X Close

America's Muslim #MeToo moment The self-appointed guardian of Islamic civil rights faces allegations of abuse and omerta

A young Muslim woman attends a CAIR-Massachusetts meeting (Photo by Jonathan Wiggs/The Boston Globe via Getty Images)

A young Muslim woman attends a CAIR-Massachusetts meeting (Photo by Jonathan Wiggs/The Boston Globe via Getty Images)


June 26, 2021   6 mins

The Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) presents itself as a protector of civil rights; the guardian of America’s Muslim community. Its vision, it claims, is “to be a leading advocate for justice and… to enhance understanding of Islam, protect civil rights, promote justice, and empower American Muslims.”

But behind this seemingly noble mission lies another more political, and at times sinister, agenda. Since its inception in 1994, CAIR has, according to the Global Muslim Brotherhood Research Center in 2007, “been intimately connected to a network of extremist Islamist groups centred on Hamas”. Its historical affinity with extremism has, however, remained poorly understood by the general public, as well as many American Muslims who take CAIR’s public statements at face value, or believe it just supports the general Palestinian cause.

Thanks to a whistleblower’s brave new testimony, revelations over the past month have revealed another side to CAIR: namely, its alleged tactics of shutting down debate around the gender-based violence that affects women within Muslim communities.

I should declare here that I have a history with CAIR. Only a few months ago, the organisation attempted to pressure San Francisco’s Commonwealth Club into cancelling a discussion between me and journalist Bari Weiss about my new book, Prey, which discusses the recent rise in sexual assault and harassment in Europe in the context of mass migration from Muslim-majority countries.

CAIR-California mobilised their nationwide network, both privately and publicly, demanding that the club does “not lend their platform to hateful voices.” Ultimately, the CAIR campaign failed and the event was a success — though I doubt that it’s the last I’ll hear from them. Indeed, I am quite used to a pattern of attempted cancellations by CAIR and its sister organisations, notably the Muslim Student Association. Some attempts, as with the honorary degree I was supposed to receive from Brandeis University, have been successful. Not every institution stands its ground the way the Commonwealth Club did.

Yet my run-ins with CAIR seem relatively minor when compared to the entrenched internal culture of misogyny, homophobia and abuse alleged in recent federal court filings.

Enter Lori Saroya.

Saroya, whose parents immigrated to the United States from Pakistan, was raised in a small town in southern Iowa. From a young age, she showed an interest in civil rights and social justice; she became the President of the Muslim Student Association at her university, and later co-founded CAIR-Minnesota. Eventually she joined the National Board and worked her way up to become a Chapter Director in 2017.

Like many Americans, Saroya was convinced that CAIR was everything it claimed to be. That, in itself, is unsurprising. CAIR’s cleverness is that, despite having a fairly marginal following among American Muslims, it has managed to position itself as the defender of civil rights of all American Muslims, and as the main intermediary between US intelligence and law enforcement agencies and grassroots communities.

That isn’t to say that allegations about a toxic culture inside CAIR are anything new. Since moving to the United States in 2006, I’ve heard whispers of allegations against men in the upper ranks of CAIR — stories of women claiming sexual harassment or assault, but too frightened to come forward.

The women who approached me fearfully described an organisation that is “Mafia-like”; they walked on eggshells, terrified of the control, the aggression and the manipulation. All were willing to tell their stories behind closed doors, but none dared to go public. Not even at the time of #MeToo.

That is what makes what Saroya sets forth in a recent filing in federal court so remarkable.

On January 12th, Hassan Shibly resigned as the executive director of CAIR’s prominent Florida chapter, after his wife publicly accused him of domestic violence, allegations which he denied. “For years I have been in an abusive relationship and the situation at home has become unbearable,” she said in a video on GoFundMe. Shibly has denied these accusations, dismissing them as an “attempt to smear me and fraudulently raise money from the community while capitalising on my name recognition.”

