Tuesday, November 11, 2008

How my eyes were opened to the barbarity of Islam

One of the goals of IsraelAmerica is to educate.
I have spent over ten years resarching the issues we cover here, in depth.
IsraelAmerica, unlike most other sites, has no bias.
We do not lean to the left or the right.
I mention this because I want readers who follow some ideology which makes them comfortable with Islamic practices to becomed aware of the truth, and I present truth from an unbiased viewpoint.
The article I've posted below is based on Phyllis Chesler's personal experience.
During the eight years of the Bush administration I did not hear one comment from them on the horrific, daily, abuse of human rights to which Arab, Persian and other Muslim women are subjected to.
All of those who care about Human Rights need to address this issue.
For the most part all we hear is silence.

Michael




Is it racist to condemn fanaticism?

Phyllis Chesler

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/


Once I was held captive in Kabul. I was the bride of a charming, seductive and Westernised Afghan Muslim whom I met at an American college. The purdah I experienced was relatively posh but the sequestered all-female life was not my cup of chai — nor was the male hostility to veiled, partly veiled and unveiled women in public.
When we landed in Kabul, an airport official smoothly confiscated my US passport. "Don’t worry, it’s just a formality," my husband assured me.
I never saw that passport again.
I later learnt that this was routinely done to foreign wives — perhaps to make it impossible for them to leave.
Overnight, my husband became a stranger.
The man with whom I had discussed Camus, Dostoevsky, Tennessee Williams and the Italian cinema became a stranger.
He treated me the same way his father and elder brother treated their wives: distantly, with a hint of disdain and embarrassment.
In our two years together, my future husband had never once mentioned that his father had three wives and 21 children.
Nor did he tell me that I would be expected to live as if I had been reared as an Afghan woman.
I was supposed to lead a largely indoor life among women, to go out only with a male escort and to spend my days waiting for my husband to return or visiting female relatives, or having new (and very fashionable) clothes made.
In America, my husband was proud that I was a natural-born rebel and free thinker. In Afghanistan, my criticism of the treatment of women and of the poor rendered him suspect, vulnerable.
He mocked my horrified reactions.
But I knew what my eyes and ears told me.
I saw how poor women in chadaris were forced to sit at the back of the bus and had to keep yielding their place on line in the bazaar to any man.
I saw how polygamous, arranged marriages and child brides led to chronic female suffering and to rivalry between co-wives and half-brothers; how the subordination and sequestration of women led to a profound estrangement between the sexes — one that led to wife-beating, marital rape and to a rampant but hotly denied male "prison"-like homosexuality and pederasty; how frustrated, neglected and uneducated women tormented their daughter-in-laws and female servants; how women were not allowed to pray in mosques or visit male doctors (their husbands described the symptoms in their absence).

Individual Afghans were enchantingly courteous — but the Afghanistan I knew was a bastion of illiteracy, poverty, treachery and preventable diseases.
It was also a police state, a feudal monarchy and a theocracy, rank with fear and paranoia. Afghanistan had never been colonised. My relatives said: "Not even the British could occupy us." Thus I was forced to conclude that Afghan barbarism was of their own making and could not be attributed to Western imperialism.

