Domestic Violence occurrs in secularist society, too. One guy I knew who was a batterer was the sort of modern, liberated white American who enjoyed exercising his inalienable right to tell meddlesome preachers to shut up and go to Hell, too (guess who was the guy who found out about his behavior and tried to rebuke him for it). All Islam has done is sanction a common sinful impulse and flatter the vanity of us men.

However, I also understand that anonymous canvassing has revealed that Muslim Egypt leads the world in husbands who get battered by their wives. My guess is that a lot of women in the Muslim world have to be tough.

Posted by: Kepha1 at September 26, 2004 10:39 PM

What makes Pim Fortuyn "right-wing"? Is it the same thing that made the Christian inhabitants of small villages in northern Lebanon, where they had a hardscrabble existence, "right-wing"? Would it be the same thing that causes the Swiss political party that opposes Muslim immigration "extreme right-wing"? This flinging about of an epithet that cannot possibly apply to the libertine, bemused Pim Fortuyn, or to the poor Maronites of the Lebanese mountains, or to those Swiss in the villages (hardly plutocrats) who are the mainstay of the anti-Muslim immigrant party in question, is indicative. There is a vast unstated and uncoordinated effort, almost akin to a conspiracy if one believed in such things, to affix the epithet of "right-wing" to anyone who dares to express doubts about Islam.

The most famous example, of course, is that of Oriana Fallaci, who assisted her father and others in the anti-Nazi Resistance, who has famously been a journalist "on the left" and one who keeps intact the anti-clerical and Republican sentiments (with more than a whiff of Il Risorgimento about her, and all the anti-Vatican feelings anyone might expect) of her family. In what conceivable way could Oriana Fallaci ever be described as "right-wing"? But because she regards Islam, and the Muslim invasion of Europe, as horrifying as the invasion by the Nazis, for it brings a belief-system that is equally fatal to real civilization, she is called "right-wing."

Nothing "right-wing" about her, about Pim Fortuyn, about those Maronites, about all sorts of people at this very website, who are so often maligned in such an easy, silly, obvious, and baseless fashion. It is easier to wave the epithet about, of course, if you carefully refrain from seriously studying the tenets of Islam and the history of Islamic treatment of non-Muslims. Because that way, you can assure yourself that you can more easily insist, using the motto of all those ignoring reality: "Don't confuse me with facts." Indeed.

Posted by: Hugh at September 26, 2004 10:48 PM

Bravo, Hirsi Ali!

Know that the mission you're embarked on is greater than your opposition's meanness or pettiness. I heartily support and sympathise with your situation. cast aside any labesl and political affiliations people may ascribe to you, they're merely pathetic attempts to drag you down to their level of pettiness and parochiality.

Carry on the good work. The benevolent God, should there be one, will protect you.

Posted by: voletti at September 26, 2004 11:04 PM

Hugh,

Islam was never "hijacked," it just went back to its roots. It is liberalism that was hijacked by the collectivists. Montesquieu and Tocqueville would be appalled.

As for the film: It is one thing to depict images regarding domestic violence among Muslim immigrants. That alone would be dismissed by liberals as a result of poverty and racism.

It is quite another to juxtapose these images with the Koran; something completely outside the victimologist paradigm.

Are you reading this liberals? These are the Sakharov's and Walesa's of today. Ignore them to your peril.

We can only pray that Ms. Ali's artistic approach will penetrate the minds that really need it, but I don't expect to see her as a guest on Bill Moyers anytime soon.

Posted by: Rublev at September 26, 2004 11:43 PM

"Otherwise the rule of the jungle will prevail," she added.

Indeed.....aided, assisted, encouraged and excused, by the usual left leaning apologists.

Have the "death threats" to her been condemned?...I dont think so.

Posted by: Joe Bananas...in Pyjamas at September 27, 2004 1:59 AM

Kepha1, who cites the case of a white American batterer in defence of Islam:

* Violence towards wives certainly occurs in Western society, but Christianity, unlike Islam, neither approves nor encourages it. Recently, a Muslim 'spiritual leader' wrote a book advising Muslim males on how to sbjugate their wives - one of the methods specified was beating. If a spiritual leader feels comfortable in writing such a thing, what does that tell us about the religion he represents? I can't recall the last time a Christian or Buddhist cleric wrote a book on how to extract obedience from females -

* Presumably, the man in this case was arrested and charged with assault - according to the laws of 'secular' western countries. Would this have happened if the country in question had been Muslim? Or would the male in question have gotten a gold star for doing his duty?

