslim women walk around in public in tube tops, short-shorts, etc. It is usually only the very young and slim who dress "scantily" anywhere other than the beach. I certainly don't feel especially provocative in the ankle-length denim skirt and long T-shirt I'm currently wearing, nor do I care whether any men find my getup sexy or not.

I had this discussion once with an American-born, female Muslim student who earnestly informed me that "all [non-Muslim] Western women are sex objects." Really? I asked. My mom the retired teacher who has always worn long, loose skirts and cardigans? My 97-year-old grandmother? Female physicians, scientists, athletes? What about women who choose to wear non-skimpy, non-sexy clothes? Those who wear makeup? She had no answer, of course.

Great work Mr. Spencer, PLEASE re-post this again during the work week when many more people can see it.

You've taken one book (Koran) which not only allows, but condones rape, sex slavery, polygamy, kidnapping, ransom, torture, theft, robbery, murder and every other felony by Western standards.

You've totally eviscerated a liberal feminist by replacing the exact content and attributed it to her. By her recent silence, and now acceptance of these horrific crimes , she not only shows her hypocrisy, but allows us to laugh at her.

The wolf has become a sheeple.

PS Please keep posting those death threats for the world to see.

The term Feminism, like the term Liberal, have been abused by their leaders.

I consider myself to be a Liberal Right Winger. You read that right. I also consider myself to be a feminist. I'm the father of two daughters. I want them to be all they can be.

I consider myself a Liberal, because I take a classic philosophical approach to things. I'm not in favor of doing things because we have always done things that way.

What these useful idiots have done is to take these terms such as Liberal, and Feminist, and to align the movements with Illiberal cultures with strong mail chauvinist beliefs.

I don't know what it is about Islamic Fundamentalism that attracts these moths to the flame, but there is no denying that they've been circling the fire and they're getting burned.

Wolf...howls... funny.

Guess she's never heard of Stockholm Syndrome.

Yes...the women of islam choose to be treated as idiot children, unable to choose for themselves those things that are meaningful in life.
Where they might choose to go. What they might choose to wear. What people they might choose to associate with. All these things must be supervised by a male.
If that aint sexist nuthin' is.
What a stupid hypocritical bitch.

islam is a lie and
Truth is killing it.

A Wolf in Sheep's burqa?

Epistemology - you commented on the lack of romantic love in Islam.

It should be noted that Ayaan Hirsi Ali credits the romantic novels she read as a teenager, while in high school in Kenya, with helping to keep her soul and will alive, in the teeth of some heavy-duty brainwashing from female Muslim Brotherhood Muslim revivalists.

"Inwardly I resisted the [Islamic] teachings...Like many of the other girls in my class, I continued to read sensual romance novels and trashy thrillers, even though I knew that doing so was resisting Islam in the most basic way. Reading novels that aroused me was indulging in the one thing a Muslim woman must never feel: sexual desire outside of marriage.

"A Muslim woman must not feel wild, or free, or any of the other emotions and longings I felt when I read those books. A Muslim girl does not make her own decisions or seek control. She is trained to be docile. *If you are a Muslim girl you must disappear, until there is almost no you inside you* {my emphasis added - dda}.
"In Islam, becoming an individual is not a necessary development; many people, especially women, never develop a clear individual will. You submit; that is the literal meaning of the word Islam, submission. The goal is to become quiet inside, so that you never raise your eyes, not even inside your mind.

"But the spark of will inside me grew even as I studied and practiced to submit. It was fanned by the free-spirited novels, the absence of my father, and the frustration of watching my mother's helplessness living in a non-Muslim country.

"*Most of all, I think it was the novels that saved me from submission* {my emphasis added - dda}." (Infidel, p. 94).

And to this testimony we may add Nonie Darwish's account of how she felt when, as a teenager {ayaan's age: fizzing with hormones and female longings} she happened to watch an old American movie and saw an extended scene representing in some detail a traditional western Christian wedding - a man and a woman, who had freely chosen each other, publicly vowing exclusive loyalty to one another; the woman not a passive object of a contract of sale, but a speaking, desiring agent; and the man 'forsaking all other', committing himself to a monogamous relationship with his bride.

Nonie states that even then she *knew* that this was *not* what she, as a Muslim woman in a heavily sharia-influenced society, could ever dream of having, when her time came to marry; but once having seen it, this powerfully attractive other way of being, she wanted it. How she wanted it!

