.

(Continued …)

.

I first heard of Ayaan Hirsi Ali when the Dutch film director, Theo van Gogh, was viciously assassinated by an Islamist in Amsterdam in 2004. Ms Hirsi Ali had written the script for van Gogh’s film, “Submission”. Since the assassination, she has lived under constant threat of Islamist reprisal herself.

A former devout Muslim, she is now an active critic of Islamic doctrine and practice. I admire her courage and tenacity. She has undertaken an extremely dangerous and particularly rude task in attempting to reform such a highly-decentralised organisation as Islam. I wish her well in her efforts.

The reformation of Christianity in the 16th century was a particularly bloody affaire. It is difficult to imagine that the reformation of Islam would be any different, cf. the video produced by the Encyclopædia Britannica which you will find here :

http://global.britannica.com/event/Reformation

Another video worth viewing is the debate between Ms Hirsi Ali and Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of Sheikh Hassan al-Banna who founded the famous - some might say “the notorious” - Sunni Islamist organization, Society of the Muslim Brothers, better known as the “Muslim Brotherhood”, in Egypt in 1928 :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJQ7tEoDhao

If you don’t mind, I think I’ll leave it at that.

I hope this allays your concerns and reassures you of my interest in your posts.

.

Banjo Paterson,

Referring to this review,

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/sep/29/fields-of-blood-review-absorbing-study-religion-violence-karen-armstrong

You appear to attack the personality of the reviewer but you are careful not to challenge his claimed facts. However, in your many OLO posts on religion you undertake very detailed and precise exposes of Christianity, relying always on the less savoury aspects of its history from centuries past. On the other hand you are more than willing, enthusiastic, to accept and applaud an author, Karen Armstrong, whose only claim seems to be that she is an ex-Catholic nun, who according to the reviewer makes very simple and obvious errors of history and other facts. Factual errors that should leap out at you with your interest and zest for religious history.

Can you see that it is rather remarkable that you are very quick to enter into long and detailed exposes of the wrongs and excesses of Christianity, but you shy away from even a cursory examination of a review criticising the alleged Muslim sympathiser and apologist, Karen Armstrong?

It is as though you seek to bury one side, Christianity in its historical wrongs, while pulling a tarpaulin over the present shabby medievalism, aimed strongly against women, of Islam.

I do not promote either religion, but at the same time it would be less than honest not to criticise Islam for using the West's tolerance of religion, which is founded on religions accepting the secular State. And secondly, that even the so-called 'moderate' Muslims do not accord women and girls equal treatment with boys and men in the same western democracies where they have chosen to live and have been accepted as citizens - with responsibilities.

Here, for some balance,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CGFMwtJTyE

Again, womens rights campaigner Ayaan Hirsi Ali has said many times that the reformation of Islam is not solely concerned with terrorism but mainly the treatment of women. That is the subject of the thread, the treatment of women by Islam.

The great problem with Christianity is that its followers have often strayed far from the teachings of Christ, it is arguable that those who have been most infamous for their actions were not really Christians, however the same cannot be said for the followers of Muhammad.

.

Dear Leoj,

.

You wrote :

« You appear to attack the personality of the reviewer but you are careful not to challenge his claimed facts »

As I already pointed out, Leoj, the “reviewer” who is hiding behind the signature “Hugh Fitzgerald” is reported to be a co-administrator of and an extensive contributor to a blog called Jihad Watch which, to cite Wikipedia : “has been repeatedly criticised by numerous academics who believe that it promotes an Islamophobic worldview and conspiracy theories”.

Jihad Watch is reportedly funded by a conservative organisation, “The David Horowitz Freedom Center”, a foundation created in 1988 by political activist David Horowitz and by various donors supporting the Israeli right :

It is run by blogger, Robert Spencer, who has been described by some civil rights organizations including the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Jewish Anti-Defamation League in the United States as a “Muslim basher” and a “hate group leader.”

As you may have noted in the Wikipedia article for which I posted the link, Benazir Bhutto, the late Pakistani Prime Minister, in her book “Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy, and the West”, wrote that “Spencer uses Jihad Watch to spread misinformation and hatred of Islam”. She added that “he presents a skewed, one-sided, and inflammatory story that only helps to sow the seed of civilizational conflict”.

I am not attacking or defending anybody, Leoj. I couldn’t care less who the mysterious “reviewer” is. All I am saying is that I do not consider him to be a reliable source of information.

I do not place my confidence in charlatans or propagandists, whether they be political, religious or otherwise.

I am not a specialist on the subject in hand and am not prepared to devote the time and energy that would be necessary for me to verify the writings of somebody who presents such a dubious profile as the mysterious “reviewer” whom you obviously hold in such high esteem.

I find your attitude in this regard very instructive and shall keep it in mind in any future dealings we may have together.

.

Banjo: has been repeatedly criticised by numerous academics who believe that it promotes an Islamophobic worldview and conspiracy theories”.

Do you believe Numerous Academics who Promote a Politically Correct, Socialist & Liberalist Pro-Islamic worldview? Going on the behaviour I have observed in Australia, The US, The EU by the Liberalists I wouldn't take any notice of anything they had to say. Goats led to slaughter.

Is Mise: it is arguable that those who have been most infamous for their actions were not really Christians,

Oh I love this. Have you ever noticed that when one of the "Famous Flock" gets caught with his pants down with a young Girl or Boy in the room he suddenly becomes. "They were never really was a Christian" & are suddenly disowned. TV Evangelists by the dozen.

Banjo Paterson,

All of that but instead you could have used the post to demolish any flaws you might find in the man's review. Why?

I will disregard any inferences of your last paragraph. This is a discussion site.

What I have been saying to you is plain enough, that the reviewer's comments should stand or fall on proof, just as the ex-nun's claims should be. Now he has made certain claims that if correct, or even in major part correct, would overturn the ex-nun's arguments.

With respect, your thinking is dualistic, which is par for the course for religions: black and white, sources are good or bad, etc. The former are to be discounted in their entirety and the latter accepted without question, and given broad allowance where there are 'wobbly' factoids and the 'Post Truth' that is increasingly common.

While I don't lend support to either the ex.nun author or her reviewer, I am prepared as always to look first at the evidence and then make a judgement. Whereas your approach would always ensure that any evidence that might challenge your thinking, values and world view, are ignored, censored.

What is also apparent is your continued refusal to address the forum topic and arguments directed at it. In my previous posts for example there was the repeated reminder that, "womens rights campaigner Ayaan Hirsi Ali has said many times that the reformation of Islam is not solely concerned with terrorism but mainly the treatment of women. That is the subject of the thread, the treatment of women by Islam".