"All Islam has done is to sanction a common sinful impulse --"

What kind of religion sanctifies sin? Isnt one of the main aims of religion to teach us to resist 'sinful impulses'?

Not so strange, perhaps, that the one religion sanctioning sinful impulses and violence against helpless females, should be Islam.

Posted by: DianaC at September 27, 2004 2:24 AM

I love free speech and creativity!
Is it possible that the very muslims who are there to change Dutch society are having their core beliefs questioned within the umma-Hollandia itself because Dutch society offers an alternative world view that puts sharia to shame? Ask these women?

Posted by: D' Artist at September 27, 2004 3:50 AM

Hugh

You are very right. I am actually a social liberal myself yet my foreign policy is the very opposite of the official position taken by the left. For this the left would label me right wing. Right wing is not my true nature, it is my ideological punshment (by the left) for being free to be different, to value individualism above rigid conformity. I don't beleive in appeasement to a totalitarian movement... I dont think it will give us "Peace in our own time".

I admire Orwell exactly becuase he was a social democrat yet understood that socialism resulted in a kind of fascism within itself. That sociaism demanded the individual to conform to a rigid ideological belief system and would not tolerate difference any kind within its ranks. Orwell realised that it was the right to be different that gave us democracy and our freedom, that made our lives worth living. Yet his mainstream socialist compatriots despised this concept of freedom of thought and the right to be diferenent from the official socialist creed. He knew what they (his fellow socialists) didn't know...they were acting like the fascists they so despised, that they were to stupid or indoctrinated ideologically to realize or accept this...just like the INGSOC party members in 1984.

We have been labeled (i.e. punished) right wing because we have commited a thought crime. We have become to the left "unpersons" to be neutralised in any way legally possible.

I dearly wish Orwell was a live today. He would have written a book about the islamist threat...maybe a "2084". I lament there is not a successor to him to write the book that is needed to be written for our sakes. He would be as scathing of the left now as he was in his day. The left really hasn't changed, they despise us for we now the truth and don't value it above the power of the party. For this they hate us. We are thought criminal all.

2 PLUS 2 EQUALS 4.

Posted by: obl r us at September 27, 2004 4:03 AM

apologies for the typos

Posted by: obl r us at September 27, 2004 8:11 AM

typo: I meant:

"they despise us for we know the truth and value it above the power of the party."

Posted by: obl r us at September 27, 2004 8:13 AM

She's a real trooper allright.

I posted this before but will do it again: if you're familiar with the P2P edonkey netowrk and want to see "Submission", here's a link:

Submission (Part I)- Theo van Gogh - Ayaan Hirshi Ali - MPEG2.mpg

Posted by: Frank at September 27, 2004 8:45 AM

Hirsi Ali is great, and she has demonstrated her courage and dignity once again.

I've seen a documentary about her, in which a man from a multicultural organization dismisses her as hysterical and extreme, "traumatized" of her experiences of genital mutilation and threat of forced marriage. By that logic, you can never criticize these practices: if you have not suffered from them yourself, you don't know what you're talking about; and if you do know what you are talking about, you are "traumatized" and can't be taken seriously.

Comparing Hirsi Ali with her multiculti critic raises an interesting question: in which case are you actually "racist" - when you support the black Somali-born (ex)Muslim woman who says that Muslim women should be entitled to the same legal protection as other Dutch women, or when you take the side of the white, Dutch-born, multiculti man who dismisses Hirsi Ali as hysterical, and says that the emancipation of Muslim women in the Netherlands should happen gradually, from within "their own culture" and in accordance with the Koran (which endorses the beating of disobedient wives)?

Posted by: Scandie at September 27, 2004 9:04 AM

I saw Ayaan last week as I crossed the Binnenhof in The Hague where Parliament is located. Most MP's arrive by foot or bike.

Ayaan made her entrance in a bullet-proof car, with three broad-shouldered bodyguards in it. She had to relocate the week before because her adress - which was already a safe house under secret service protection - was made public by a Muslim website. A religion of peace. Sure.

Just don't say freedom isn't free.

And America please. Come november, win one for the Gipper (=Dutch Reagan).