Long before the rise of the Taleban, I learnt not to romanticise Third World countries or to confuse their hideous tyrants with liberators. I also learnt that sexual and religious apartheid in Muslim countries is indigenous and not the result of Western crimes — and that such "colourful tribal customs" are absolutely, not relatively, evil.
Long before al-Qaeda beheaded Daniel Pearl in Pakistan and Nicholas Berg in Iraq, I understood that it was dangerous for a Westerner, especially a woman, to live in a Muslim country. In retrospect, I believe my so-called Western feminism was forged in that most beautiful and treacherous of Eastern countries.
Nevertheless, Western intellectual-ideologues, including feminists, have demonised me as a reactionary and racist "Islamophobe" for arguing that Islam, not Israel, is the largest practitioner of both sexual and religious apartheid in the world and that if Westerners do not stand up to this apartheid, morally, economically and militarily, we will not only have the blood of innocents on our hands; we will also be overrun by Sharia in the West.
I have been heckled, menaced, never-invited, or disinvited for such heretical ideas — and for denouncing the epidemic of Muslim-on-Muslim violence for which tiny Israel is routinely, unbelievably scapegoated.
However, my views have found favour with the bravest and most enlightened people alive. Leading secular Muslim and ex-Muslim dissidents — from Egypt, Bangladesh, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Pakistan, Syria and exiles from Europe and North America — assembled for the landmark Islamic Summit Conference in Florida and invited me to chair the opening panel on Monday.
According to the chair of the meeting, Ibn Warraq: "What we need now is an age of enlightenment in the Islamic world. Without critical examination of Islam, it will remain dogmatic, fanatical and intolerant and will continue to stifle thought, human rights, individuality, originality and truth." The conference issued a declaration calling for such a new "Enlightenment".
The declaration views "Islamophobia" as a false allegation, sees a "noble future for Islam as a personal faith, not a political doctrine" and "demands the release of Islam from its captivity to the ambitions of power-hungry men".
Now is the time for Western intellectuals who claim to be antiracists and committed to human rights to stand with these dissidents.
To do so requires that we adopt a universal standard of human rights and abandon our loyalty to multicultural relativism, which justifies, even romanticises, indigenous Islamist barbarism, totalitarian terrorism and the persecution of women, religious minorities, homosexuals and intellectuals.
Our abject refusal to judge between civilisation and barbarism, and between enlightened rationalism and theocratic fundamentalism, endangers and condemns the victims of Islamic tyranny.
Ibn Warraq has written a devastating work that will be out by the summer. It is entitled Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said’s Orientalism. Will Western intellectuals also dare to defend the West?
Phyllis Chesler is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women’s Studies at the City University of New York

Posted By Michael on 11/11/2008

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

IsraelAmerica, unlike most other sites, has no bias.
We do not lean to the left or the right.

LOL! How about a post about Robert Malley then? I'll send you some links or I think you know where to go to find them.

Anonymous said...

The obvious answer is to ask Iran to help us. That is what Obama is proposing. Of course the Iranians are going to become great allies of an Obama administration and help us with Islamic terrorism.

Anonymous said...

Malley has no connection with President Obama, "unamed" aides of Malley's notwithstanding.
Don't believe everything you read.

You can however, believe what you read here.

You seem to be a bit confused.
Iran is one of the worst violaters of human rights.
Particularly against women.

Why do you think they would be willing to help us?
I would however, like to see the link where President Obama stated that Iran was going to help us.
I'm sure everyone else would, too.
Post it.
I'm waiting.

Anonymous said...

Oh, by the way, post President Bush's comments about Islamic abuses of women.
We'd all like to see that, as well.

Anonymous said...

Malley was an official advisor to his campaign up until it was released last May that he was meeting with Hamas. Then he got temporarily thrown under the bus. To say that he has no connection what so ever is just you being willfully blind to the very real prospects that 70% of American Jews voted for the man that will try to force Israel to hand over Jerusalem to the PLO-Arabs for nothing in return.

And of course Iran is one of the worst violators of human rights and the number #1 supporter of Islamic terrorism in the world. Doesn't that even give you a slight pause that Obama wants to sit and chat with them and try to make them his best friends???

Anonymous said...

Bruce,
Merely gainsaying an article is not disproving it.
The Obama spokespeople say that Malley was not officially connected to the campaign.
You say he was, but offer no evidence for your view.

One of the major factors in Obama’s election was the sense that McCain and Palin were lying.
It turned the electorate against them.
People who were not comfortable with Obama were even more uncomfortable with a liar,
And the general dishonesty of the McCain surrogates.

Memory is a selective thing, but my impression of President Obama's feeling about Iran is his implicit threat to nuke them to protect Israel.

What he actually said was "I will do everything in my power to protect Israel. Everything."

He said in his victory speech, "To those who would destroy, we will defeat you."
Most people believe he was refering to Islamic Terrorists.

I think you will find President Obama to be a firm supporter of Israel.
I just don't expect you to ever admit it.

The Chomsky Hoax

The Chomsky Hoax
Exposing the Dishonesty of Noam Chomsky