Posts

Hitch on Hirsi Ali’s Detractors

Call a woman who ran away from Islamic fundamentalists a distorted mirror-image of her former persecutors and you get thumped: Garton Ash and Buruma would once have made short work of any apologist who accused the critics of the U.S.S.R. … Read More

By / March 5, 2007

Call a woman who ran away from Islamic fundamentalists a distorted mirror-image of her former persecutors and you get thumped:

Garton Ash and Buruma would once have made short work of any apologist who accused the critics of the U.S.S.R. or the People's Republic of China of "heating up the Cold War" if they made any points about human rights. Why, then, do they grant an exception to Islam, which is simultaneously the ideology of insurgent violence and of certain inflexible dictatorships? Is it because Islam is a "faith"? Or is it because it is the faith—in Europe at least—of some ethnic minorities? In neither case would any special protection from criticism be justified. Faith makes huge claims, including huge claims to temporal authority over the citizen, which therefore cannot be exempt from scrutiny. And within these "minorities," there are other minorities who want to escape from the control of their ghetto leaders. (This was also the position of the Dutch Jews in the time of Spinoza.) This is a very complex question, which will require a lot of ingenuity in its handling. The pathetic oversimplification, which describes skepticism, agnosticism, and atheism as equally "fundamentalist," is of no help here. And notice what happens when Newsweek takes up the cry: The enemy of fundamentalism is defined as someone on the fringe while, before you have had time to notice the sleight of hand, the aggrieved, self-pitying Muslim has become the uncontested tenant of the middle ground.

RELATED: Tim the Grey Knight [Daily Shvitz]  

Tagged with: