Indeed, the whole idea of judging especially when matters of customs and morals are involved seems to be objectionable to some. — Ciceronianus the White

Quite ironic.

This is an outright smear. Nothing in her history shows her to be supportive of "right wing extremists" (I suspect you've set the bar rather low for this) or racism. Quite the opposite in fact. — Thorongil

She came to the US at the invitation of the AEI, a "conservative think tank", and she is still on their list of "scholars" in 2006. By that time, the group was already getting a few Islamophobia types. She ended up associating with jihadwatch.org's owner Robert Spencer and head of SOIA, Pamela Geller. She ended up on Southern Poverty Law Center's A Journalist's Manual: Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists, (jihadwatch.org started a petition to get her removed).

But maybe she just hangs out with a bad crowd. Look at this controversial interview she did with "Reason" magazine:

Reason: Should we acknowledge that organized religion has sometimes sparked precisely the kinds of emancipation movements that could lift Islam into modern times? Slavery in the United States ended in part because of opposition by prominent church members and the communities they galvanized. The Polish Catholic Church helped defeat the Jaruzelski puppet regime. Do you think Islam could bring about similar social and political changes?

Hirsi Ali: Only if Islam is defeated. Because right now, the political side of Islam, the power-hungry expansionist side of Islam, has become superior to the Sufis and the Ismailis and the peace-seeking Muslims.

Reason: Don’t you mean defeating radical Islam?

Hirsi Ali: No. Islam, period. Once it’s defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It’s very difficult to even talk about peace now. They’re not interested in peace.

Reason: We have to crush the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims under our boot? In concrete terms, what does that mean, “defeat Islam”?

Hirsi Ali: I think that we are at war with Islam. And there’s no middle ground in wars. Islam can be defeated in many ways. For starters, you stop the spread of the ideology itself; at present, there are native Westerners converting to Islam, and they’re the most fanatical sometimes. There is infiltration of Islam in the schools and universities of the West. You stop that. You stop the symbol burning and the effigy burning, and you look them in the eye and flex your muscles and you say, “This is a warning. We won’t accept this anymore.” There comes a moment when you crush your enemy.

Reason: Militarily?

Hirsi Ali: In all forms, and if you don’t do that, then you have to live with the consequence of being crushed.

Reason: Are we really heading toward anything so ominous?

Hirsi Ali: I think that’s where we’re heading. We’re heading there because the West has been in denial for a long time. It did not respond to the signals that were smaller and easier to take care of. Now we have some choices to make. This is a dilemma: Western civilization is a celebration of life—everybody’s life, even your enemy’s life. So how can you be true to that morality and at the same time defend yourself against a very powerful enemy that seeks to destroy you? — reason.com

Boy are you a cliche. Equate "conservative think tank" with "right wing extremism" and "racism," cite the SPLC, and play the Islamophobia card. Can I be sure I'm not talking to a robot?

I think her words in that interview were spot on and courageous. We're in real trouble if they now meet the standards for "controversy."

Wait ... so you guys don't want her either?

Boy are you a cliche. Equate "conservative think tank" with "right wing extremism" and "racism," cite the SPLC, and play the Islamophobia card. Can I be sure I'm not talking to a robot?

I think her words in that interview were spot on and courageous. We're in real trouble if they now meet the standards for "controversy." — Thorongil

This is surely going too far. Her words in the interview are very controversial. They easily 'meet the standards' for that. I live among Muslims, I am not at war with their religion or beliefs, and those who advocate such a 'war', however metaphorically - and hers doesn't come over that metaphorically - are of extreme views, on my spectrometer. In my locality, to vote in accordance with the beliefs she expresses would be to vote for an extreme right party.

For the lazy: stoning to death is the punishment.
— Emptyheady

I think you reveal yourself here as an amateur Islamic scholar, unaware of the subtleties, nuances and rules of abrogation in that deeply complex religion. Allow me to educate you:

While stoning to death is AN accepted method of killing gays (Quran 7: 80-84, 15:72, 27:58, 29:40), it is not the ONLY method.

Gays can also be killed by throwing them off roofs, THEN stoning them if they are not already dead. OR they can be burnt at the stake. — tom

Glad we got that cleared up.

@emptyheady

I used to know actual leftists, but most of us have died, gone into dormancy for the duration, or aren't dead yet.