ProudKafir7908 -

re. the dehumanisation and objectification of women in Islam, here's something that was posted here on jihadwatch by a poster called 'Silvester', on 31 October 2005.

The 'money quote' is an excerpt from a Shiite Muslim, Sadr ad-deen Shirazi, who argued openly that women were not, in fact, human at all; that they merely had the appearance of human beings. (Perhaps that mindset is why slavegirls are referred to as ma 'what' rather than min 'who', in the Quranic verse Raymond remarked upon).

"Some sites with lots of quotes showing the honour and respect Islam accords women. And let's not forget that they have been misinterpreted (sarc):
http://www.vinnomot.com/AKasem/IslamicWomenDay.htm
http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00000956&channel=university%20ave
(Ghazali)
http://debate.domini.org/newton/womeng.html

'This is my favourite, from the last site
 (under 'Women's Deficiencies'):

"That Sadr ad-Deen Shirazi classifies women as animals is a delicate allusion to the fact that women, due to the deficiency in their intelligence and understanding of intricacies, and due to their fondness of the adornments of the world, are truly and justly among the mute animals [al-haywanti al-sa^mita].

"They have the nature of beasts [ad-dawwa^b],

"but they have been given the disguise of human beings

"so that men would not be loath to talk to them and be compelled to have sexual intercourse with them.

"That is why our immaculate Law [shar'ina al-mutahhar] takes men's side and gives them superiority in most matters, including divorce, "nushuz," etc.”
--
Women are merely *disguised* as human beings. That about sums it all up!
- Posted by: Silvester at October 31, 2005 8:04 AM

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/008769.php#c137235

"A Muslim woman must not feel wild, or free, or any of the other emotions and longings I felt when I read those books." -- a quote from Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Here are two definitely non-Muslim women expressing non-Muslim sentiments.

Lillian Roth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UwOrWnXOQ0

Ethel Waters: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me6-E1bO_Yg

Fun For The Whole Family:

Find songs, and singers, on YouTube to add to your own list of songs and sentiments verboten in Islam.

"Many of the Muslim women she spoke with said that revealing get-ups cause men to stare at and objectify them."

Hahahaha! She would be the one to suffer most if men stopped looking at her. Pathetic!

She might even turn into a real sex-kitten if a bearded macho-mullah whacks her into submission, something I'd really love to see.

But then there are increasing numbers of western females who travel to Africa to equalize their hormone imbalance (which is as much a mental imbalance) because they feel time runs out for them, and they often end up fleeced and destitute. Sadly, the story doesn't end there, they also enable their Mohammedan papagallis to settle in the west, with their extended family clans, and by that they employ armies of social workers. Perhaps that's what they mean by creating "green jobs".

Ya, I agree with Hugh above: the 'portable seclusion' would do her good. She may yet surprise us - I can't wait!

In her article in the Sydney Morning Herald, Wolf writes:

“When Americans were being prepared for the invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban were demonised for denying cosmetics and hair colour to women…”

By diverting the reader's attention away from the Taliban's refusal to educate women, and their murder, rape, dismemberment, flogging, etc., of women, Wolf tries to create the impression that the Taliban were "demonized" only for unimportant, superficial reasons. (One also might forget that the Taliban is hardly alone in its strict enforcement of the traditional Islamic female dress-code, e.g., see Saudi Arabia, Iran, or any number of Islamic communities in Western Europe.

Again, when one reads authors who present themselves as Islamic apologists, such as Wolf and Tracy Clark-Flory, one gets the distinct impression that they believe that there are no legitimate criticisms of Islam--just superficiality, stereotypes, and misunderstanding.

At the same time, one gets the impression that Wolf, Clarke-Flory, et al., do not really believe the claims they are making about the wonders of life under Islamic rule. One suspects this for the obvious reasons that these apologists for Islam do not actually become Muslims, do not on a regular basis wear the clothing whose alleged virtues they extol, are not actually married to Muslim men, do not attend mosque, have almost certainly not read the Quran or the Hadith, and do not live under Islamic rule. In short, if they believe what they say, why aren't they Muslims? The probable answer is that there are political, financial, and social advantages of various sorts for engaging in these kinds of public posing and posturing about how great Islam "really" is and how liberating it is to dress up according to the traditional Muslim female dress code for the weekend.

