Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the Swiss minaret ban
We haven't heard from Ayaan Hirsi Ali lately. I wonder what Nick Cohen, who accused Timothy Garton Ash and Ian Buruma of bigotry toward her, would make of Swiss ban on minarets was a vote for tolerance and inclusion? It's always useful to read the views of people one disagrees with, but Ms Ali merely revisits arguments we've heard before: people like us, that is, dear reader, you, are out of touch. She doesn't actually refer to us collectively as bruschetta-munchers, but the thought is there.
I can't speak for the rest of you, but I've never considered the image of this country, nor worried about the 'backlash from Muslim countries.' The 'working class' are right, the other lot, wrong... I can't see where Ms Ali makes the case that minarets are a symbol of oppression, but I suppose I would say that. Readers are welcome to show me up.
These two contrasting perspectives correspond to two quite distinct groups in Europe. The first are mainly the working class. The second are the classes that George Orwell described as "indeterminate." Cosmopolitan in outlook, they include diplomats, businesspeople, mainstream politicians, and journalists. They are well versed in globalization and tend to focus on the international image of their respective countries. With every conflict between Islam and the West, they emphasize the possible backlash from Muslim countries and how that will affect the image of their country.
I can't speak for the rest of you, but I've never considered the image of this country, nor worried about the 'backlash from Muslim countries.' The 'working class' are right, the other lot, wrong... I can't see where Ms Ali makes the case that minarets are a symbol of oppression, but I suppose I would say that. Readers are welcome to show me up.
posted by Chardonnay Chap at 12/09/2009 05:45:00 PM
13 Comments:
"Political ideas have symbols: A swastika, a hammer and sickle, a minaret, a crescent with a star in the middle (usually on top of a minaret) all represent a collectivist political theory of supremacy by one group over all others."
Or a crucifix? A pound sign? A star spangled banner?
"collectivist"
I see that hanging out at the AEI is paying off. AHA previously proposed changing the U.S. Constitution to allow the banning of Islamic schools. Ah, Liberalism!
Good to see her laying in to the Cosmipolitans.
Whatever happened to that book she was working on about the Prophet Mohammad going to the NYPL and discovering how great the enlightenment is? Her new book is just another autobiography covering the last few years - since she doesn't seem to have actually done anything, I'm sure it'll get great reviews from the Decentsphere. presumably it'll have a lot about how great the AEI is too.
as for that article - it's the same as so many others from Decent-approved hardline rightwing neocons - a coflation of Islam with Political Islam with Islamism.
And for an 'enlightenment fundamentalist' who talks so often about 'facts', the article is entirely formed of, er, opinion.
This is pretty worrying too:
There is indeed a wider international confrontation between Islam and the West. The Iraq and Afghan wars are part of that, not to mention the ongoing struggle between Israelis and Palestinians and the nuclear ambitions of Iran.
Indeed, whose Holy War is now holier than thou.
I think she makes the case for them as a symbol of oppression here:
The minaret is a symbol of Islamist supremacy, a token of domination that came to symbolize Islamic conquest. It was introduced decades after the founding of Islam.
For someone who's so ostensibly keen on rational analysis there's an awful lot of sleight of hand and dodgy 'facts' there. That 'decades after the foundation of Islam' thing is especially bogus - it's like saying 'there were no churches, and especially no church towers, when Jesus was around thus the building of all church towers should be banned'. Historically dubious and boneheaded in any case.
She goes on:
Muslims should not be rejected as residents or citizens. The objection is to practices that are justified in the name of Islam, like honor killings, jihad, the we-versus-they perspective, the self-segregation. In short, Islamist supremacy.
Hmm, we-versus-they perspective, can't think where I've seen that. Oh wait, it's a view endorsed by... Ayaan Hirsi Ali, in the same fucking article. curse those Muslim immigrants indeed...
Overall it's just a bunch of wingnuttery written in slightly more opaque ways - it's from the same school of thought as Louis amis's 'the EDL are just honest, feminist, working-class people' piece. I'd be pretty embarrassed if the political movement I was a part of was so enthusiastic about people who think like this.
verification 'terse'!
Minarets are too phallocentric, and thus represent the subjection of women in Islam.
We also seem to have the backdating of the concept of Islamism by about thirteen hundred years.
Well, quite - collapsing Islam into Islamism; essentially buying the Islamists' agenda but reversing the sign.
But where oh where are the moderate Muslims, who... er... how are Muslims supposed to buy into this again?
I loved this too:
Native Europeans have been asked over and over again by their leaders to be tolerant and accepting of Muslims. They have done that. And that can be measured a) by the amount of taxpayer money that is invested in healthcare, housing, education, and welfare for Muslims and b) the hundreds of thousands of Muslims who are knocking on the doors of Europe to be admitted. If those people who cry that Europe is intolerant are right, if there was, indeed, xenophobia and a rejection of Muslims, then we would have observed the reverse. There would have been an exodus of Muslims out of Europe.
In other words: it doesn't even count as xenophobia unless it's so toxic that it drives its victims back to massive impoverishment. (Of course in very many cases this would include massive impoverishment for their families back home.)
I wonder if it counts as anti-Americanism unless....
In other words: it doesn't even count as xenophobia unless it's so toxic that it drives its victims back to massive impoverishment.
It also means that the UK has never been xenophobic towards Ugandans, Indians, Pakistanis, Afro-Caribbeans, or the Irish.
It means that the "native" US population never displayed xenophobia towards the Irish, Italians, Eastern Europeans, Jews. It means that there is no racism, or xenophobia, towards "Hispanics"* in the US. Its an argument designed to appeal to racists, basically.
Verification: Scolds
* The pedant in me really hates this term, as an awful lot of immigration to the US is by indigent populations (or at least those with indigent blood), rather than those descended from Spanish and Portugese settlers.
I've done my tried and tested trick of replacing words to show the ferocity of the attack. Here I took the quote Darius picked up on and replaced "Europeans" with "Germans", "Europe" with "Germany" and "Muslims" with "Jews", and imagined I was reading Mein Kampf. Very old trick but nevertheless effective if used sparingly.
Native "Germans" have been asked over and over again by their leaders to be tolerant and accepting of "Jews". They have done that. And that can be measured a) by the amount of taxpayer money that is invested in healthcare, housing, education, and welfare for "Jews" and b) the hundreds of thousands of "Jews" who are knocking on the doors of "Germany" to be admitted. If those people who cry that "Germany" is intolerant are right, if there was, indeed, xenophobia and a rejection of "Jews", then we would have observed the reverse. There would have been an exodus of "Jews" out of "Germany".
Raus! Raus!
Post a Comment
<< Home