The leftists I knew disdained the religions equally: Hindu, Christian, Moslem, Buddhist, Jewish, New Age, liberal, conservative. All opium.

For such leftists as still call themselves that, and progressives (whatever that is) perhaps the problem is their relativist views. Few of them have much religious conviction or knowledge, the lack of which may leave them feeling slightly guilty and unequipped to assess their own or others' religions. Progressives are also afflicted by the soup du jour approach: Who is not being adequately cherished today?

There is also what Bertrand Russel warned about: the alleged superior virtue of the oppressed. It doesn't exist. The oppressed are just as likely to be morally contemptible as anybody else. Being oppressed doesn't make people good. Oppression just puts the sons of bitches at a disadvantage. How much sympathy are the disadvantaged sons of bitches worth?

Are all Moslems bad? No. Is Islam all good? No. Did Islam accrete and hold onto some primitive tribal content that they would do well to get rid of? Yes. Is Islam given to greater extreme views than Christianity or Hinduism? Maybe not, but most religionists are capable of going off the deep end. Is Christianity any better than Islam? To the extent that it has overcome it's witch-burning queer stoning scarlet letter branding tendencies, yes--it is. Enlightened Christianity or Islam are still opiates.

Fundamentalist Moslems, Hindus, Christians, etc. are all a plague. Conservative religionists are a drag. Moderate, wishy-washy believers are just smoking lukewarm dope.

I've known Hirsi Ali personally and read Machteld Zee. It's always interesting to see these people who promote agenda's for the right in an academic manner promoted to celebrity status. It happens because it's rare not because they're especially bright or novel.

That's either because universities are leftist fortresses reinforcing the leftist agenda or the right is simply wrong on many of these subjects.

Hirsi Ali used to go on about genital mutilation as a Muslim problem, whereas the only majority Muslim country where it's prevalent is Egypt (with most imams there opposed to it). Other African countries where it's prevalent are majority Christian. The practice predates Islam in any case. That's just one example where she knowingly lied. Not a woman whose words are to be taken at face value.

Besides such misstatements of facts the reasoning of both writers is not logically rigorous.

And although there's definitely things going awry with Sharia arbitration in Europe, Machteld's work is basically a conspiracy theory and mostly an attack on what she labels as the progressive elite. She has "found" interesting cases but raises a few examples to a standard and then ascribes an intentional islamisation of Europe into it that has simply no basis on facts. It's all very... poor academic work. In the end, I think they are "attacked" by other academics because those others take their work seriously and don't need these charlatans to spout nonsense under the veneer of sensibility that working for a university grants. Call it professional pride.

I think they are "attacked" by other academics because those others take their work seriously and don't need these charlatans to spout nonsense under the veneer of sensibility that working for a university grants. Call it professional pride. — Benkei

Not even no.

If you knew Hirsi personally and read Machteld (which I haven't) I assume you know Dutch. I've linked to the articles you purport to be people "taking their job seriously" and these two articles are written by 6 females with an academic function. It's these articles which are spouting nonsense, it's plain and clear for everyone to see: http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/37918

As I said I haven't read Machteld Zee's work yet but she published the thesis which earned her a doctorate as a book, anyone who wishes can read it and come to their own conclusions.

Aside from what's what concerning Hirshi Ali, you put up a straw man with attacking her on her stance of female genital mutilation (which she has suffered) and you do the same with the work of Machteld Zee (where you accuse 'her' of making a straw man argument) and you do this to defend ...really poor leftist academic work while, again (!) making a straw man argument when you sarcastically mention:

because universities are leftist fortresses reinforcing the leftist agenda — Benkei

What's your pride in using some logical fallacies instead of actually criticizing the subject at hand?

and to add:

"Professorship of socio-political aspects of the welfare state and the exchange economy" , "Professor in gender and equality", "Professor in citizenship and moral diversity", "Professor in art, culture and diversity", "Special professor in gender based violence".

I am a complete nitwit concerning academic culture but these are a few of the academic positions available in the Netherlands, they're all held by females (I don't know what that's supposed to mean) and some of these positions have been created specifically for those holding the position.

Again I'm a nitwit when it concerns academia but I am unaware of much explicitly right wing academic positions in reputable universities (the above mentioned are very much leftist positions). Am I totally wrong in asserting that there might be a strong leftist current in the local academic culture or is it just that the right is wrong on many of the subjects ...they would in principle not get any doctorate in?

