This woman is a hero. I hope that more of Europe wakes up before they become part of the Caliphate.

JP

This woman joins Irshad Manji on my list of heroes who are not afraid to criticize Islam from within. How far she goes in this criticism is subject to debate, but at least she is encouraging debate, which is sorely lacking in too many totalitarian regimes.

It should also be pointed out that what protesting Muslims are saying is that non-Muslims should also be forced to act like Muslims. So if Muslims aren't allowed to draw Mohammed, neither should non-Muslims be. Because their freedom is restricted, ours should be also. And what is next? Will non-Muslims be forced to do without pork and alcohol because Muslims have to?

These protesters need to understand that their upset is a sign of Islam's weakness, not its strength.

While I agree that Islam needs to be updated, we must ask ourselves if unabashed criticism is the answer. The danger inherent in this kind of criticism is to irrevocably alienate the moderates in the Arab world, the main force for social change that we should be appealing to. Calling Mohammad a pervert will not suddenly spark the liberal elements in the Arab world to be introspective and usher in a new wave of change. Rather, it will send them right into the waiting hands of the extremist clerics, and most likely set back women's rights, freedom of speech etc. instead of promoting them. When seemingly confronted by a foe set against your very culture, everyone turns conservative, which is painfully evident in the states right now. Necessity is in fact not the mother of invention.

This doesn't mean we should let slide the repression evident in so many Arab countries, but rather tact is needed if we wish to finally defeat it. Fighting fire with fire will only lead to an unbridgeable gap between the West and the Middle East.

I consider freedom of religion and freedom of speech to be basic human rights. However, as we're seeing here, they're not always compatible. In all such cases, one person's rights end where another person's rights begin.

Which is to say, that a Muslim's right to freedom of religion does not give them any right to end somebody else's freedom of speech - nor any other freedoms. To the extent which fundamentalist Islam (or fundamentalist Christianity, or any other religion or -ism) cannot be stretched to include basic human rights, there can be no tolerance for it.

Tolerance must always be FOR human rights, and never used AGAINST them.

Hirsi Ali’s candor is so refreshing. She speaks from her experience as a Muslim woman oppressed by a misogynistic, patriarchal, and obscurantist Islamic culture. To be fair, most Muslims are not bloodthirsty savages out to kill and oppress and drive us back to the dark ages, but that element is certainly there and European/American lefty intellectuals need to stop tip-toeing around that reality. They need to confront radical Islam forcefully, firmly stand up for freedom of speech and the press, women’s equality, sexual freedom, and assimilation of liberal democratic principles. If Muslims immigrate to Europe or North America or Australia, they need to assimilate to its political culture. Moral relativism is not an effective political framework. Humanistic values are *clearly* superior to doctrinaire religious ones, and that should be boldly upheld in Europe and the West (both against extremist Muslims and Christians).

Now to be the devil’s advocate for a moment:

I grew up in a Muslim family. From my earliest memories, I remember being taught to pray, to read and revere the Quran (even though I couldn’t understand its Arabic), and to follow the example of the Prophet Muhammad who was portrayed as wise, just, merciful, compassionate, forgiving, charitable, loving, humorous, humble, courageous, magnanimous… basically possessing all the greatest human virtues. This is the image most Muslims have of Mohammad, and that is why negative portrayals of him are considered so shocking, hurtful, and disrespectful. Most non-Muslims simply cannot understand the depth of the insult and anger. A rough analogy would be seeing your child or loved one being publicly raped and calling it freedom of expression. It would offend all your sensibilities. This is how Muslims are seeing this ‘Cartoongate’ fiasco.

Having said that, the real issue here is Islam’s inability to evolve beyond its mythic literalist mindset. Muslims refuse to see the Quran as a human creation, Muhammad as an imperfect human being, and religion as an ever-evolving social construct. They’re stuck in a Medieval world of absolutes, rigid doctrines, inflexible black-and-white morality, patriarchy, and an inability to see other views as remotely valid. Even “moderate” Muslims, as peace-loving and virtuous as most are, will never dare to question the Quran or Muhammad’s infallibility. It takes apostates like Rushdie, Ali Sina, Ibn Warraq, and Hirsi, or nearly-out-of-the-Islamic-fold liberals like Irshad Manji, to question the basis of belief. Most moderate Muslims are in fact moderate because of their selective knowledge of Islam. They take to heart its peaceful message while conveniently ignoring its more barbaric and horrific one (the one with all the hellfire, violence, fear of God’s wrath, misogyny, condemnation of other religions as errant – basically language in the same vein as the harsh tribal stories of the Old Testament). To challenge the infallibility of the Holy Book or the Prophet would be to destroy the foundation of their faith and be completely lost in this world, so Muslims vehemently refuse to “go there” or allow anyone else to.

What to do?... Muslims who have the luxury of doing so can live in willful ignorance of the negative aspects of their faith, renounce the faith altogether, or boldly confront its ugly truths and take a more mature and allegorical/non-literal approach to it, as many modern Christians and Jews do to theirs.

There’s a wonderful article by Anne Twitty in the Winter 2005 issue of the literary journal Parabola. The topic of the issue is Fundamentalism, and Twitty writes in her article “Lines in the Sand”:

“There is a lack of faith… that arises among those who cling to ‘faith.’ Faith as defined precisely by text and creeds and practices. A lack of faith in the ungraspable essence from which these texts and creeds and practices arose. A lack of faith in the realm of experience that is open to allusion, not to definition. A lack of faith in the as yet inchoate, uncreated what-is-to-come…

It is the definite, the finite, that so many believers demand. Where do they look to find it? Paradoxically, to the past, a highly selective past reified into an eternal perfect moment. Awaiting another eternal moment: the Reappearance, Judgment Day, when Muhammad, along with a panoply of angels, will come again. Meanwhile, say the Wahabis, Enforcers of the Law: Every innovation is going astray…

The Holy Book. Written words frozen as time; or as time capsules. In one sense: inviolable prescriptions and proscriptions; in another: potential sparks to be struck from the encounter with each new mind, each new consciousness. Unless these are trained to beware of sparks: Revelation Stops (Stopped) Here.

From these literal beliefs, what consequences?

The retreat into the circle. Which requires ever greater efforts to define the outer dangers that impinge, ever greater efforts to convince oneself. Shutting your ears. Shutting out.”