Then, in April, following a series of public posts by Saroya critical of CAIR, National Public Radio interviewed “half a dozen” other women who had come forward “with their own accusations of emotional abuse and sexual misconduct by him”. Shibly’s departure, NPR reported, “emboldened a slew of women to come forward with their own accusations of emotional abuse and sexual misconduct by him and of workplace discrimination at CAIR’s national office and several prominent chapters”.

Clearly it rattled CAIR. After the report was published, CAIR filed a federal defamation lawsuit against Saroya. “Since her departure from CAIR in 2018,” it claims, “Saroya has been actively engaging in a systemic and continuous internet smear campaign to damage CAIR’s reputation and to cause CAIR severe economic harm.”

Earlier this month, Saroya filed her response — published online here — and it makes for grim reading.

It details how Sayora attempted to resign in 2016 over CAIR’s “refusal to take any action at all regarding the evidence of Shibly’s mistreatment of women and others”. Nihad Awad, the National Executive Director of CAIR and one of its founders, convinced her to stay, but was unhappy that she continued to press for an investigation of Shibly.

Eventually, in 2018, Saroya did resign from CAIR. She withstood pressure from Awad, who allegedly attempted to bully her into signing a non-disclosure agreement threatening that “CAIR is a very powerful organisation.”

Saroya’s legal response explicitly mentions Awad, a married father of three, and his allies. She states that over her ten years working for CAIR, “she was forced to endure and witness unethical, and at times illegal, conduct”. This included sexual harassment, assault and discrimination. By May, she’d had enough. She alleges:

“It was at the CAIR retreat that Mr. Awad’s unwelcome, inappropriate and offensive behavior toward Ms. Saroya reached a point where she decided that she would in fact resign. Prior to that point, Mr. Awad, Ms. Saroya’s supervisor, had on various occasions asked her out to a personal lunch with him, asked her to put away her notebook and stop talking about work, and insisted on driving her back to her hotel during conferences and retreats. In May 2018, while out of town on a work trip, Mr. Awad asked Ms. Saroya to meet him in the hotel lobby at midnight. When she complied, he said to her with a smile “Do you know that [other CAIR employees] think there is something going on between us?“ This latest escalation of Mr. Awad’s shocking and repulsive behavior led Ms. Saroya to realise she needed to leave CAIR for her own safety and well-being.”

After resigning, it continues, Saroya was “shocked at the sheer number of women, past and present, who revealed their appalling experiences at CAIR National and affiliate chapters in a number of CAIR victim support groups and other channels she joined after her departure from CAIR”.

Her testimony is undoubtedly unsettling. But it also raises an uncomfortable question: why were concerns about the alleged abuse at CAIR not aired during the height of the #MeToo movement?

The answer, I believe, is rooted in a fundamental tension between America’s Muslim community and their country — one that is illustrated by the way that CAIR’s leadership retains control of three spheres of influence.

The first is internal: within the Muslim community, there is an honour and shame dynamic that is both compelling and insidious. When the victims in the #MeToo movement came forward, the prevailing culture called for the male predators to be held to account. The women were not blamed or shamed.

The Arab-Islamic attitude towards sex and sexuality, however, is rigid in its honour code. Women who have been victimised are often approached with an air of open suspicion. What were you wearing? Why were you in the car alone with a man? Why are you working outside of the home? The woman is assigned the blame and faces the prospect of causing her family real shame and dishonour, even if the woman is a victim.

In addition to the honour and shame dynamic, there is a related “in-group” and “out-group” attitude. The very act of a person from the Muslim community seeking legal counsel, police involvement or media attention outside of the Muslim community — or even outside of her own ethnic or extended family community — can be viewed as a betrayal of all Muslims, rather than an individual plea for help. In a community where you have to seek to resolve your grievances internally or shut up, women will frequently gravitate to the latter option by default.

Secondly, there is CAIR’s influence over the American-Muslim identity. CAIR shapes the image of what America is for Muslims, projecting a message that Islamophobia is around every corner and just one wrong word could result in a rise of attacks against Muslims nationwide. In the face of this perceived Islamophobic threat, CAIR presents itself as the only barrier standing between Muslims and persecution. And what practising Muslim — especially those who have already fled from persecution in other countries — would dare to question that? Even if you don’t necessarily agree with everything CAIR says, you wouldn’t want to undermine the fight against Islamophobia, would you?

