reverence for Christianity?

i'm reading Nomad by Ayaan Hirsi Ali...and it's beginning to go downhill at this point. in the chapter 'Seeking God but Finding Allah', she says this in a conversation she had with a priest. this is a proposition she presented to him:

"'The churches could go into Muslim communities, provide services just as the radical Muslims do: build new Catholic schools, hospitals, and community centers, just like the ones that were such a civilizing force under colonialism in Africa.'....

Father Bodar positively beamed with happiness. he said he had been trying to achieve just this for years and that he has often been mocked for even suggesting it. the Roman Catholic has a long history of resisting religious challenges from inside and outside what used to be called Christendom. all kinds of heresies have been combated successfully from the earliest times....and of course, the church fought against Islam not only in the time of the crusades but also when, as recently as 1683, Muslim troops of the Ottoman sultan menaced the Holy Roman Emperor's capital, Vienna."

there are two parts that are important.

1) "...a civilizing force under colonialism...."

i cringe just typing that. as i have read, Somalia, where Ayaan is from, was never formally colonized. Somalis successfully fought off the British four times. and i wonder if she ever realizes what an amazing act they, known as The Dervish State, did for Somalis by resisting colonization...

of course this priest has been trying to get into Muslim communities for years and convert them. he's a typical priest-he prays on those that do not ascribe to his religion in order to make himself feel morally superior; he capitalizes off their emotional distress by regurgitating some theological bullshit that probably came from the priests that were murdering, lynching, and torturing Muslims during the Crusades all while making them feel as though their religion, their culture, their beliefs are inferior to his.

religion disgusts me on many levels, particularly Christianity, but what disgusts me even more are missionaries and priests that go into remote parts of the globe and convert the people. they force them to convert in exchange for food, they brainwash the inhabitants to hate and devalue their own culture, and sometimes do so via violence. they reek havoc on some of the oldest societies in the world without thinking twice about it, and get praised in the process by their Christian brethren!

for one, to believe that colonialism was a "civilizing force" and not the degradation, enslavement, disregard and disrespect for indigenous cultures that summoned centuries of genocide for Africans on the continent and in the diaspora....is just ignorance, if not blatant euro-centrism. more and likely, her understanding of colonialism has come from the European perspective. not to mention her bias against nearly anything Islamic or Middle Eastern. that statement also gives the impression that African cultures prior to colonialism were uncivilized. if that isn't typical racist, ignorant, anthropologically foolish bullshit straight from David Duke's mouth, i don't know what is. i really can't believe this is coming from an African. as intelligent as Ayaan is in so many other areas, how is it that she does not understand racism in anthropology, history, and sociology? maybe, on some level, it is too difficult to revere a culture (as she does) while simultaneously understanding the atrocities committed in its past.

and second it is absurdity to suggest that churches in colonized countries were of any aid to.....anything. this really sounds like something i'd expect a tea partier to say. churches and Abrahamic religions in general have, for the most part (with the other part too overshadowed to even acknowledge...), been a detriment to society; to mankind, and have aided in the imped of almost all progressions we now consider successes. the Enlightenment period in Western history that Ayaan speaks so favorably of, was battled in nearly every aspect by the church. individual freedom, reproductive rights (which are very much so still in progress), religious freedom, separation of church and state,and scientific freedom have all been fought tooth and nail by the church. it's still fighting these things. and in colonialism, it aided in the brainwashing of the indigenous peoples, damaged, burned, and destroyed ancient religious artifacts, shrines, traditions and belief systems. any ancient knowledge these societies possessed prior to colonialism is now lost due in part to the church. i could make and entire blog devoted to showing the ills and problems the church and religion in general has done and aided in.... i have no idea how an atheist could give credence in this way to the church.

2) "...the church fought against Islam...in the Crusades...".

fought against or persecuted to the extent that modern day standards would consider it an attempted genocide against Muslims? they weren't fighting them because Muslims had hundreds of suicide bombers at that time, they were doing it because they were religious fanatics (like the same extreme Muslims she's very much opposed to) who wanted control of the minds of any and everyone they could and didn't like another religion infringing on their proselytism. how can she justify the religious extremism of one religion and abhor it in another? religious extremism is religious extremism. whether it is coming from Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Shintos, or Baha'is. it should be opposed in any and all regards because it is the threat to the very freedom she venerates.

i think, like many critics of Ayaan's, is that she has let all her concepts about nearly everything be shaded by this good/bad; western/non-western dichotomy.