Then, Wolf turns to the inevitable comparison with Western styles of dress. Many of the Muslim women she spoke with said that revealing get-ups cause men to stare at and objectify them. Wearing a headscarf or chador, however, leads people to "relate to me as an individual, not an object," they told her. When Wolf went to the local bazaar wearing a shalwar kameez and a headscarf, which hid her womanly curves and wild hair, she "felt a novel sense of calm and serenity" and even, "in certain ways, free."

Muslims view the sight of a Burka, a nijab, or a chador as a sign of Muslim dominance,,they are ment to strike fear into non Muslims....sort of a visual warning "Fear this ...Infidel"

Wolf's impressionistic allusions to her anecdotal experiences in countries such as Morocco aren't worth much in the way of telling us about Muslim women's experiences or candid opinions more widely. Indeed, Wolf is hardly an objective reporter; her alleged experiences were probably carefully prepared in advance, and the people she interacted with were probably carefully selected. Even with all that, I do not believe, based on what I've read of Wolf, that any experiences apparently contrary to her thesis would be mentioned, much less explained in a way that preserves her thesis.

An anecdote is just that; I can cite other travelers (e.g., Sarah Braasch) who do not have such a glowing review of Islamic dress codes or of life for females in countries such as Morocco, which Wolf claims to have visited. Putting anecdotes aside though, the large-scale surveys of Moroccans indicate large majorities of people support a strict application of sharia, and it so happens that strict application of sharia includes forced compliance with the Islamic dress codes for women. It is also telling that Wolf does not deal with the treatment of non-Muslim women in such countries, or in proximity to Muslim communities in the West, in light of the traditional Islamic views of non-Muslim women and the Muslim dress code.

As there used to be "salon communists" (privileged twits who like the au courant feel of being "naughty" and "red"), Naomi is a "salon Islamist".

Failing to examine and thereby understand the dismal dogmas of the misogynistic Mohammedan faith, she takes a few coyly misunderstood details ( the veil, et al), twists them to her own shallow polemical ends, and blithely romanticizes the repression of her sisters at the hands of patriarchal a**holes in order to "skewer the bourgeoisie" of her own culture.

A contrarian poseur who doesn't grasp that she is preening on a scaffold.

And endangering women everywhere.

Chesler has a great critical response to the Wolf article; here is the link:

http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2009/08/31/the-burqa-the-ultimate-feminist-choice/

dumbledoresarmy,

On women as animals in Islam, the great Islamic exegete, Razi, in his tafsir on the Koran (particularly 30:21), wrote:

"His saying 'created for you' [i.e., for men] is a proof that women were created like animals and plants and other useful things... For women are not charged with many commands as we are charged, because the woman is weak, silly, in one sense she is like a child, and no commands are laid upon a child..."

(If Razi is referring to women like Naomi Wolf, then he's dead right!)

And the quote you provided, expounding on Sadr ad-Deen Shirazi, was apparently originally written by Hadi Sabzevari (born 1797). I have a source for it, but not sure if it's accurate:

Quoted in Soroush, Abdolkarim, _Farbehtar az ideoloji_, Sera^t, Tehran, 1373 A.H.S. [which = 1953?]

Also, Infidels according to the Koran are "worse than cattle" (25:44).

And 7:176 says that "people who deny Our revelations" are like "panting dogs with their tongues out".

Kinana,

"In short, if they believe what they say, why aren't they Muslims? "

Your theory is not necessarily persuasive, since other various PC MC pop anthropologists who are similar to Wolf have for decades extolled the quasi-paradise of the Noble Savage of various different non-Western cultures, most of which have regressive anti-liberal practices of various kinds, but these same Western pop anthropologists didn't feel the need to actually "go native" and become a Maori or a Watusi or a Hottentot or a South Pacific cannibal. It's enough for them to develop and maintain the paradigm by which those "Others" are embraced and "respected" in an intellectual and emotional (if not also political for the more activist among them) context of denigrating their own West at the same time by way of contrast. I've long suspected this and have thought a lot about the mechanism of thinking that supports this paradigm. It wasn't until I analyzed the 16th-century philosopher Montaigne's view of cannibals (of South America) that I got a closer appreciation of the torturous logical bundle of incoherency that seems to be at the heart of it.