This also relates to CAIR’s third sphere of influence: the one that concerns the wider society. The #MeToo movement rose against the backdrop of identity politics and the backlash against the Trump administration. And no organisation has profited more from this than CAIR. In the years since #MeToo reached its peak, CAIR has cynically leveraged identity politics by explicitly styling itself as the defender of minorities. It is, so the thinking goes, the last place that people would expect to find any form of mistreatment of women. And, even if someone did, it would be easy to cry Islamophobia, bigotry, and xenophobia. Any critics would be defamed, dismissed and ignored.

But now, thanks to Saroya’s courageous refusal to be silenced, those spheres of influence have never looked so fragile.

I have never been a vocal supporter of the #MeToo movement. There were too many unsubstantiated allegations, too many reputations destroyed for lapses of taste rather than crimes, too much attention paid to Hollywood when much worse offences were being committed against less privileged women in more obscure places. Women, it should be noted, like those at CAIR.

Of course, CAIR’s lawsuit against Saroya is yet to be concluded; and Saroya’s testimony yet to be countered; so far, the allegations against the organisation and individuals concerned remain exactly that: allegations. But the public fury of women such as Saroya surely marks a turning point for Muslim women in the US. Make no mistake: America’s Muslim #MeToo moment is here.


Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an UnHerd columnist. She is also the Founder of the AHA Foundation, and host of The Ayaan Hirsi Ali Podcast. Her Substack is called Restoration.

Ayaan

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

42 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
3 years ago

I would say it is about time that this is tackled head on. I also concur with her take on the #MeToo movement which is tarnished for exactly her reasons “I have never been a vocal supporter of the #MeToo movement. There were too many unsubstantiated allegations, too many reputations destroyed for lapses of taste rather than crimes, too much attention paid to Hollywood when much worse offences were being committed against less privileged women in more obscure places.”

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
3 years ago

It is not nearly enough to have never been a vocal supporter of  the #MeToo movement. it was a dishonest, cynical political gambit. Witness the free pass given to Alyssa Milano

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
3 years ago

I guess you have read her book about her life in Africa and then The Netherlands (maybe it was Belgium). Her start was terrible and after escaping to the USA she has started a new career. She started with one set of beliefs, which was destroyed, and has tried to find something new.
A lot of women could have had a bad start in life, abuse etc, and have tried to find something new – which is where #MeToo has come in. But it is really another religion, one with some positive points and also with a lot of negatives. In the past you only had to be religious and you had a guide for life, good or bad, but today in the absence of religion everybody is looking for something to believe in.

Last edited 3 years ago by Chris Wheatley
rosie.brocklehurst
rosie.brocklehurst
3 years ago

#MeToo exposed a great deal of male on female abuse in the workplace. What else would have worked to stop such abuse in its tracks? I grew up physically abused by my terrifying father. When I ran away the Police did not believe me. I was 13. I tried to gas myself and took an overdose of dispirin aged 14. The male doctor said if I had really wanted to kill myself I would have thrown myself under a bus. Later, aged 19, as a pretty young woman, I was seduced into the SWP in 1970. Which was ironic! Their behaviour belied their views on liberation. Many seemed to loathe women. Yet it was a woman who went on to lead the Stop the War Coalition. Debates about women’s role in creating male behaviours have still not resolved these problems. Aged 20, I developed a virulent Thrush for 3 years as a way to keep myself a virgin. I am sure it was psychological. Womens Lib was nascent. I was used by men not only as a general cleaner, cook and factotum but when sex finally happened it was totally unenjoyable. But I felt I had to as the only way to be loved. I was used to recruit. I was raped when drunk by a man who I admittedly had a huge crush on, who became Editor of a ‘Fleet Street’ paper. He encouraged me to drink more and just used me whenever he fancied for years. I was seduced by leering blokes in the Drama Plays Department. It was implied that my role was to seduce male TV reviewers to get better profile. It was part of me being offered the job of PRO. I don’t think female TV reviewers got the same treatment. It was accepted y many that this was what women were for back then. At LWT in the early 80s, I was plied with alcohol, seduced and raped by two professional men and became pregnant from it. I was obviously deeply- troubled but looked healthy. I was ripe for exploitation and did not know I could or should protect myself. I suppose I had learned by then that this is what men did and this is what I was for and this was all I deserved. My only husband, who I married late in life, was also used, physically abused and cuckolded by his much younger second wife.So I have a broader perspective on domestic abuse- it does not just happen to women. But by far the larger number of victims are women and the #MeToo movement really helped change the tide. No movement remains pure. There are undoubtedly those who exagerrated and appropriated the movement for their own ends. It’s a shame. But I will never throw the baby out with the bathwater. It is too important an issue.

Last edited 3 years ago by rosie.brocklehurst
Douglas McNeish
Douglas McNeish
3 years ago

Thanks for yet another insightful article from the very brave Ayaan Hirsi Ali, ever watchful of CAIR’s weaponisation of presumed victimhood while victimising others.

Galeti Tavas
Galeti Tavas
3 years ago

Let me try another and see if it slips past the moderation trying to protect your purity of essence, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_Nzrwjk_K0 Azan, by Mehdi Yarrahi (call to prayer, get up, get up, prays is better than sleep…)
The beauty of Islam is very great indeed, see if this does not stir you, it does me.

GA Woolley
GA Woolley
3 years ago
Reply to  Galeti Tavas

Never mind the suffering of the women and girls, they should be grateful for the ‘poetry’?

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
3 years ago
Reply to  GA Woolley

Could you not say the same about the Ancient Greeks?

GA Woolley
GA Woolley
3 years ago

I have a suspicion that the Yazidi women and girls abducted and r4ped by the Islamic State, the Nigerian women and girls abducted and r4ped by Boko Haram, the schoolgirls bombed and gunned down by the Taliban, and the women and girls in Pakistan gang-r4ped as ‘compensation’ for crimes committed by male relatives might be able to justify their ‘bias’. Or don’t you class those assaults as ‘degenerate’?

andy young
andy young
3 years ago
Reply to  GA Woolley

We’re talking about the actions of individuals here. I would imagine Mr. Mehdi is of good character – such people appear in all societies. The problem is organisations (including religions) which sanction mistreatment of individuals within or without that organisation. As you point out the Nazis & communists provide ample evidence that they did. The question is whether the same is true of Islam.

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
3 years ago

I always think of UnHerd contributors as old and desperate, determined to hang on to past images of a perfect life. You have pointed out something you feel is beautiful and you get a lot of downticks because it is something positive about Islam, because it seems alien and wrong. Please continue.

Last edited 3 years ago by Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
3 years ago

Yes, see above. Everybody is looking for something to believe in to make their lives meaningful. In a way, UnHerd sees itself as a mechanism for destroying those beliefs.

Galeti Tavas
Galeti Tavas
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

Thanks Chris. Unherd is an odd duck indeed. I first stumbled on it by seeing Freddie’s interviews with lockdown skeptics and thought – wow – this is finally a breath of fresh air, here is news from the other side of the coin, and it was. But then soon it set into its current mode, which is all about
‘Feelings’
They took a bunch of ex-Guardian sort of writers and they write articles and opinions about how they feel about something…how I feel about woke, anti-woke, women, politicos, my girlhood, art, Brexit……News as such, and the Economy (It’s the economy stupid) are not covered here – my guess is they are too dangerous a thing in today’s hate filled Liberality.

But they still continue as a breath of fresh air in that they do allow commenting. it seems 1/3 of my posts get kicked to moderation, yet look above MINUS16 points! Yet it stood!

As I said in my first post, lost somewhere, I did not read the article as I just did not want to read on Islamic cruelties and terrorism as I have had enough of that for now, and no one ever mentions its greatness and good, and so I went off that way – I hope some clicked on my link to Azan.

