"The portrayal of Muslims as victims or heroes is at best partially accurate."
When Newsweek published this sentence from Ayaan Hirsi Ali's "The Global War on Christians in the Muslim World" on February 6, the publication stooped to a new low. The article that Ms. Ali wrote was simply a well-worded rendition of an alarming new paradigm in "academic" thought -- the systematic amalgamation of Muslims justified under the accusation of hypocrisy.
The article aimed to appeal to readers through the utilization of statistics that evinced the growing persecution of Christians in nations with populations which overwhelmingly adhere to Islam. I should establish that Ms. Ali's assertion of the rising persecution of Christians in Muslim nations is a real problem, and just as unfortunate as Ms. Ali stated. Fundamentally, the systematic persecution of a people is never acceptable. However, I believe that the end to which Ms. Ali attempted to use the statistics was inappropriate.
Beginning with the sentence above, Ms. Ali went on to invoke examples of the unfortunate killings and burnings of minority Christians throughout the Middle East to cater to an overwhelming simplified fear. As I mentioned, such persecution is a disgusting trend growing in popularity amongst the radical Islamic groups in power in such nations. However, it was this important term, "radical," that Ms. Ali failed to include in her first sentence. In neglecting to add such a term, Ms. Ali immediately grouped Muslims of all nations into one mass.
Maybe this wasn't intentional. Maybe, right?
Wrong.
At the foundation of any column, or Newsweek article, is a fundamental argument. In some articles, the argument is clearer than in others. In Ms. Ali's article, the argument was rather implied.
Fact is not synonymous with argument. Facts can be used to supplement an argument (and should be, if the argument is to be believed), but facts cannot substitute for argument. Thus, it seems that the inclusion of such startling statistics regarding the persecution of Christians must have some sort of aim.
If the aim of her article was to enlighten the world about such a growing trend in the hopes of bringing an end to it, such an end would have been admirable and just. However, it seems that this was not the case.
Of course, as a well-educated political activist, Ms. Ali is well aware of this. As her article progressed, she proved my first inclination wrong. It was quite evident that Ms. Ali purported to use the image of death for a more sinister end.
Ms. Ali, ever so subtly, enabled herself to point the finger of hypocrisy to Muslims in general -- whether they're American or Saudi.
This was proven through her attempt to explain the growing trend of persecution in Middle Eastern nations: "[The growing persecution] is, rather, a spontaneous expression of anti-Christian animus by Muslims that transcends cultures, regions, and ethnicities."
Excuse me? So, what is Ms. Ali suggesting? That it is in the makeup of the Islamic faith to encourage adherents to persecute others? Let's not forget the harmonious centuries that comprised the Middle Ages (or more aptly called the "Dark Ages") in which Church officials justified the pillage and rape of "non-believers." Did the words of a few powerful men in the Crusade necessarily represent the religious convictions of the masses? No, as any Christian today would tell you, they did not.
In this sense, what vindicates Ms. Ali's assertion that the actions of radical Islamic governments represent the convictions of the Muslim masses? Certainly, just as the Medieval Christians of England might have had their disagreements with Rome, so too do American Muslims disagree with radical clerics who have won the minds of people with whom they have never associated on a religious basis.
What seems most evident to me, by this line of thought, is Ms. Ali's attempt to demonize Muslims across the globe.
The persecution of Christians in predominantly Muslim nations is certainly a growing predicament. However, by no means do I believe that such an "anti-Christian animus" is something, if left to the minds of Muslims, that would develop into a widespread conviction. Instead, it is an animus that has developed into a widespread conviction of radical Islamic leaders -- whose religious beliefs have about just as many similarities with international Muslims as those between Catholics and Pastafarians, whose only religious commonality is a belief in a singular omnipotent deity.
Simply, Ms. Ali needed to qualify her argument. I would like to do such for her. Before addressing the nefariously atrocious persecution of Christians in foreign nations, it is necessary to establish that the persecution of Christians is not a sentiment justified by popular Islamic thought. Instead, it is the sentiment of radical Islamic thought. To neglect to qualify such an assertion unreasonably casts a fallacious blanket accusation over a group whose diversities far outnumbers its commonalities. Do not equate radical Islam with popular Islam. It is simply ignorant. Unless, of course, such was intentional in the first place:
"Instead of falling for overblown tales of Western Islamophobia, let's take a real stand against the Christophobia infecting the Muslim world. Tolerance is for everyone--except the intolerant."
With the last sentence in her article, it seemed as if in the effort to amalgamate all Muslims into one mass, Ayaan Hirsi Ali established that the only "intolerant" one was herself.
John L. Esposito: A Global War on Christians in the Muslim World?
The Quran, "come to common terms with the Christians and the Jews". There have also been in recent times when both Christians and Jews have protected the places of worship of each other from attack. To overcome this evil act, the people who claim to act in the name of The Creator need to actually read what he said. Peace.