Montaigne: Godfather of PC MC?

horselady, great site http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/ . Thanks for providing a link - I've book marked it.

Hesp,

I'm not sure what it is in my post that you are arguing against, and it is not clear to me what you offer in your post is different or other than what I suggested.

I asked rhetorically, "In short, if they [apparent Islam apologists such as Wolf] believe what they say, why aren't they Muslims?"

and answered with the broad and speculative

"The probable answer is that there are political, financial, and social advantages of various sorts for engaging in these kinds of public posing and posturing about how great Islam "really" is ...[etc]"

I don't see my casual speculations as offering a competing explanation (much less a "theory") to "PC MC" or whatever one wants to call it. A possible distinction is that I was referring to rewards rather than ideology, but mentioning the one is not to deny the other. Obviously there are some ideological components to the phenomenon of non-Muslims who publicly extol the virtues of Islam yet do not become Muslims.

Epistemology and Dumbledore's Army, thanks for your comments about romantic love and Islam's hostility to it.

Oddly, many women who consider themselves feminists are also extremely hostile to romantic love, believing it tricks women into believing in "the fairy tale", and believe it fosters dependence and lack of self-reliance.

Unbelievably, some have even waxed fondly over the idea of arranged marriages--something Western women struggled against for centuries before they became free to love and marry as they pleased.

Freely choosing whom to spend your life with, as an equal partner--or choosing to go it alone--is, in my belief, absolutely central to living a free life.

As for the feminist movement..

I have heard it said that the feminist movement was not so much about freeing or empowering women, as adding to the tax base. Breaking up the nuclear family. Allowing the government through "public education" to better indoctrinate and control our children as a result of Mom getting home from work too late to ask what her children have been told. Too busy to correct the historical inaccuracies and bold faced lies being told in our schools. NEA? Radicals in my eyes teaching and lying to the future citizenry of our great country. I do not necessarily subscribe to this theory, but it kinda makes sense.
I used to scoff at the idea that there was a purposeful "dumbing down" of America going on. Now I see it in action and the results thereof. Obama for one, although the treasonous acts of the MSM are most to blame.

I see nothing wrong with women being treated as equals to men although I am an old fashioned fart and hold them in higher regard than I do my fellow male. I still hold the ancient notion that it is my duty as a man to protect women in general. I walk on the street side beside my woman to protect her from what might fly up from the street as a car passes. If someone maligns her in my presence, that person had better be ready to defend themselves because I WILL kick his ass inside out.
PC? Not me. Just an old fart with old values.

No islam...Know Peace
Know islam...throw up.

Wolf wrote:
"It is not that Islam suppresses sexuality, but that it embodies a strongly developed sense of its appropriate channelling - toward marriage, the bonds that sustain family life, and the attachment that secures a home."

A few observations:

-Note how Islam is a monolithic block in the above quote. This is textbook Islam apologetic; i.e., to present Islam as monolithically good; whereas when responding to criticisms, Islam apologists suddenly find all kinds of variation and nuance in the "Islams."

-"appropriate channelling"?
Who or what gets excluded from this so-called appropriate channelling scheme which Wolf praises?

1. Mainstream Islamic law imposes a major restriction in that it is illegal for a Muslim woman to have sex with or marry a non-Muslim man. If she breaks this particular Islamic law, the penalties are up to and including death. Before the marriage, the man would have to convert to Islam (the woman cannot convert out of Islam without facing penalties ranging from imprisonment to death) and remain a Muslim.

2. For Muslim women who are tied into traditional Islam (probably most in the Islamic world, but also some in the West), premarital sex is also illegal or forbidden, and is punished severely.

3. Gay and lesbian sex is illegal in Islam and is punished by up to and including death. Is Wolf excluding lesbians from this scheme of appropriate channelling, or does she further imagine that these Islamic notions (of marriage, family, etc.) include lesbians? It does not seem likely that she considered this when she wrote her article.

4. In the Hadiths Muhammad advises Muslim men to marry women who will be loving and very "prolific" so that Muslims will outnumber other peoples. He also advises them to marry virgins because, he claims, virgins have "the most prolific wombs." Thus, we see what is meant by "appropriate channels"--Muslim women can only marry Muslim men and they are advised to produce large families.

Also disturbing is what is considered to be included in the "appropriate channels". For example, the Quran and Hadith permit Muslim men to rape their non-Muslim female captives and slaves. Muslim men are also permitted in Islamic law to rape their wives. Robert and Chesler, in their articles and comments, mention other troubling examples of what mainstream Islam considers "appropriate" sexual activity.

Note also that Muslims pursuing Islam's "appropriate channels" (jihad and sharia) have managed in many cases historically, and in many places at present, to destroy "the bonds that sustain family life, and the attachment that secures a home" (cf. Wolf's quote) for non-Muslim families.

Well said, Alaskan, congrats to your wife and you, what a wonderful relationship! And I wish you, as we do, may you live together until a 120 years. Massel tov!

When I see mohammedan women covered up I see sheer hypocrisy. The claim that they cover up because they want to maintain modesty is crock. Compare their cloak to that of the nun in her habit. When I see that nun, I see a pious person who refrains from and does not indulge in the carnal pleasures. The same cannot be understood of the mohammedan women under the veil. Undoubtedly, the mohammedaness is a woman of this world and indulges in and enjoys all the carnal pleasures and lusts just as much as us infidels. Only, they do it surreptitiously. They can claim neither modesty nor purity. It is the nun who comes as close to purity as humanly possible. Her dress is truly representative of her commitment. On the other hand, the mohammedan woman proclaims modesty but in truth she unwittingly deceives and subordinates herself.

Leftist feminist...

All feminists are leftists. This is so cuz only Marxism provides the ability to decouple from reality and not have to deal with facts and observable phenomena, as with Islam in this case.

*** Tabari IX:113 ***

Well, maybe there are a conservative feminists or two out there. But they would be fishing for a professorship and a book deal.

*** Tabari I:280 ***

Ms. Wolf and her sidekick Ms. Clark-Flory like the behind-closed-doors thing cuz who the hell knows what's happening in there.

By burying the whole mess in the dark recesses of the mysterious Moslem household, the feminists deftly let themselves off the hook for their supertankers of self-serving hypocrisy, intellectual dishonesty, and just plain old cowardice. Pussies.

It never ceases to amaze how Islam intimidates people and co-opts the weak-minded into completely reversing long-standing, seemingly strongly-held views. What's next? Will Jesse Jackson come out extolling the virtues of ankle chains?

Here is Sarah Braasch's account of her time in Morocco. It seems much more realistic to me than Wolf's.
http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/2008/oct/braasch.php

With Naomi so carried away with the role of women in Muslim family life, she may care to read a Muslim woman who is not concerned if she upsets people, Tehmina Durrani. What she has to say in her 1991 novel inspired by a true story, "Blasphemy", makes extremely harrowing reading.

It used to be a core mantra of feminism that in relation to domestic violence, always believe the woman. No longer. Hatred of men has now been replaced by hatred of the West.

Kinana,

"A possible distinction is that I was referring to rewards rather than ideology, but mentioning the one is not to deny the other. Obviously there are some ideological components to the phenomenon of non-Muslims who publicly extol the virtues of Islam yet do not become Muslims."

You are minimizing ideology too much. I would maintain that ideology is the main factor here, and other factors such as perennial venial sins of greed and seeking fame and influence, are secondary at best. It's excruciatingly simple to demonstrate this: would Naomi Wolf go traveling amongst the proud familes of renegade Ku Klux Klanners in the Deep South and extol their "culture" in the same way as she does Muslims? Not in a million years, not for a million dollars.

Wolf and Clark-Flory are text book reference quality specimens of inferior minds with important sounding vocabularies and credentials.

I grow more impressed every day with the human capability to take an adequate, or even superior brain, and abuse it into producing a truly inferior mind.

Education indeed.

Kinana of Khaybar wrote:

Here is Sarah Braasch's account of her time in Morocco. It seems much more realistic to me than Wolf's.
........

Thanks for posting this, Kinana. It is interesting that Braasch expected to find a "progressive" Islam in Morocco, but was horrified by the reality of women's status there.

Her biggest fear in recounting her story? That she would be thought "Islamophobic" or "imperialist". Luckily, her drive to tell the truth won out. If only that sort of honesty and courage were more common.