I will always defend Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, I see the deep good in the ethical basis, the justice, the rule of law, the 10 commandments, and the intellectualism But then I have had a long and weird life and know people and cultures of the Book, and see nothing in all human condition which matches the ideals they have..

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
3 years ago
Reply to  Galeti Tavas

Yep. You have to see the logic and ethics and not get too hung up on the words and the symbolism.

andy young
andy young
3 years ago
Reply to  Galeti Tavas

The problem is all religions claim to know the mind of God & know exactly how He wants us to live our lives. And they all say something different. Even worse is the persecution of people who have a different interpretation of the same religion (heretics). So while spiritual awareness is the finest & noblest of Man’s feelings (in my opinion) the resultant religious movements always lead to terrible consequences.

Galeti Tavas
Galeti Tavas
3 years ago
Reply to  andy young

Mr Young, I think you know nothing at all of history and Religion. The problem with a modern education is it is not thinking, it is indoctrination. History, Classics, great Literature, and philosophy are avoided as they do not fit with the Liberal truth. The second problem is after failing to educate you they have the all must get prizes and all must have their self esteem massaged. Silly people are taught their uninformed opinions are as valid as anyone else’s. In the old days someone who was educated well would have read 1000 books by the time they were 40, good books, this is as gone as hand letter correspondence.

Back in the Victorian/Edwardian days the top Public Schools worked on the ideal that true education:

“Is a drawing out, not a putting in’.

Thinking was taught and thus classics, history, and a great deal of information were given with an emphasis on being able to use that to understand the modern world and higher concepts. Maybe you could tackle a few books on comparative religion, theology and philosophy.

andy young
andy young
3 years ago
Reply to  Galeti Tavas

So no answer then, just a bucket load of assumptions about my background. And I’ll warrant I’ve read more (genuine) philosophy & history than you. For starters I can highly recommend Popper’s “The Open Society And Its Enemies”

John McGibbon
John McGibbon
3 years ago

A moral belief system some believers of which throw homosexuals from buildings, behead non believers, treat women as second class citizens, condemn others for different beliefs is probably amoral. I accept not all Muslims are so extreme and that Christianity was responsible for all sorts of horrors hundreds of years ago, but until political Islam is able to condemn these extremists there will always be fear amongst host communities.

Galeti Tavas
Galeti Tavas
3 years ago
Reply to  John McGibbon

The extremely intellectual Christian Church in the Dark Ages had thousands of monks for centuries hand copying all the classics so they could be spread throughout the Barbarian lands along with Priests educated multilingual at university level, to open the continent to learning, trade, ideas. They were the schools and Universities, they had the law, the morality, and the network so Europe could grow to the greatest empire the world has known.

The Church created ‘Science’, and the Scientific Method’. Of the worlds top 120 philosophers 100 were Christians, such was the intellectualism of Christianity. Medicine was founded by the Church – ever wonder why the word for nurse in British was ‘Sister’? Because the Church did all the main care, maintained the hospitals, till the end of WWII when the NHS was created.

Christians ended slavery, founded all the universities, all the great charities, all the great architecture. I always feel sorry for you people who had modern ‘Education’ where history is utterly neglected and perverted and you have been taught to self loath.
I mean, ever notice in Rome, once Christian, the coliseum stopped making an entertainment of cruelty? Same in the Norse lands, and the rest of pagan Europe.

chris sullivan
chris sullivan
3 years ago
Reply to  John McGibbon

Especially after reading this article !! (for which we are most grateful-though even more disturbed).

wjcorbettjr
wjcorbettjr
3 years ago

Difficult issue, illuminated with grace and insight in this very thoughtful piece. Thanks UnHeard. Glad to have the moral courage of Ayaan Hirsi Ali delineating these cultural contours with her trademark clarity and authenticity.