Islam and the Middle East is backwards; wrong; inferior; less than-Western society is good; better; superior.

the fact that the west, at one point and time (and still today) has done more harm to this planet than good (which is not to say that others have not) is something i don't think she will let herself realize any time soon. the west, to her, will always be the shining beacon of hope and goodness and freedom, and the middle east will always be anything but.

comment. criticize. think. pray....ha...just kidding.

western critics of the middle east

i'm nearly done with Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book, Nomad and so far she's raised many of the same arguments she's raised in Infidel and The Caged Virgin, but now, i look at them differently.

like in my first post about this book, one of the main issues she takes with the Muslim women's liberation is not the response of Muslim men or Muslims period, but of social critics from western nations. she had this to say about the American Muslims that heckled her when she went to prominent American universities to lecture:

"There are activist groups of every stripe on campus, yet nothing for girls fleeing Islam, no group fighting for the rights of Muslim women. when violence is committed in the name of Islam these student activists are silent. even when muslims blow up other Muslims who differ in their interpretation of this supposedly peaceful religion; even when children are used as suicide bombers; even when a devout Muslim woman is raped, goes to the authorities, and is sentenced to be stoned on the grounds that she has had sex outside of marriage-even then, these students are silent.

there is a problem with Islam, i would tell the students who hectored me. by ignoring it, you, student or adult, do a disservice to your community. "

not too long after i read Infidel, i became obsessed with Islam and Saudi Arabia, in particular. i was reading books about the Prophet Muhammad, autobiographies from current and former Muslims, and Saudi culture. i feel as though i know a lot about the culture and the religion, but i have never submitted to Islam, nor have i ever lived in or visited a Muslim populated country, so how legit is my opinion?

and therein lies the problem. this is why many western feminists, social critics, etc. may turn a blind eye to cultures of the middle east because, while they may know a good deal about Islam and middle eastern cultures, it is still a foreign society and we/they are still outsiders.

looking into history, we can see the damaging effects that judgement of cultures from outsiders can take. colonialism is the best example that has had the most damaging effects.

whites went to Africa, saw naked women with facial features they'd never seen, bodies shaped completely different from theirs, living in simple communes in tuned with nature and assumed that they must be sex-crazed animals, since the women are all naked or topless. they assumed wet were less intelligent, considering we weren't stripping the land of its resources and capitalizing off it. African societies were so different from theirs, they assumed that one had to be superior, while the other inferior. and this is the type of thinking that founded slavery, the taking of Native American land, and the centuries long genocide that has taken place against people of color in America.

this, i think, is why so many westerners take caution, or simply say nothing when it comes to matters of foreign societies. even now, many of the individuals that do criticize middle eastern cultures or Muslim populated societies are right-wingers whose views are usually nothing more than racism and xenophobia and nowhere near constructive criticism.

also, i think criticizing another society, in a way, implies that the society you/i dwell in is not in need of criticism. it's like giving someone relationship advice when you've had three divorces. how can any American criticize any society when ours has an endless array of issues.

take the burqa, for instance. after you've read a little about it (if you're a westerner), it seems to be oppressive and a tool to keep women subservient to men; it aids in making women feel as though their bodies and their sexuality are abominable; it helps to sustain the status quo. this, more and likely, is the typical western stance on this type of fashion (whether they voice it or not).

however if you're a female, and have lived in a well populated city, you know that women get heckled, taunted, whistled at, barked at, cat-called, blown-kisses at, been stalked for blocks, and even been groped while simply walking down the street, many a times in just jeans and a t-shirt.
and i know this from experience. "hey ma. like that dress", "i like that ass...", "you lookin good shawty..." are just some of the phrases that have come my way while on the subway or walking down the street. and this happens whether i'm in jeans and a tee, a dress, a short skirt, in my work clothes, or covered in a cable-knit sweater. right now, it's hot as hell in Brooklyn. so, do i wear something that keeps me cool, which in turn usually shows a lot of skin, or do i don something heavy and shapeless that will ward off comments like these-something like a....... burqa? at times, it has seemed like these women may have it right. wearing this would not only ward off comments, but it would force men to evaluate women by alternative means than our physical appearance. what could women who focus on their physical appearance more than anything else achieve if they are forced to value themselves on deeper levels?

if you research reasons women claim they wear burqas, hijabs, and the like, it is usually, they say, because men cannot control themselves when they see the female body, thus, as opposed to making men take control of themselves, they take the matter into their own hands and cover their bodies, head to toe, in something that only shows ankles and hands. and, walking down the street here and seeing how i'm talked to, and see how many other females are talked to, it's almost understandable. maybe they do have it right. wearing a dark, heavy, shapeless cloak guarantees that your body will not be disrespected in this way, and that you will be looked at as a woman, and not just an object of sex.
or...at least thats how it should work in theory. the fact of the matter is, however, that women are still defiled, groped, raped, molested, and disrespected in various ways by men in Saudi culture and cultures with the majority of women wearing burqas and hijabs just as women are in the American culture. based on the vast difference in how western women dress from burqas and hijabs, one would expect a difference in the way the women are treated, but thats not the case at all. so what's the point?

how hypocritical is it to criticize one culture's misogyny while the one i live in is eerily similar? but then again, at what point does one criticize no matter the cost? where is the line drawn? at misogyny? modern-day slavery? child sex slavery? genocide?

comment. think. CRITICIZE. criticize criticizers. read Nomad.

the photos at the top are by an artist named Ananias Leki Dago who i learned about via Afro Sapien. it's a piece entitled Identity.