I'm not being sarcastic here, I would really like to become aware of the right counterpart of this, preferably concerning the Netherlands.

however metaphorically — mcdoodle

Ah, so you can read. Excellent, then I still fail to see how what she said was controversial.

on my spectrometer — mcdoodle

Your what now? Why should I care?

In my locality — mcdoodle

Again, so? "According to me and the community I live in, she's controversial, therefore she is!" No, sorry, that doesn't follow.

Google is your friend. There have been many studies and surveys done that show that leftist professors outnumber their conservative colleagues by quite a large margin, especially in the humanities and so called social sciences. There's a bit more parity in the hard sciences.

I would like to see your source showing that those educated in hard science degrees are as likely to be conservative as liberal.

To my understanding the more educated a person is the more likely they are to be liberal.

"A bit more parity" is not the same as "as likely as." Those on the left in academia outnumber those on the right by 2 to 1 generally speaking. I'm saying that the disparity is the most extreme in the humanities and social sciences. You can Google things on your own time.

I did but got different results than you.

When the leanings of independents are considered, fully 81% identify as Democrats or lean to the Democratic Party, compared with 12% who either identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP.

http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/

That is why I asked for your source.

What the hell? I'm not disputing those numbers, nor ever intended to. I was making a comparison by saying that there is generally an even greater political disparity within the humanities and social sciences than there is in the hard sciences. What don't you understand about that claim? Here's a source for you: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/12/21/politics

My mistake
I thought you were suggesting that in the hard sciences it was an even split among left leaning and right leaning views.

That would be news to me, because even in the hard sciences left leaning tend to significantly out number right leaners.

Your article did not have a link to any actual study that I could find, but I will take your word for it that there have been studies that show that in humanities majors there is an even greater disparity than in the hard sciences.

I thought you were suggesting that in the hard sciences it was an even split among left leaning and right leaning views. — m-theory

I corrected this in my very first reply to you.

Aside from what's what concerning Hirshi Ali, you put up a straw man with attacking her on her stance of female genital mutilation (which she has suffered) — Gooseone

Sigh. Genital mutilation isn't a Muslim problem, which she knew but lied about because she has issues. Whether she suffered it, is neither here nor there.

As I said I haven't read Machteld Zee's work yet but she published the thesis which earned her a doctorate as a book, anyone who wishes can read it and come to their own conclusions. — Gooseone

So you have no way of assessing the merits of those articles but just feel they're not appropriate because they don't agree with your preconceived political notions. Notions so well established you'll defend someone who you don't even know. Fantastic. Very well-examined.

Sigh. Genital mutilation isn't a Muslim problem, which she knew but lied about because she has issues. Whether she suffered it, is neither here nor there. — Benkei

I said "aside from the what's what concerning Hirshi Ali", you use one example to purport her words aren't to be taken on face value. You can probably find a bunch more and this just shows that one should always be critical and not blindly take things on face value.

And if I look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_female_genital_mutilation_by_country there are certainly strong links between female genital mutilation, look at Indonesia and Malaysia for example.

So you have no way of assessing the merits of those articles but just feel they're not appropriate because they don't agree with your preconceived political notions. Notions so well established you'll defend someone who you don't even know. Fantastic. Very well-examined. — Benkei

Yes I have, I can read. The Volkskrant is implicitly mentioning Machteld and the (opinion!) article goes on saying that it's wrong to assume in advance that woman in Islamic cultures (Islam mentioned implicitly) do not necessarily suffer from unequal rights but might very well choose their position... so we shouldn't judge cultures with unequal rights... or something. Then they use the example about how woman aren't able to get a maidenhead restoration operation in Zweden and how we should respect woman's wishes more. They mention that in the Netherlands, 48% of such operations are applied for due to sexual abuse yet it's common knowledge here many woman use that as an excuse to get it done because there is a critical policy in the Netherlands. The essence of the article is basically saying we should show solidarity and don't judge the cultures which expect females to be virgin when they get married. "Why criticise the cultures which are hampering equal rights, who are we to tell woman how to emancipate?".

The NRC article starts of with saying that it's a bad thing to polarize debate by stating that Islam and feminism can't go together and ends with stating that these "racist, patriarchal, extreme right nationalist ideologies are irreconcilable with feminism".