Peter Branagan
Peter Branagan
3 years ago

No.

chris sullivan
chris sullivan
3 years ago

We are not debating the positives of Islam , we are debating the ‘extremists will always take control of any political group” aspect. The problem seems to be that the ‘extremists’ are actually working towards a larger muslim world – and that they are happy to abuse and manipulate their own people (and the rest of us ) towards that end . Much like Hamas and the Palestinians whom allegedly they represent. It does not matter how ‘highly ‘ their culture has succeeded in some areas – if their behaviour is aggressive towards other’s rights and peace!!!! Unless the sane and moderate Islamics grow some gonads and challenge these nasties Islamophobia will only increase- to the detriment of all. If loony supremacists of any sort moved into my neighbourhood and started promulgating nasties I would sure as hell do something about it. But then i have not been part of a 1400 year brainwashing process – so I guess we are stuck with the status quo – unless sensible muslims TAKE SOME RESPONSIBILITY for their OWN !!!!!

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
3 years ago
Reply to  chris sullivan

I have one problem with your statement. If you oppose something you talk about ‘extremists’. If you approve of something you talk about ‘activists’. In any two-sided discussion the two words mean the same thing. Your comment automatically shows bias even though you are trying to give both sides in ‘fairness’.

rosie.brocklehurst
rosie.brocklehurst
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

Good point Chris Wheatley. And you are right.

chris sullivan
chris sullivan
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

True – I guess by “extremist’ of any persuasion I mean those willing to oppress or hurt any person in the pursuit of a goal vs ‘activist’ who may be acting legally to raise awareness about an issue. So yes i am demonstrating bias against any group than would cause oppression to others…..(including their own). However what word would be appropriate to describe oppressive corporations I wonder – maybe ‘predators’ ??

“‘

Galeti Tavas
Galeti Tavas
3 years ago
Reply to  chris sullivan

“But then i have not been part of a 1400 year brainwashing process”
By this gratuitous inferred barb at the Religions of The Book I assume you come from a Buddhist, Conscious, Hindu, or other tradition. Either that or you do not allow for the products of your Christian moral and intellectual forefathers heritage, like democracy, science, suffrage, universal education, freedom, industry, and the rights and attributes a Christian society blessed you with.

chris sullivan
chris sullivan
3 years ago
Reply to  Galeti Tavas

My Christian heritage has evolved to a point (mostly) where I am free to choose inclusion or exclusion and am not instructed to attempt to impose it on a world of decidedly second rate and indeed worthy of death infidels ??????? Again Islamic moderates need to be clearly seen to be cleaning up their own extremist ‘back yard’ if they hope to find open and unanxious acceptance in the ‘western’ world.

Clive Mitchell
Clive Mitchell
3 years ago

I’d like to make a reply in response to this, but the moderators would block it. So I’m not going to waste my time. Which considering UnHerd claim to believe in free speech is sad.

Galeti Tavas
Galeti Tavas
3 years ago
Reply to  Clive Mitchell

Respond – come on, say what you want, I have no problem debating the most ignorant and biased, because I have seen the world and do not just have my brain programed.

Irene Ve
Irene Ve
3 years ago
Reply to  Galeti Tavas

Your comment implies that whoever opposes your view on this topic must be the most ignorant and biased – you know it a priori. Such view of the world exemplifies the religious dogma you are defending.“The more you know, the more you know you don’t know.” – this type of reasoning represents the Western school of thought, and the majority of people commenting here.There would be no point debating with you as you already “know it all”, so debate would be on emotional rather than logical level.

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
3 years ago
Reply to  Irene Ve

Not quite. It is possible to debate anything but you have to choose your words well and try to be open-minded; that means that you might change your mind after the debate.
To change your mind means that you labelled with the terms ‘weak’ or ‘insincere’. I have noticed on this site that nobody ever changes, yet the articles/essays are meant to stimulate thought.
If you answer with the word ‘dogma’ you are beyond change. ‘Dogma’ implies that you are right about religion. My wife is religious and we talk about it a lot, especially today (Sunday). I do not call her thoughts and ideas ‘dogma’.

Irene Ve
Irene Ve
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

I’ve noticed that some people do change their minds, only it does not happen suddenly after reading and debating some article, rather, it happens gradually. Sometimes, a person disagrees vehemently, argues some point, but then their views start gradually evolve into something different from before, especially if their opponents were actually very bright, intelligent and polite.
I do not comment much on these pages, but I have been following comments section for quite a while to notice this trend.
Let’s agree to disagree on our views on religion – it seems we have both been on a long journey to arrive at where we are.

Last edited 3 years ago by Irene Ve
Galeti Tavas
Galeti Tavas
3 years ago
Reply to  Irene Ve

No Irene, his post was ignorant and biased, he showed that in the stating.
“I’d like to make a reply in response to this, but the moderators would block it.”

See, he admits he has no valid points to make, ones reasoned or verifiable, but merely would name call and post aspersions, (which is a fun pun in this context, if you know English well) and indeed the mods would be correct in blocking.

“There would be no point debating with you as you already “know it all”, so debate would be on emotional rather than logical level.” Well I do know 1000 times more than you is my guess, but you present a wonderfully immature rebuttal, one which is basically that you would not waste your time discussing as I am just so wrong, and you so correct. You silly sheep, what do you know of the real world?

Irene Ve
Irene Ve
3 years ago
Reply to  Galeti Tavas

“Well I do know 1000 times more than you is my guess”.
I believe that your statement presents a better example of “a wonderfully immature rebuttal”, not unlike that of an academically successful teenager who is yet to reach the playground with big players.
How would I convince you that you might be wrong about me – shall we compare our IQs, the number of degrees and the diversity of subjects studied (a degree in maths should be a prerequisite, I would assume), our age and life experience (work achievement and number of countries we lived in), the number and range of books read and analysed (meaning you read the best books a few times in your life on different levels of understanding), the amount of money earned, our personal real-life exposure to the brightest minds of our times? It is rather difficult to quickly assess another person’s level when meeting anonymously on the web, try not to jump to conclusions too fast.
Shall we try and discuss each others’ ideas and opinions in a factual and logical manner instead? I find that adding a bit of impartiality instead of emotions always helps.
Faithfully,
your silly sheep (which I am sure I am)

Last edited 3 years ago by Irene Ve
Nicholas Taylor
Nicholas Taylor
3 years ago

In my student days I harboured doubt and gave the benefit, unlike others who had fierce, usually fashionably anti-conservative, opinions based on a couple of months’ experience and reading. Now, after facts have piled up over the years, I find it increasingly difficult not to accept that the true character of a political movement or religion is expressed in how they actually behave. Of course one must allow for circumstances. Maybe the Crusades were just another excuse for the Norman warrior classes to do their usual thing of plundering and taking over others’ territory, and nothing to do with Christian hubris. Maybe child abuse by Roman Catholic brothers was simply a product of opportunity, nothing to do with the doctrines of original sin and celibacy in the image of their austere Master. Maybe the Taliban are just Pashtun nationalists determined to drive out foreigners and their puppets from their own lands, not really motivated by the belief that Islam is the final answer to everything and (despite the opposite biological reality) that women are just tools of men. ‘At least the Nazis made the trains run on time, and the Taliban keep crime off the streets’. That’s been tried and it’s worn out. Sometimes force has to be met with force. But people who DO evil ARE evil, and doctrines that lead to evil are not just experimenting on the way to benign maturity.

Judy Johnson
Judy Johnson
3 years ago

You are right; the definitive differences between the world’s main faiths preclude the accommodation of more than one in any region, yet freedom of religion is a basic human right so believers with differences must find a way to live together.

Galeti Tavas
Galeti Tavas
3 years ago

Two sounds in the world most stir me, the Azan coming from all the mosques, and Retreat-To The Colors… they are imprinted on me to my very core and send such a frisson of longing and nostalgia for those times and feelings and beauty so much, yet over and gone for me as one can never go back to what once was….

