'Infidel' and Islam

I had heard about Ayyan Hirsi Ali's famous [or infamous] book 'Infidel' a lot. Only recently I was able to read it.

The book is autobiographical in nature. Ms Ali was born in Somalia. Ali's father, a U.S. educated political leader was thrown into prison by Somalia's despot, Siad Barre. She was raised by her mother, mostly in exile, in Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia and Kenya. She was circumcised against the wishes of her father as per the custom of her clan.

Hirsi Ali attended the English-language Muslim school in Kenya. She was attracted to Islamic study groups and started wearing hijab which was unusual at that time. She even sympathized with the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood and courted a clergy man.

As she grew older slowly she became disillusioned with gender discrimination in Islam. Against her wishes she was married to a Somali Muslim living in USA. While waiting for US visa in Germany, she was attracted to the care free life in Europe. She suddenly realised that she wanted freedom and escaped to Netherlands and was granted political asylum there.

She did many short term jobs and was able to study in college due to the generous policies of the Dutch Govt towards immigrants .She earned a masters degree in Political science in 2000. She began working in a Research Institute linked to Center-Left Labour Party.

Her disenchantment with Islam increased after 9/11 Islamist attack of World Trade Center in New York. She renounced Islam and became an atheist in 2002.She began openly questioning Koran and Islam in many public forums and started receiving death threats. Her opposition to unquestioning financial support by Dutch Govt to Islamic religious schools made it difficult for her to stay with the Labour Party

.She switched to Center-Right WD party and won Parliamentary election. Her main complaint was Dutch welfare state had overlooked abuse of Muslim women and girls. She wanted a comprehensive study of the status of women among Muslim immigrants.

Her comments in an interview that 'by our Western standards Muhammad is a perverse man and a tyrant' created a huge uproar. She received several threats and from then onwards was able to move around only in selected areas that too with a huge security cover behind her.

Her first legislative victory was in passing a law that allowed women who come to Holland to marry legal immigrants to have independent residence papers. [Many of these women, mostly Muslims were abused by their husbands and wanted to get out the marriage. But divorce meant deportation from Holland till then.]

Then she pressed for a motion in Parliament that required Police to register killings/deaths which can be classified as honour killings. The Parliament approved a pilot study in 2 regions. The Dutch society was stunned to see that honour killings were very much prevalent among Immigrants.

Hirsi Ali wrote the script for a 10 minute documentary film Submission Part 1, which was directed by Theo van Gogh which criticized the treatment of women in Islamic society. It depicted 4 women, one flogged for falling in love, another raped by her husband, third physically abused by her husband and fourth raped by an uncle and punished for sex outside marriage. Texts from the Koran which are often interpreted as justifying the subjugation of women were written on the body of the women.

The film was shown on Dutch TV as a part of interview with Hirsi Ali and resulted in big protests. Van Gogh was murdered in broad day light on a street in Amsterdam on November 2, 2004 by an Islamist.

A letter was pinned to Van Gogh's body with a knife and was a death threat to Hirsi Ali.

Hirsi Ali went to hiding and was placed in several hidden locations by the Dutch Police. After a long drawn out citizenship controversy and increasing difficulty in finding a safe hideout in Holland she went to USA and is presently staying there.



Through 'Infidel, My life' Hirsi Ali tries to explain how and why she got disillusioned with Islam. She says

'The Prophet did teach us a lot of good things.............But I could no longer avoid seeing the totalitarianism, the pure moral frame work that is Islam. It regulates every detail of life and subjugates free will. True Islam as a rigid belief system and a moral frame work leads to cruelty...........Their World is divided between 'Us' and 'Them'-if you don't accept Islam you should perish.


It didn't have to be this way. The West underwent a period of religious warfare and persecution, but then the society freed itself from the grip of violent organised religion. I assumed-still assume-the same process could occur among millions of Muslims".

.

My Take

I can very well understand how Hirsi Ali became disenchanted with Islam. Her personal experience of Islam was so bad, and her experiences in the West were so good that she became an atheist and a strong critic of Islam. Her work for the emancipation of Muslim women in Holland was very praise worthy.

Organised Religions were formed in human society during the feudal or pre-feudal [slavery] phase of economic development. This period was very anti-woman and the religions reflect that position. Scientific revolution in Europe from 15th century onwards changed the methods of production and resulted in Industrial revolution leading to the degeneration of feudal system and development of Capitalism. This resulted in fall of monarchies and the advent of democracy and liberty. It was this change that helped European society to free itself from the grip of organised religion.

Islamic society is still mostly in the feudal era. Presence of cash rich Oil deposits in Arab countries is helping to maintain the feudal system. Also it is in the West's interest to prevent true democracy in Gulf so that they can continue to exploit the resources there. West funded Islamist militancy of the Cold war era is now the main proponent of rigid Islam. These may be the reasons for the inability of Muslims to free themselves  from the grip of organised religion.

So I believe that as the Industrial revolution, democracy and liberty spreads more widely in the Arab Asian and African Countries, population there will find it more and more easier to loosen the grip of orthodox Islam.

Hirsi Ali may sound harsh and provocative in her criticism of Islam, but such brave words should find their own place in a debate on religion and rights of women.

Why I oppose ban on burqa?

New York Times recently published an op-ed article supporting French President Sarkozy's attempt to ban burqa.

In the article, Mona Eltahawy, an Egyptian-born commentator on Arab and Muslim issues says, "As a Muslim woman and a feminist I would ban the burqa".

This made me wondering. Was Sarkozy's remark justified? Was I wrong in publishing a post against Sarkozy's attempt to ban burqa? Let me see the arguments of the writer in NY Times and decide. Her points in blue and my thoughts in black.

I am a Muslim, I am a feminist and I detest the full-body veil, known as a niqab or burqa. It erases women from society and has nothing to do with Islam but everything to do with the hatred for women at the heart of the extremist ideology that preaches it.

She hates burqa and hates the Islamists who try to make women wear it. No difference of opinion here. Is it Islamic or not? Actually that is not my botheration as I do not follow that religion, but I feel that religious traditions will change from time to time and place to place. One will say it is Islamic while other will say it is not. Let the believer decide what is Islamic and what is not as long as it do not harm another person.

We must not sacrifice women at the altar of political correctness or in the name of fighting a growingly powerful right wing that Muslims face in countries where they live as a minority.

By saying that women should decide [and not French Government] what she should wear in any way sacrifice them at the altar of political correctness? Right wing Conservatives are always anti-women whether it is in USA, [anti abortion activists], France [Le Pen] or in Iran. So fighting the Right Wing is always pro-women.

But the best way to support Muslim women would be to say we oppose both racist Islamophobes and the burqa. We’ve been silent on too many things out of fear we’ll arm the right wing.

Yes I agree that we should oppose both racist Islamophobes and compulsory wearing of burqa but should never ban either of them. We should oppose Islamophobes politically. Muslim women scholars like the author of the article should be able to convince Muslim women that burqa is not compulsory and is demeaning to women. Actually supporting Sarkozy is like giving away the right of women to wear what she likes.

It is sad to see a strange ambivalence toward the burqa from many of my fellow Muslims and others who claim to support us. They will take on everything — the right wing, Islamophobia, Mr. Straw, Mr. Sarkozy — rather than come out and plainly state that the burqa is an affront to Muslim women.

There is no ambivalence here. I feel the correct liberal view should be opposition to compulsory wearing of burqa. Women should be able to decide everything about themselves with out any interference by Men, Mullahs or Presidents. .

Is burqa an affront to Muslim women?

May be more than the burqa the second citizen status given to women, as a whole in a male dominated society throughout the World, especially in some Islamic countries is an affront to women. Burqa is a part of that. We can propagate that idea but the final opinion should be from the women concerned.

I blame such reluctance on the success of the ultra-conservative Salafi ideology — practiced most famously in Saudi Arabia — in leaving its imprimatur on Islam globally by persuading too many Muslims that it is the purest and highest form of our faith.

Saudi-style Salafi ideology got maximum support not from liberals but from conservative Right wing Governments in the West due to Oil interests. Liberal political movements were destroyed in the name of Cold War. Also the blame should be on the Liberal Muslims who is leaving everything related to religion to be decided by Mullahs.

It’s one thing to argue about the burqa in a country like Saudi Arabia — where I lived for six years and where women are treated like children — but it is utterly dispiriting to have those same arguments in a country where women’s rights have long been enshrined. When I first saw a woman in a burqa in Copenhagen I was horrified.

Actually it is Sarkozy who is trying to impinge on women's right to choose her attire. You have the right to get horrified and write about it.

As a Muslim woman and a feminist I would ban the burqa.

As a Muslim woman and as a feminist she cannot ban burqa. Only Government can ban burqa.She can oppose it verbally and in letters and by legally allowed agitations. But she cannot tear up the burqa off a woman she meets in the street.

The whole point of discussion is not whether burqa is good or bad or whether it is Islamic or non Islamic. The point of discussion is whether a Government has the right to ban Women from wearing a particular outfit in public places. You can have reasonable dress codes in factories, offices, schools, religious places etc, but not in public places.

The sad part of this controversy is both Sarkozy and Mullahs will be happy with this. Sarkozy will get the anti-migrant racist votes while the oppressed Muslim women may turn more and more to burqa as a protest against the West's 'Islamophobia".

Sarkozy's 'fatwa'?

What is the difference between Taliban and the current French President Nicolas Sarkozy in regard to their attitude towards Women's attire?
Not much.
Both have their own views about what women should not wear and want to impose them on women living under their political territory.
Both do not care much about a woman's right to decide what she should wear.
Both have their own views regarding what is Islamic and what is not.
Read what Sarkozy said .
"The burka is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience. It will not be welcome on the territory of the French republic.We cannot accept to have in our country women who are prisoners behind netting, cut off from all social life, deprived of identity," Mr Sarkozy told a special session of parliament in Versailles.
Mr Sarkozy also gave his backing to the establishment of a parliamentary commission to look at whether to ban the wearing of burkas in public.
In 2004, France banned the Islamic headscarves in its state schools.
Now the ban will be on burka.Tomorrow it may be a ban on wearing Turban.Then a ban on Tilak or bindi on forehead. Later it will be a ban on . . . . . . . .! May be some Islamic countries will pay back in the same coin and ban wearing of Crosses in public and this will go on and on.
Can banning a way of dressing ever help women get freedom from their "prisons"? Will it give the oppressed women a new "identity"? Are only the burka clad women suppressed?
The way of dressing should be a matter of choice.It is a matter of personal liberty. It should not be imposed by political or religious leaders.
State intervention in such personal matters will only trigger public protest against it and re-in force the burka system. The lesson from Turkey should be remembered. Ban on head scarves in Universities by the fiercely secular but unpopular military backed Turkish Government resulted in head scarves becoming a symbol of liberation from the autocratic rule.It also became a symbol of rural folks revolt against the urban elite.One of the major policy decision the new pro-Islamic Turkish Government took was to amend the Turkish Constitution to revoke ban of head scarves in Universities.
Why Sarkozy raised this issue at this particular time? The anti-immigrant right wing Parties are gaining strength in Europe as evidenced by the results of the recent European Union elections. May be Sarkozy wanted to ride that wave and make people forget the problems of the deep economic recession.
Sarkozy's 'fatwa' may gain him more votes but will it really help the Muslim women?