Posted by: martin from amsterdam at September 27, 2004 9:36 AM

SHARIA COURT IN ONTARIO

Hi ya’ll. I thought that would get your attention.
Greetings from Canada! Are you as concerned over the
current controversy over sharia as many Canadians are?
Then please take a few moments to read my post…I
couldn’t take the risk over sending it directly to
Robert Spencer’s e-mail, due to the fear of my mail
becoming bogged down through regular channels. Anyway,
I’d just like to brief you all on the current
situation here in Canada. It’s a long post…just to
warn you…

In Vancouver, amidst a crowd of protesters, the
premier of B.C. reiterated his pledge not to allow for
an Islamic court in Vancouver, however, Ms. Homa
Arjomand is still angry with the premier, claiming
that ‘it’s not enough.’ Oh, and for those of you who
were concerned about the September 8th protests, the
protests went along just fine, no, they were not
banned, and they did not ‘incite racial hatred.’ No,
Canada is not going down the toilet…no, amputations
will not be allowed, the Charter still has the final
say….no one will be stoned to death. There have been
clashes between the Pro-Israeli student groups and the
Pro-Palestinian student groups at Concordia University
(physical and verbal), over the alleged recruitment by
the Israeli groups to recruit Israeli fighters to go
to Israel, and clashes between the two groups have
become more and more frequent this past year.

A member of Dhimmi Watch once pointed out the fact
that the wife of Maher Arar (the Canadian-Syrian man
who was deported by the US and tortured in Syria for
two years), is running for membership for a party. She
is, by the way, a very smart lady, who even has a
degree in Engineering from Waterloo (one of Canada’s
most prestigious universities.) She was trying to
become part of the NDP, in order to make sure that no
one would be put through such a harrowing ideal as her
husband once was, not trying to turn Canada into an
Islamic state. By the way, in case you are still a
little apprehensive, don’t worry, the NDP only has 27
seats in Canada’s parliament, so they are hardly a
majority.
Anyway, I’m sure that you all know by now that Ontario
has had Hassidic Courts for decades, and that both
Christians and Jews have been using them for years. In
fact, at this moment, Canadian Jewish women are asking
the Ontario government to review and possibly
dismantle the Jewish courts, claiming that past
rulings have been ‘racist, homophobic, and sexist.’
Furthermore, the government is put in a tough spot:
they can’t say ‘Jews, we like your courts, so you can
stay. Muslims we don’t like yours.’ This situation has
divided Muslims within the community, and I asked a
Muslim girl from my school, part of an organization
called MSA(Muslim Student’s Association), what were
her thoughts. She told me that she was unequivocally
against it, and that what the Qu’ran gives women,
sharia takes away, and that arbitration should be left
as a private matter. She also claimed that the Hadiths
were false, that they were created 200 yrs after the
Muhammad, and that most Muslims didn’t believe in
them.

Like the Muslims, Christians also have a similar
organization called the Varsity Christian Fellowship,
and each hold a ‘Christian Awareness week,’ and a
‘Muslim awareness week,’ whereby they each give out
Bibles and Qu’rans. I can’t tell you how annoying they
both are, but it doesn’t seem to bother the any other
students, because no one pays any attention to either
of them. As a former Christian, however, I can’t tell
you how annoying Christians can be, trying to ‘bring
me back into the fold.’ Both religions suck, suck bad,
because religion tells you what to think.

Anyway, the government is in a tough spot because it
doesn’t want to alienate both the Jews and the
Muslims. The liberal government doesn’t have to worry,
though, because no one with half a brain would vote
for the Ontario PC. Those school-closing,
tax-cuts-for-the-rich, hospital closing..you see where
I’m going with this….Anyhoo, as it stands now, the
tribunal is still being set up. There will be about 30
members, I believe, elected by members of the
community, but Syed (the man who suggested the idea in
the first place), wishes to see more female members.
The courts can only deal on matters of inheritance,
divorce, and business. My brother, also a lawyer,
claims that Syed is a money-grubbing freeloader, which
is partly true. The sharia courts will be cheaper to
use than using the secular courts, and, the proponents
claim, it will be easier because the arbitration will
be done in their own language(?) Like they couldn’t
get a translator in the secular courts? Also, as one
man pointed out, what about Immigrant Muslim women who
don’t know their rights? I suppose that’s true…but if
you are a young woman living in Canada who doesn’t
want to go to the Islamic court, then you should stand
up for you’re rights, because the law is on your side.
Within the arbitration process, there will be a lawyer
for both the man and the woman, who will inform both
parties of their rights, and, yes, women can get just
as much inheritance as men. So I really think that
there is some fear mongering going on….done to
distract the public from more important issues. The
Taliban are not coming to Canada, there is no Islamic
Republic of Canada…and, don’t worry, if some
fundamentalists decide to cross over the border to
pick a fight….well, don’t pick a fight with angry
Americans who hate ‘dem damn furrigners’ and who
consider it their god-given right to shoot anything
that moves (LOL)..That was a joke, people.

Actually Syed never said that the Sharia courts were
better for women. All he said was that there is no
distinction between being a Muslim and how you act.
What were women doing before? The Hassidic courts also
conceded the fact that gender neutral courts may be
better for women. Both the Islamic Council of Canada
and the Canadian Council of Muslim women oppose the
sharia court, along with a great number of Muslims
(male as well as female), oppose the courts, and are
rather confused as to how arbitration courts are going
to impose rulings. First, most don’t like the idea b/c
of social pressure, fearing that any woman who opposes
it will be ostracized. Second, because there is much
confusion over how to interpret such rulings ordained
by the tribunal ( a sh’itte Muslim wouldn’t accept a
ruling from a Sunni Muslim). Third, there is a fear
that allowing for such courts within Canada could
bring a new social conservatism. I get the sense that
there is a lot of fear mongering. Muslims are actually
very well integrated into society, and I think that
may be in part due to the fact that discrimination
laws are tougher in North America. However, there is
still fear over allowing the courts into Canada, there
is no evidence that the courts are being brought in by
social conservatives from abroad. The courts weren’t
being endorsed by anyone from the Saudis. Even the
Gestapo(Christian Heritage Party) pointed out that
there is an incredible amount of fear-mongering going
on. However, they did point out one case for alarm:
that Syed might try to bring in polygamy through a
loophole in the Charter. Most Canadians don’t want
polygamy, especially after the recent raid on a
Christian fundamentalist community in Vancouver. Women
were subjected to religious indoctrination, beatings,
and isolation.

In any case, if you are opposed to the sharia courts,
there is much you can do: you can stage protests,
petitions. Writing letters to Canadian newspapers
doesn’t help, as one member of Dhimmi Watch suggested.
Frankly, no one really cares if you complain to the
opinion pages or not. International pressure would
help, and it stopped the Canadian seal hunt, which was
about four months ago. As a Canadian, I’m a firm
believer in the separation of Church and State, and
so, I don’t think any religious courts should be
allowed. Homa Arjomand will be speaking at the
University of Toronto on the 4th and again in
November. You all seem so passionate about the issues
concerning the Islamic courts, so if you have any
questions, comments, or suggestions for Ms. Arjomand,
or just any words of support, you can e-mail me at:
linda_quaig@yahoo.ca, and I will gladly pass them on.

Posted by: Linda at September 27, 2004 10:49 AM

There's an article on female genital mutilation in islam at nojihad.com. Remember, female "circumcision" is required by shariah law.

Sexual Mutilations in Islam

Posted by: CGW at September 27, 2004 10:49 AM

"Examples of Shariah Law
What is the Shariah?

To whom it may concern:

Islam is often in the news these days. News articles that relate to Islam sometimes refer to the Shariah. What is the Shariah? The Shariah is the Islamic Sacred Law which was developed hundreds of years ago by Islamic jurists using the Koran and hadith (remembrances about what the Prophet Muhammad said and did during the time he was alive) as guideposts. The Shariah outlines a complete way of life in a legal framework which tells you how to do everything from how to pray to how to go to the bathroom. What does the Shariah law actually state? Here are some examples of Shariah law:

1. Offensive, military jihad against non-Muslims is a communal, religious obligation;
2. A person who is ignorant about Islamic legal opinion must follow the legal opinion of a scholar;
3. The penalty for a Muslim apostate (someone who no longer believes in or no longer follows the tenets of Islam) is death;
4. When slaughtering animals for food, a knife must be used to cut the windpipe and gullet;
5. A woman is only eligible to receive half the inheritance of a man;
6. Marriage may be forced on virgins by their father or father’s father;
7. A non-Arab man may not marry an Arab woman;
8. A woman must seek permission from her husband to leave the house;
9. A Muslim man cannot marry a woman who is a Zoroastrian, an idol worshipper, an apostate from Islam or a woman with one parent who is Jewish or Christian, with the other being Zoroastrian; a Muslim woman cannot marry anyone but a Muslim;
10. A free Muslim man may marry up to four women;
11. Retaliation is obligatory in most cases when someone is deliberately murdered except when a Muslim kills a non-Muslim, a Jew or a Christian kills a Muslim apostate or a father or mother kill their offspring;
12. Non-Muslim subjects (Ahl al-Dhimma) of a Muslim state are subject to a series of discriminatory laws – “dhimmitude”;
13. The penalty for fornication or sodomy is being stoned to death;
14. The penalty for an initial theft is amputation of the right hand. Subsequent thefts are penalized by further amputations of feet and hand;
15. A non-Muslim cannot testify against a Muslim in court; a person who is “without respectability” cannot give legal testimony; a woman’s legal testimony is only given half the legal weight of a man’s (and is only acceptable in cases involving property); to legally prove fornication or sodomy requires 4 male witnesses who actually saw the act;
16. The establishment and continuation of the Islamic Caliphate (by force, if necessary) is a communal obligation;
17. Sodomites and Lesbians must be killed;
18. Laughing too much is forbidden;
19. Musical instruments are unlawful;
20. Creating pictures of animate life is forbidden;
21. Female circumcision, which includes the excision of the clitoris, is obligatory;
22. Slavery is permitted;
23. People may be bribed to convert to Islam;
24. Beating a rebellious wife is permissible; and,
25. Lying is permissible in a time of war (or jihad)."

Mentat's article on shariah law

Posted by: CGW at September 27, 2004 11:05 AM

Hugh & obl r us:
This whole "right wing" thing is about dividing the body politic to silence dialogue. Groups such as CAIR are adept at playing to the Left's false sense of moral superiority. By portraying people such as us as neo-Nazis instead of rational critics, they can divert focus from the issue to the critic.
For example, I distributed Daniel Pipes' recent article in the NY Sun regarding the profiling of Muslims in America to my leftist friends at Amnesty International, and I received but one response - that Mr. Pipes has a reputation of being a militant bigot. Now all of a sudden, the issue is Pipes, not profiling. My response was that perfectly respectable critics of Islamic doctrines such as militant jihadism, dhimmitude, womens and gay rights, etc. are routinely labeled as Islamophobes and bigots, and that the Muslims who had raised these issues have been murdered and villified as blasphemers, apostates and hypocrites.
We must expose people who assassinate people's character for rational criticism as the enemies of free thought and speech. I'm not above playing to the Left's sensibilities if that's what it takes to wake them up. The dialogue must be free and fair.

Posted by: Mike at September 27, 2004 3:14 PM

As a Canadian that has followed comments and public demonstrations by pro-MiddleEast groups,I find LINDA's reports to be a little off center
from the actual truth.
Linda's "Michael Moore" style of de-constructing
a story and re-assembling it to change the readers observations. The leader of a Islamic organization in Canada was on a debate show on the
TVO channel,it was made very clear that Muslim democracies can't exist,when Muslims become the majority in Canada they will be under pressure to obey the Quran and make the Country an Islamic state ruled by Quranic laws of behaviour.
This leader aslo pointed out that the Saudi's are funding the seminars that promote Wahabbism
style Shariah and Quranic teachings at Canadian Mosques and conventions.
You claim to be an ex-Christian but I find it odd that you're trying to promote Islam by attacking different views and explaining that Islam has murdered less people than other faiths.
It's hard for me to trust your view of the more equitible and just Shariah-law since the main proponents of it are male Muslims and the protestors of it are Female Muslim immigrants that fled to Canada because of Shariah.

I ask you(Linda),would Canada be a more "Just" society if it was an Islamic State guided by Muslims using Shariah.
If YES,then you agree that Canada's better off as an Islamic State,if NO, then our Charter of Rights and Constitution are doing just fine for protecting all people in Canada and Islam has no business imposing Allah's will on non-Muslims.

NO ISLAM - KNOW PEACE

P.S.

How does a LIBERAL win an arguement...they call you a Racist.

Posted by: ala-sux at September 27, 2004 9:27 PM