Nomad

thursday i walked into the Barnes & Nobles near Time's Square and i was happily surprised to see that Ayaan Hirsi Ali has a new book out entitled Nomad. i nearly screamed when i saw it at the check out counter. how did i not know of this?

i read two pages and bought it. usually, i would just check it out from the library, but since it was just released this month, they probably won't get a copy in until late summer. plus, i own and have read her other books (Infidel and The Caged Virgin), and i think she's such an amazing woman. her perspective is so extraordinary and remarkable that i cannot pass up one of her books. i would say she's one of my idols, but i don't idolize anyone. i idolize characteristics in people, but never the person.

i'm about 100 pages in so far and she's talking about specific family members of hers and detailing what she's been doing since she was stripped of her Dutch citizenship and the long-distance reunion with her family.

but in between talking of her family, she goes into the issues with Islam, the issues of underdeveloped countries (and/or with overly religious societies), and the reverence she has for the west. at some points, though, it is almost as if she has an infatuation with western countries. in a letter to her dead grandmother, she contrasts western and non-western countries ("non-western countries" meaning, in this context, countries that have a national religion or an overwhelmingly religious citizenry like Somalia, where she is from). she says this:

Grandmother, i have compared the infidels' morals to those that you taught us, and i must report that they have, in practice, a better outcome for humans that the morals of your forefathers.

the infidel insists on honesty and trust. everywhere you turn here, you must trust someone: to fly the airplane you travel in, to teach your child, to take care of you when you are sick and feed you food that is edible. and everywhere your trust is borne out.

the infidel does not see life as a test, a passage to the hereafter, but as an end and a joy in itself. all his resources of money, mind, and organization go into making life here, in Earth, comfortable and healthy. he is obsessed with cleanliness, a good diet, and the right amount of rest. ....

because the infidel trusts and studies new ideas, there is abundance in the infidel lands. in these circumstances of peace, knowledge, and predictability, the birth of a girl is just fine. ......

salvation lies in the ways of the infidel, grandmother. he has printed and bound books full of memory. he peeks through lenses that allow him to see an invisible world of creatures that live in us and with us, and he has sought and found remedies that attack them and defend our bodies. grandma, fevers and diseases are not caused by jinn and forefathers rising from the dead to torment us, or by an angry god, but by invisible creatures with names like parasites and bacteria and viruses. the infidels medicine works better than ours, because it is based on facts, inquiry, and real knowledge.

the sooner we adopt the infidel attitude towards work, money, procreation and leisure, the easier and better life will be.

it's interesting to see what my/our society looks like through someone else's scope. she praises a number of things i wouldn't consider positives. for example, she says we have an abundance in western countries. i'm assuming she's referring to our resources. but theres so many things that are ignored in that abundance. like the cheap (or often times free) labor i spoke of in the last post, the stealing of resources we do to nations like Somalia, and the countries we unlawfully dispose of this abundance.

she also speaks about western countries as if we don't have religious zealots simply because we have secular governments. anyone who has lived in a western country and paid attention could tell you the extremes religion takes in the United States, especially.

one thing that always makes me think from her books is the criticism she makes of western liberals and feminists. she says when it comes to their own countries, liberals and feminists are relentless in their criticisms, but when it comes to other countries and cultures, theres the go-to response of relativism. which is very true. conservatives are mainly the ones openly condemning some of their practices (although their criticisms are usually saturated in a superiority complex and racism).

but Ayaan sees this as egotism. to her, it is almost like someone saying "this is right, good, better, beneficial and progressive for MY society, but for yours.....its whatever. MY society is the society that can handle this concept and reap its benefits. yours probably cannot. your people aren't intelligent enough to grasp this concept, thus i suspend my opinion on YOUR country and YOUR people....".

i think religion has some benefits (very very few, that can probably be accessed through alternative mediums), but that overall it's destructive, divisive, counter-productive and idolizes mental docility, dogmatism, and ignorance in its followers. and by "religion", i mainly mean Christianity and Islam. other ideologies and practices that may fit under the umbrella of "religion" don't, to me, share or continue to exhibit these features. "religion" is too broad a term to make one single true statement about it. and while i may side with liberal on 99% of the political issues, the topic of Islam is one i would disagree with them on. that being said though, there are many aspects of any religion that is difficult to tell apart from the tradition of a land. the Qu'ran says nothing about female genital mutilation, yet it is most practiced in Muslim populated countries, and many Muslims in western countries continue to practice it. so is it a part of Islam or their culture?

this post isn't all that coherent. maybe when i finish the book i can get some cohesive thought(s) and my post won't sound like a ramble.

anyway, theres so many questions that arise while reading her books. you should definitely pick this one up.

comment. read her book. but her book. think. criticize.

also, she did an interview on the Tavis Smiley show you can view.