We just need to keep praying that peace will prevail..
There are plenty of problems in the ummah, but there are many many more beautiful hearts in the ummah. We know what matters most is the condition of our hearts because God judges us by that alone.
I was watching a video about Kabul after all the battles that have happened there over these past few decades. It is amazing that amidst rubble, there are still so many smiles. These people show the power of faith can help a people rise above anything. Praise God for that!
The persecution against Christians and other minorities is horrible. There were centuries where Jewish, Christian and Muslim sages and philosphers studied and interacted together. There are many examples of Sufis and Hindus who blended their faiths.
Quran commands us to make no distinction between the holy books and prophets of Christianity and Judaism. Quran granted Muslim men permission to marry Christian and Jewish women.
All Muslims have the responsibility of ending oppression even if it is Muslims who are the oppressors.
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said:
“Help your brother, whether he is an oppressor or he is oppressed.” The Prophet was asked: “It is right to help him if he is oppressed, but how should we help him if he is an oppressor?” He replied: “By preventing him from oppressing others.”
{Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Hadith 624}
Peace be with you. Peace be with all creation.
As the Prophet, saw, said, "Allah is kind and loves kindness."
The Prophet was only a warrior when he had to protect the Muslims from those who caused them physical harm and persecuted them. He taught us how to coexist with others through peace treaties, etc, and by being forgiving and charitable with others. As all Muslims know, Muhammad told the followers that the biggest battle is the one within the heart...that we must fight ego and negativity with faith and a helpful presence.
I doubt Ali knew this Islam. I know that Muslims must unite to stop the innovation...creating hatred where harmony should exist.
When Islam is practiced in a way where violence is only used when absolutely necessary, it becomes a beautiful path that helps people grow strong through faith. Islam is meant to be lived in the heart not the battlefields.
Peace be with you. Peace be with us all.
how do muslims break this political and economic slavery they currently find themselves in while keeping their Islam?
That being said, only when Christians are free to worship and share the Gospel in majority Muslim countries freely can we say that Christophobia is dead.
Yes, she's intolerant of Muslims who murder Christians. What terrible bigotry. I wonder how she lives with herself.
Intolerance is an epidemic and it is a global problem. Globally, we need to begin relating to each other with respect. What will come of the next generation if we keep this up? Just as we have polluted the planet, the air, the water, etc., we have polluted our communities with rudeness and ugly words. I am not saying an offensive comment on HuffPost is equal to radical Muslims hate-messages, but they come from the same ingredient.
We have to be the peace we wish to see in the world. Otherwise it ain't gonna happen.
Peace be with you. Peace be with us all.
To establish or prove something, it is necessary to provide data and make an argument that the data support the claim. Simply asserting something does not make it true.
I read this article because it was the most recent entry in a search for news about Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and I was curious to see what the controversy was about. Then I skimmed through the original article, and I stll couldn't figure it out. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is drawing attention to what is obviously a huge problem, which is being grotesquely unreported, in part because of Western guilt about Islamophobia. Thank God she has the courage to say so.
So what IS the problem? It certainly can't be the sentence, "The portrayal of Muslims as victims or heroes is at best partially accurate," because this is manifestly true. Nor can be her last sentence, since tolerance is indeed for everyone (including Christians living in Moslem-dominated countries), except the intolerant. As Peter Meeker says, the criticisms of her article presented here are misrepresentations, and constitute straw man tactics. But why?
The best that can be said about this article, in my opinion, is that it at least draws attention to the problem (even if somewhat backhandedly), along with Ayaan Hirsi Ali's - as Peter Meeker puts it - "practical and eminently sensible suggestion" to use aid as leverage. I can only hope that relevant policy-makers are paying attention. Christians in the West can be nauseatingly defensive about their faith and their "rights", but this should not prevent us from taking action when Christians actually ARE being persecuted.
He claims that Hirsi Ali groups "Muslims of all nations into one mass" and "attempts to demonize Muslims across the globe".
But that's simply not true. The groups and individuals she identifies as persecuting Christians include: authoritarian governments and their agents, rebel groups and vigilantes, Islamist radicals, Islamist/Salafists, Islamic terrorists, Boko Haram, blasphemy laws, religious police, militant Muslim groups.
To say that she lumps all Muslims into "one mass", is a grossly wrong misrepresentation of her argument -- classic straw man tactics. Clearly Fitzgeral cannot bring himself to address the substance of Christian persecution in many Muslim countries. (well, other than to say it's "unfortunate"...)
Hirsi Ali suggests the west use its billions of dollars in aid, and trade/investment to bring pressure to bear on offending countries. This strikes me as a practical and eminently sensible suggestion. Certainly more constructive than attempts to whitewash the situation and raise -- yet again! -- the Crusades as moral equivalence.