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvzVgidWrDM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmJMLAGU9Nc

rosie.brocklehurst
rosie.brocklehurst
3 years ago

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/03/ayaan-hirsi-ali-fighter-for-freedom-or-just-a-help-for-hanson Interesting piece about why Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s evokes so much passion for and against. She is an atheist, so religious men and women of the faith are hardly going to listen. She made some political errors in the Netherlands. Made a film with a fascist who was later murdered. Was naive, May be brave but has certainly carved a niche with elite support. Seems elitist herself. Worryingly, she more recently supported Trump’s actions in banning US entry from Muslim countries, although she said it was clumsily done. Well what wasn’t clumsily done by Trump? She is used herself as a weapon to attack Islam. But does she persuade those of the Moslem faith who need persuading of the political reactionary nature of the history of Islam – towards women in particular. No. She is there for the rest of us, t religious cynics. We can hold her up as a spokesperson. But she is not regarded as such by disaffected moslems. I loathe the violent distorted appropriation of Islam by fools, cultists, dispossessed morons and political elites in Shia and Sunni countries. Too few people here in the Mosques speak out against violence when it happens. Where were the demos my Moslems against the Manchester Arena bombing? On women and culture, although it is not any business of mine, I am not persuaded by those who want to wear the Hijab. It offends me. It labels. It demeans and it is masochistic. But it is up to them. I am not religious at all. I feel the same about Nuns.. So is Hirsin Ali any use? Is she progressive in a way that is needed? Many female voices are needed and we tend to only hear hers because of her adoption by those who want to use her as a weapon. Every other woman with a background in Islam, whether it is a religion they adhere to or not, seem too afraid to express views. Look at how women are used and punished and exploited in say Saudi Arabia or Iran. Beheadings revolt me and are entirely barbarian. Fear permeates the whole discussion about Islam because of evil Governments in Islamic counries, and because of Jihadists and terror. Fear is not something that is entirely divorced from support demanded by Israel judged by the attacks on any who protest Israeli policy. Orthodox Jewish women havelong been party to cultural behaviours that are revolting to modern ‘western’ cultural traditions. The washing of feminine ‘uncleanliness’ . The shaving of hair. The rituals around periods. Many are quickly accused of antisemitism who express any views. So, fear and religion and wildly used terminology – from islamaphobia to antisemitism -seems to choke any free narrative. Religion was always political. From the 11th to the 17th century, before the enlightenment, religious oppression could have been the accusation laid at the door of western christianity and its monarchs with its Holy Crusades; then later against Catholicism, with say, the inquisition, and laid at the door of at Protestantism with its precepts on heresy and at the alter of puritanism which brought about civil war in Britain. In those daysof course, the vast majority of people passionately believed in God. Atheism hardly existed.

Last edited 3 years ago by rosie.brocklehurst
Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
3 years ago

You make a very good argument against religion. I see religion as a tool to keep people down, a gadget for control. But there are billions of people out there who are religious and would disagree with me.
It seems that there are many people of limited education or limited opportunity who can’t understand why things continue to go against them, even when they seem to be trying to live a good life. It seems logical in that case to see that there is a god-like being looking down on them and trying to send them a message – work harder/pray more/read the bible every day/do good work, etc. When you get to richer countries there seems to be more control; you have a heart attack because you eat the wrong things or your genes are wrong and not because of the wrath of a god. For the poorer, more backward countries how can you give people hope if they don’t understand the simpler things of life?
From your post above you have had a lot of problems in your life. In a religious country (most religions) you would have been persuaded that you were guilty in some way and your priest would have told you to pray more and seek the forgiveness of the god. Buddhism remains the outlier where you don’t have to feel guilty about being here, taking up space. If this country was more religious there would be a battle – incumbent versus invader – but as we don’t have a religion in general, the invader is made to look like a real, attacking, full-on invader. We all feel embarrassed about religions and find it difficult to speak to those who knock at the door.

Judy Johnson
Judy Johnson
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

An interesting view. In Christianity there should be no feelings of guilt because of forgiveness.

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
3 years ago
Reply to  Judy Johnson

‘Should’ is the key word. But Christianity in Catholic terms has always been about guilt. “Say three Hail Marys”