So you have no way of assessing the merits of those articles but just feel they're not appropriate because they don't agree with your preconceived political notions. Notions so well established you'll defend someone who you don't even know. Fantastic. Very well-examined. — Benkei

Unlike you with your condescending tone, I also specifically mention that I'm not being sarcastic when I ask for information concerning right wing positions, I would gladly be more informed instead of "judging everything by my preconceived political notions".

Seeing you mainly try to set up straw man arguments so that you're better able to use an ad hominem in your discourse, I won't count on you providing such enlightening information.

I said "aside from the what's what concerning Hirshi Ali", you use one example to purport her words aren't to be taken on face value. You can probably find a bunch more and this just shows that one should always be critical and not blindly take things on face value.

And if I look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_female_genital_mutilation_by_country there are certainly strong links between female genital mutilation, look at Indonesia and Malaysia for example. — Gooseone

It predates Islam, Chirstianity and Judaism. It's prohibited in Indonesia. It isn't a Muslim problem as it spans regions that are majority Christian as well. And Hirshi Ali's words aren't to be taken on face value for a lot of reasons but I think lying about a topic you got famous about is a pretty big one. That's not just "not blindly taking things on face value" that's reason to discard her writings to the thrash heap.

Also, both Machteld and Ayaan had an agenda and set out to find data to confirm that agenda, instead of collecting and generating data and distilling a conclusion from the data. In other words, they suck as researchers. Not to mention the mistake of setting Islam up as some sort of monolithic cultural entity. Hint: it isn't.

Yes I have, I can read. The Volkskrant is implicitly mentioning Machteld and the (opinion!) article goes on saying that it's wrong to assume in advance that woman in Islamic cultures (Islam mentioned implicitly) do not necessarily suffer from unequal rights but might very well choose their position... so we shouldn't judge cultures with unequal rights... or something. Then they use the example about how woman aren't able to get a maidenhead restoration operation in Zweden and how we should respect woman's wishes more. They mention that in the Netherlands, 48% of such operations are applied for due to sexual abuse yet it's common knowledge here many woman use that as an excuse to get it done because there is a critical policy in the Netherlands. The essence of the article is basically saying we should show solidarity and don't judge the cultures which expect females to be virgin when they get married. "Why criticise the cultures which are hampering equal rights, who are we to tell woman how to emancipate?". — Gooseone

Apparently you can't read well. The article is far more nuanced than you make it out to be and despite the word "self determination" being mentioned six times, you didn't pick up on it. The essence is that self determination for people sometimes means you can't tell them what to do even if you disagree with their choices.

I'll state it less nuanced: imposing our values on people who don't share them is fascist. So, given the example of Sweden, I can disagree with maidenhead restoration operations but I I also disagree with prohibiting it. If we're going that way, we can also prohibit circumcision of men (which, by the way, isn't a religious practice either, because it predates Judaism as well but is regularly associated with Judaism any way). Or outlaw any set out of behaviour we consider bad for people (smoking, big macs, alcohol etc. etc.). It's fascist in the sense that the "government knows best".

The NRC article starts of with saying that it's a bad thing to polarize debate by stating that Islam and feminism can't go together and ends with stating that these "racist, patriarchal, extreme right nationalist ideologies are irreconcilable with feminism". — Gooseone

Maybe you shouldn't be using Google translate because the article doesn't state this. It states it has created a schism in feminism. Summed up, it is feminism that tells non-Western women what to do on the one hand and feminism that supports non-Western people to emancipate on the other. The former, according to the writer, is irreconcilable with feminism in the latter sense. She labels the former as racist (assumes superiority of Western values), patriarchal (dictates instead of empowers women to freedom), and coincides with nationalist ideologies (because it says the same as Wilders).

Unlike you with your condescending tone, I also specifically mention that I'm not being sarcastic when I ask for information concerning right wing positions, I would gladly be more informed instead of "judging everything by my preconceived political notions".

Seeing you mainly try to set up straw man arguments so that you're better able to use an ad hominem in your discourse, I won't count on you providing such enlightening information. — Gooseone

I gave you information but you don't care about it and just accuse me of straw man arguments, which I haven't. I've accused Ayaan of lying which is quite well established and handed you the facts and accused both of bad methodologies, which is also easily established if you had actually read anything other than badly translated articles instead of some of their original works. Your convictions are clear, despite your claims to the opposite. Apologies if my lack of patience then comes across as condescending but I'll remind you that you started accusing me of straw man arguments where there were none, which is pretty much the academics equivalent of plugging your ears with your fingers and screaming "lalalala" at the top of your lungs.

More Hirshi Ali lies:

”Imagine if a leader within the tea party movement were able to persuade its members to establish a third political party. Imagine he succeeded —overwhelmingly— and that as their leader he stood a real chance of winning the presidency. Then imagine that in anticipation of his electoral victory, the Democrats and Republicans quickly modified an existing antidiscrimination law so that he could be convicted for statements he made on the campaign trail.

All of this seems impossible in a 21st-century liberal democracy. But it is exactly what is happening in Holland to Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders.” — Wall Street Journal

Antidiscrimination law was never changed and not even attempted and the public prosecutor decided not to prosecute. It was subsequently forced to do so as a consequence of a court case brought by private individuals that demanded prosecution. Court decided in their favour.

She also lied when she asked for asylum in the Netherlands and then lied about having lied.

Born Ayaan Hirsi Magam, she migrated to the Netherlands in 1992, changed her name to Hirsi Ali, and lied to Dutch authorities about her past. Contrary to the story she told the government, she arrived in the Netherlands not from war-torn Somalia, but from Kenya, where she lived in a secure environment and under the protection of the United Nations, which funded her education at a well-regarded Muslim girls’ school. Though she told immigration authorities and the Dutch public she had fled from civil war in Somalia, she left that country before its war broke out. Indeed, she did not live through a war there or anywhere else. Thanks to her fabrications, Hirsi Ali received political asylum in just five weeks.

Hirsi Ali told astonished audiences on Dutch talk shows that her supposedly devout family had forced her to marry a draconian Muslim man, that she had not been present at her own wedding, and that her family had threatened to kill her for offending their religious honor. However, Zembla told a drastically different story. Hirsi Ali’s brother, aunt and former husband each testified that she had indeed been present at her wedding. It turned out that Hirsi Ali’s mother had sent her brother to a Christian school, not exactly an indication of Islamic fanaticism.

“Yeah, I made up the whole thing,” Hirsi Ali admitted on camera to a Zembla reporter who confronted her with her lies. “I said my name was Ayaan Hirsi Ali instead of Ayaan Hirsi Magan. I also said I was born in 1967 while I was actually born in 1969.”

Hirsi Ali’s claim of honor killing threats also appears to be empty; she remained in touch with her father and aunt after she left her husband. In fact, her husband even came to visit her in the Dutch refugee center where she lived after leaving him. Even though he had paid her way to Europe on the grounds that she would join him in Canada, Hirsi Ali’s husband consented to the divorce she sought. — Max Blumenthal

Then there's her economic use of the truth, which runs through most of her work. Here's a nice example:

If you look at70 percent of the violence in the world today, Muslims are responsible

As said in an interview with Jon Stewart.

Not clear where the number comes from but the International Institute of Strategic Studies says it might be calculated independently based on the number of Muslim victims. The problem is that it unjustifiably suggests the armed conflicts are a result of the Muslim religion. The Syrian conflict, for instance, does not have at its root religion, which totally skewed the number of Muslim victims in 2015.

So yes, the woman is a charlatan.

Ah, so you can read. — Thorongil

I don't understand how rudeness aids any debate. To repeat: to talk about 'a war with Islam' is indeed 'controversial' rhetoric. To talk about it in public in that way in my community would align you with the extreme right-wing. Evidently you live among people who are happiter to talk in such an inflammatory way about the beliefs of their neighbours and friends than the people I know.

To repeat: to talk about 'a war with Islam' is indeed 'controversial' rhetoric. — mcdoodle

Because you say so. Got it. QED. How shall I ever recover from this argumentative masterclass?

To repeat: to talk about 'a war with Islam' is indeed 'controversial' rhetoric. To talk about it in public in that way in my community would align you with the extreme right-wing. Evidently you live among people who are happiter to talk in such an inflammatory way about the beliefs of their neighbours and friends than the people I know. — mcdoodle

But we call virtually anything a war, you know. There's the War against Christmas, the War against Christianity, the good ole War against Poverty, the War against Drugs, the War against Crime. How can we know, any longer, that we're against something unless we acknowledge there's a war against it? How can we express our outrage against criticism of something we value unless we maintain there's a war against it? Nobody would understand unless we say there's a war.

It predates Islam, Chirstianity and Judaism. It's prohibited in Indonesia. It isn't a Muslim problem as it spans regions that are majority Christian as well. And Hirshi Ali's words aren't to be taken on face value for a lot of reasons but I think lying about a topic you got famous about is a pretty big one. That's not just "not blindly taking things on face value" that's reason to discard her writings to the thrash heap. — Benkei

I'll concede that it's not helpful to see Hirshi Ali as an academic scholar, yet you've far from proven that there's no link between Islam and female genital mutilation, just because Islam didn't invent it and Egyptian imam's speak out publicly against it does not mean there is no correlation whatsoever. Furthermore, Hirshi's own report on it being interpreted as a religious exercise counts for something to me, where I would not see such a report as academic scholarship. She rose to prominence due to her political engagement 'and 'her background. In my view she's not wrong about FMG, and especially considering her own personal experience I find it overly harsh to use this specific example as a straw man to negate anything she has said. (You've done a way better job in you more recent assessment).

Also, both Machteld and Ayaan had an agenda and set out to find data to confirm that agenda — Benkei

Concerning Machteld, I've learned upon some reading that the book she wrote is not the thesis which gave her her doctorate, the thesis was called: "Choosing Sharia? Multiculturalism, Islamic Fundamentalism and Sharia Councils in the United Kingdom". As I mentioned I haven't read her book but I do have some trust in the panel which granted her a doctorate based on her thesis, more so then your opinion on her "poor academic scholarship".

It's fascist in the sense that the "government knows best" — Benkei

Here you apply moral relativism and use it to condemn ethical behaviour, I would not for instance call it fascist for governments to penalize murder. There can be debate on this specific issue (and there should be!), if this was the case I would state my opinion in that I personally feel Islam, as a monolithic culture, hampers female rights overall and it's morally wrong to give everyone the full freedom to emancipate. We have a past which we can use to observe the violent nature of reformation and also considering choice supportive bias, I feel it's justified to condemn a religion which 'generally' puts woman in a position which makes it hard for them to bring about change from the inside. Religious indoctrination plays a role here also, whereas it might seem like fascism to impose our morals onto others, I am of the personal opinion there are sufficient grounds for doing so.

Conflating maidenhood restoration with male circumcision is a bad idea, maidenhood restoration, aside from the actual existence of such a thing as maidenhood is generally done "voluntarily" at an age round about the age of consent and the bulk of this wish stems from what, mostly religious believes, is expected from woman (virginity). There's lots to say about male circumcision, the main thing I'd like to say on the subject is that males are fortunate it generally doesn't hamper physical functionality.

Maybe you shouldn't be using Google translate because the article doesn't state this. It states it has created a schism in feminism. — Benkei

I'm Dutch. I have not misread anything, the article starts with an accusation of creating a schism and ends doing the same thing. It's a pure difference of opinion on both sides which both contribute to this schism (and here you are justified to accuse me of having preconceived idea's which make me lean towards the former).

I gave you information but you don't care about it and just accuse me of straw man arguments, which I haven't. I've accused Ayaan of lying which is quite well established and handed you the facts and accused both of bad methodologies — Benkei

No you started with straw man arguments and this accusation made you elaborate.

Apologies if my lack of patience then comes across as condescending but I'll remind you that you started accusing me of straw man arguments where there were none, which is pretty much the academics equivalent of plugging your ears with your fingers and screaming "lalalala" at the top of your lungs. — Benkei

You did use straw man arguments and I'm still here replying to your elaborations (which I appreciate). You made it seem as if Hirshi Ali was an academic scholar (where I'll admit this has been in large part due to my bias, yet you have not notified me about my misrepresentation and I take that as a justification which confirms my biased suspicions). And you have also failed in notifying me about about the actual scholarship of Machteld while you did use 'your' opinion to accuse her of poor academic work.

I made a post in this thread stating my interest in this topic, you did in fact used straw man arguments to purport a certain stance to be "the right one" and this only justifies my hunches that there's something going on with leftist ideals defending Islam.

Antidiscrimination law was never changed and not even attempted and the public prosecutor decided not to prosecute. It was subsequently forced to do so as a consequence of a court case brought by private individuals that demanded prosecution. Court decided in their favour. — Benkei

The laws for the legislation you mention were put forward in parliament and would make it so that Wilders could 'not' be prosecuted, they didn't get support and the PVV is now trying again to legislate an addition to these laws. It's completely the other way round then you purport and yes it says a lot about the factual nature which Hirshi Ali considers to be truth. Also, are you mixing up the two separate prosecutions against Wilders? (one case for his film "Fitna" and the other for his discriminating speech).

Again, I wouldn't see Hirshi Ali as an academic scholar, the way she lied to get granted asylum could tell us something about how people distort truth to get what they want and how that may be relevant in certain current debates, I don't however feel that anything she says is necessarily without merit.

On another note, the "right" equivalent of what I purported to be leftist academic might be found in the University of Leiden where there are some professors of law and their students who appear to comprise a right wing academic establishment. (Paul Cliteur, Thierry Baudet, Afshin Ellian). These "right-wing" academic positions do not seem to hallmarked by being created to facilitate a certain view though, contrary to some "leftist" positions.

A straw man arguments requires me to misrepresent someone's argument. Where did I do this? Point it out when you first accused me of it.

It's amazing, by the way, that being Dutch you knew so little about Ayaan.

As to poor academics, standards in the Netherlands are pretty lax.

Also, if you'd level the amount of skepticism against Machteld and Ayaan you hold against me, we wouldn't be having this stupid conversation.

You claimed her statement on genital mutilation being linked to Islam to be false; you did so based on the origins of this practice and purport Egypt to be the only Islamic country (in Africa!) where it's prevalent. Though we might be able to look from the outside in and observe that the tradition is not necessarily linked towards religious practice, this does not mean that from the inside the practice has gained a religious narrative in many cases. I find that a misrepresentation and a lowly way of attacking her as a caricature, especially considering the many things you could have used (and have used later) to generate a more nuanced opinion on her.

Though I don't know that much about Hirshi Ali, you would be mistaken to think I am in favour of her views on the whole or that I feel she can be regarded as an objective authority on matters of Islam. I actually do not care that much, I do start to care if people feel they need to attack her and throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I won't blame her for being selfish and making up stories about her immigration and I have doubts to what extent she felt the need to (indeed) become somewhat of a caricature due to being met with criticism from the left. (Haven't followed her much when she was politically active).

It's the way in which criticism is generated which bugs me, all the time (both on the left and on the right) you see people set up a caricature of their opponents and attacking them on that basis. It's odd that those who tend to claim moral superiority are so often inclined to judge everyone who doesn't share their opinion while not realising that they place their own values onto those who are unable to do anything with these values.

"Stupid conversation", "fascist government", "charlatans spouting nonsense", claiming my convictions are clear, you give away a lot when it concerns how you feel about your own opinion.

You claimed her statement on genital mutilation being linked to Islam to be false; you did so based on the origins of this practice and purport Egypt to be the only Islamic country (in Africa!) where it's prevalent. Though we might be able to look from the outside in and observe that the tradition is not necessarily linked towards religious practice, this does not mean that from the inside the practice has gained a religious narrative in many cases. I find that a misrepresentation and a lowly way of attacking her as a caricature, especially considering the many things you could have used (and have used later) to generate a more nuanced opinion on her. — Gooseone

That's not a straw man I'm afraid. I highlighted an example. Or do you insist that every argument is conclusive and concise to the point where I'd have to take 5 days to write an essay. If your point was, Eqypt isn't the only majority muslim country in the region that practise FGM, then say so. Instead you go "straw man", when it really wasn't. That made it a stupid conversation.

The point remains that it's ridiculous to claim that genital mutilation is a Muslim problem when the practice exists irrespective of the religion held by people in the region where it came into existence for sanitary reasons. Due to lack of water, it was easier to remove these parts instead of having to clean it every day. If it were a religious thing, it would also be a Christian problem for certain African countries. But somehow then it all of a sudden isn't about religion, laying bare the double standard of the likes of Ayaan (and others).

The cultural practice of FGM was exported, among other things, when Islam was exported. It's interesting to see then that Indonesian imams are more "traditional" than their Egyptian counterparts even when the both governments have prohibited it. The fact that different imams in different regions hold different opinions, is further proof that it isn't an "Islamic" thing and that Islam isn't a monolithic cultural phenomenon.

There's more issues surrounding this, because most people do not receive and practice customs based on textual evidence but on the actions and expectation of their surroundings. Much the same that most Westerners aren't Christian any more but do believe in, for instance, the Christian work ethic. Or arbitration and impartiality as a requirement for fair judgments (also an ecclesiastical invention). So when people practice FGM, it isn't because they've done an extensive study of the Qu'ran and hadith and wonder whether it's the "islamic" thing to do. They basically do it because everybody around them does it and expects them to do it too.

Also, speaking of straw men, I said she claimed FGM was a Muslim problem and took issue with that, which is different than claiming there are links between FGM and Islam as you state it (still incorrect, but closer to the mark).

I won't blame her for being selfish and making up stories about her immigration and I have doubts to what extent she felt the need to (indeed) become somewhat of a caricature due to being met with criticism from the left. (Haven't followed her much when she was politically active). — Gooseone

I was going to act as a legal advisor to her at one point, because I felt strongly about FGM as well and thought it was great someone from her background would take up this cause. She had a habit to propose things that were legally unfeasible and I was supposed to help her formulate steps that fit in the existing legal system. Unfortunately, she turned out to be more interested in being shocking (and polarising the debate) than actually implementing effective policies. She made a conscious choice at some point to chose form over function and that's where I exited stage left.

It's the way in which criticism is generated which bugs me, all the time (both on the left and on the right) you see people set up a caricature of their opponents and attacking them on that basis. It's odd that those who tend to claim moral superiority are so often inclined to judge everyone who doesn't share their opinion while not realising that they place their own values onto those who are unable to do anything with these values. — Gooseone

But Hirsi Ali is a liar and a charlatan. How should I "generate" my criticism to please you then? You've also could've asked me "why do you think that?" but instead you accuse me of straw manning.

Here you apply moral relativism and use it to condemn ethical behaviour, I would not for instance call it fascist for governments to penalize murder. — Gooseone

Which examples did I give and do you think murder fits into those categories of examples?

There can be debate on this specific issue (and there should be!), if this was the case I would state my opinion in that I personally feel Islam, as a monolithic culture, hampers female rights overall and it's morally wrong to give everyone the full freedom to emancipate.

Monolithic culture... As I said, your preconceived notions were clear, despite your claims to the contrary. The difference between you and me is that I don't pretend to have an open mind about things that are morally clear.

We have a past which we can use to observe the violent nature of reformation and also considering choice supportive bias, I feel it's justified to condemn a religion which 'generally' puts woman in a position which makes it hard for them to bring about change from the inside.

Then you are unaware of the historical developments in this area. There was a time that Islamic women could divorce and receive part of the estate, when us Westerners treated women as a thing to be owned. The thin veneer of respectibility we shroud ourselves with to feel superior is easily lost. 2 world wars in the "enlightened world" is proof enough. Human beings are animals if we do not continually make the effort to be more than just animals and it's only too easy not to make the effort, when we perceive it not costing us anything (except our humanity).

The point being, these things are in flux and I don't think the human race has progressed morally in any way as compared to 4000 years ago.

That said, I consider every religion equally stupid.

Religious indoctrination plays a role here also, whereas it might seem like fascism to impose our morals onto others, I am of the personal opinion there are sufficient grounds for doing so.

A prohibition on FGM? Sure. A prohibition on maidenhood restoration not so much. You know we've had discussions about prohibition on wearing the nikab in NL. Because women who wear them are all oppressed by their husbands. Even if that were true, how is more oppression (this time state-sanctioned) going to help women emancipate? This is why imposing our morals, especially when they are repressive, isn't a good idea in every instance.

Conflating maidenhood restoration with male circumcision is a bad idea, maidenhood restoration, aside from the actual existence of such a thing as maidenhood is generally done "voluntarily" at an age round about the age of consent and the bulk of this wish stems from what, mostly religious believes, is expected from woman (virginity). There's lots to say about male circumcision, the main thing I'd like to say on the subject is that males are fortunate it generally doesn't hamper physical functionality.

Yes not the best comparison in that respect but the examples were given to show it isn't necessarily a good idea to have governments enforce every moral norm. I'm not even sure what moral norm is being protected by prohibiting maidenhood restorations. For more it falls squarely in the middle of physical integrity and the right to choose what to do with your body.