I found Braasch's account linked by Kinana to be helpful in many respects, but flawed in two important respects:

1) She romanticizes Muslim women. Her only argument in defense of this is possibly cogent -- that Muslim women don't have the power to resist their oppressors, the Muslim men and the patriarchical system that supports that oppression. However, she seems to push her argued theory beyond appropriate limits and implies that any evidence we might adduce to show any Muslim women's collusion (not to mention zealous support) for the same system that is oppressing them (Islam) must be, in Braasch's eyes, only superficial evidence, and furthermore is perceived by her as an insult to those Muslim women and their suffering as victims. This seems irrational: it would be more rational to acknowledge that there is a number of Muslim women who are zealous supporters of Islam, while there also may be a number that reflects Muslim women held, as it were, against their will by Islam. Over the years, we have seen plenty of evidence of the existence of the former -- but again, Braasch would interdict all this evidence and deny its prima facie import on the basis that it's not "really" accurate, given the suffering of Muslim women. She is here effectively denying the "Stockholm syndrome" theory. Perhaps on a purely ethical and personal level, this may be cogent. However, there is another level to consider:

2) More importantly, her concern for Muslim women obfuscates an important distinction: for the purposes of our safety against Muslim terrorists as well as against the ongoing Stealth Jihad (which colludes in camouflaged symbiosis with violent Jihad), some of whom have been, and could be in the future, women, not to mention that innumerable women help in various ways to enable terrorists and Stealth Jihadists both ideologically and logistically -- it doesn't matter if Muslim women are supporting Islam out of coercion or out of zealotry: they still pose a danger to us all the same. The virtue of saving Muslim women from their own Islam must take second place to our #1 priority: our own safety. And wherever the former is seen to even possibly hinder the latter, the rule of thumb should be to reject the former wholly and immediately.

The women of islam love their slave rags...or else!

islam is a lie and
Truth is killing it.

Hesp,

I think you protest, and presume, way too much. The last thing I want to do when I come into the comments section here is get tangled up with you over some nit-picking complaints, unsubstantiated assertions, etc. I have neither the time, nor the patience, nor the interest, to engage in the sorts of discussions you seek.

gravenimage,

Thanks. Braasch's is a riveting, eye-opening account that I hope will reach a wider audience.

Kinana - yes. Thank you for pointing us to the Braasch article.

I have copied and filed it. It is the kind of thing that can be printed out and shared around.

Indeed, it would make an interesting 'handout' if, in company with a selected group of interested females, one were to conduct a private viewing of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's 'Submission'.

Depending on the audience, one could also have various books handy for browsing and discussion - Nonie Darwish on sharia, or Ayaan Hirsi Ali 'Infidel', or Miriam Ali 'Without Mercy', or Phyllis Chesler's 'My Afghan Captivity', or '33 Secrets Arab Men Don't Tell American Women' and 'Escape! From an Arab Marriage', by "Cassandra" (nom de plume).

Re. the Braasch article on treatment of women in Muslim Morocco.

It is eerie to compare Braasch's description of the night cries in Rabat, with Ayaan Hirsi Ali's description of the night cries she heard in a city in Saudi Arabia, the holy heartland of Islam.

Braasch: "I nearly broke under the weight of oppression. The air felt thick with it. I burst into tears at work.

"I cried myself to sleep at night, *listening to the cacophony of cries and screams of the domestic servant girls, some of them Moroccan, some of them foreign, being beaten and raped in the darkness* {my emphasis added - dda}
The discordant melody of wailing and torture would wind down just as the dissonant Muslim call to prayer hailed the rising sun. "

Now, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, in 'Infidel' (p. 47)

"Some of the Saudi women in our neighbourhood were regularly beaten by their husbands. You could hear them at night. Their screams resounded across the courtyards. 'No! Please! By Allah!"

Jeez Louise, Kinana, you don't have to bite my frigging head off. Just ignore me if you don't like me, for crying out loud.

Ah, ballderdash!
This is due to their love of Harlequin Romance novels.
I know...I once lived with one.
She was a Naomi Wolf in sheeps clothing.
She also had dreams of Tara and Rhet Butler.
This is why they think the Arabs are so romantic and Muslim women aren't persecuted but feel the passion between their legs like any other woman.
Feminists don't know shit.
They'll believe any taqiyya that a Muslim man or woman will throw at them because they are so romanitcally enraptured and truly cannot see the forest for the trees.
But don't ever try to open a door for them...you chauvinist pigs!