[von Wrangell]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4986418.stm

And will probably start working for American Enterprise Institute.

What a perfect fit.

[abe]

Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Fiction and facts
(Filed: 16/05/2006)

Fiction: she said her name was Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Fact: her real name is Ayaan Hirsi Magan. She said she changed it to prevent her family from finding her after running out on her new husband during a visit to Germany.

Fiction: she told Dutch authorities she was born in 1967.

Fact: she was born in 1969. She said she lied to prevent Dutch authorities from tracking her real identity.

Fiction: she claimed to have fled to Holland from war-torn Somalia.

Fact: she caught a train from Germany, following her marriage to a Canadian cousin, after spending more than a decade in Kenya. She spent only seven years in Somalia as a young girl.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...16/ixnews.html

Also a fact...

Ms Hirsi Ali, who was raised as a Muslim, lives under police guard after receiving threats from radical Islamists, including the murderer of film director Theo van Gogh.

She gained worldwide notoriety after working with Van Gogh on the film Submission, which criticised Islam’s treatment of women

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/74c431f8-e5...0abe49a01.html

[yakkiebah]

She is a true hero. I admire her greatly for her courage and her persistence.

A loss to Dutch politics.

Her blog in english

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by yakkiebah

She is a true hero. I admire her greatly for her courage and her persistence.

And a liar.

A loss to Dutch politics.

You want your politicians to be liars? Well, to each his own.....

[yakkiebah]

Her press press release.

I came to Holland in the summer of 1992 because I wanted to be able to determine my own future. I didn’t want to be forced into a destiny that other people had chosen for me, so I opted for the protection of the rule of law. Here in Holland, I found freedom and opportunities, and I took those opportunities to speak out against religious terror.

In January 2003, at the invitation of the VVD party, I became a member of parliament. I accepted the VVD’s invitation on the condition that I would be the party’s spokesman for the emancipation of women and the integration of immigrants.

What exactly did I want to achieve?

First of all I wanted to put the oppression of immigrant women -- especially Muslim women – squarely on the Dutch political agenda. Second, I wanted Holland to pay attention to the specific cultural and religious issues that were holding back many ethnic minorities, instead of always taking a one-sided approach that focused only on their socio-economic circumstances. Lastly, I wanted politicians to grasp the fact that major aspects of Islamic doctrine and tradition, as practiced today, are incompatible with the open society.

Now I have to ask myself, have I accomplished that task?

I have stumbled often in my political career. It has sometimes been frustrating and slow. However, I am completely certain that I have, in my own way, succeeded in contributing to the debate. Issues related to Islam – such as impediments to free speech; refusal of the separation of Church and State; widespread domestic violence; honor killings; the repudiation of wives; and Islam’s failure to condemn genital mutilation -- these subjects can no longer be swept under the carpet in our country’s capital. Some of the measures that this government has begun taking give me satisfaction. Many illusions of how easy it will be to establish a multicultural society have disappeared forever. We are now more realistic and more open in this debate, and I am proud to have contributed to that process.

Meanwhile, the ideas which I espouse have begun spreading to other countries. In recent years I have given speeches and attended debates in many European countries and in the United States. For months now, I have felt that I needed to make a decision: should I go on in Dutch politics, or should I now transfer my ideas to an international forum?

In the fall of 2005 I told Gerrit Zalm and Jozias van Aartsen, the leaders of the VVD, that I would not be a candidate for the parliamentary elections in 2007. I had decided to opt for a more international platform, because I wanted to contribute to the international debate on the emancipation of Muslim women and the complex relationship between Islam and the West.

Now that I am announcing that I will resign from Dutch politics, I would like to thank the members of the VVD for my years in parliament – to thank them for inviting me to stand for parliament, and -- perhaps more importantly -- for putting up with me while I was there, for this has been in many ways a rough ride for us all. I want to thank my other colleagues here in parliament for their help, although some of our debates have been sharp. (Femke Halsema, thank you especially for that!). I would also like to thank the 30,758 people who in January 2003 trusted their preference vote to a newcomer.

But why am I not remaining in parliament for my full term, until next year’s election? Why, after only three and a half years, have I decided to resign from the Lower Chamber?

It is common knowledge that threats against my life began building up ever since I first talked about Islam publicly, in the spring of 2002. Months before I even entered politics, my freedom of movement was greatly curtailed, and that became worse after Theo van Gogh was murdered in 2004. I have been obliged to move house so many times I have lost count. The direct cause for the ending of my membership in parliament is that on April 27 of this year, a Dutch court ruled that I must once again leave my home, because my neighbors filed a complaint that they could not feel safe living next to me. The Dutch government will appeal this verdict and I grateful for that, because how on earth will other people whose lives are threatened manage to find a place to stay if this verdict is allowed to rest? However, this appeal does not alter my situation: I have to leave my apartment by the end of August.

Another reason for my departure is the discussion that has arisen from a TV program, The Holy Ayaan, which was aired on May 11. This program centered on two issues: the story that I told when I was applying for asylum here in Holland, and questions about my forced marriage.

I have been very open about the fact that when I applied for asylum in the Netherlands in 1992, I did so under a false name and with a fabricated story. In 2002, I spoke on national television about the conditions of my arrival, and I said then that I fabricated a story in order to be able to receive asylum here. Since that TV program I have repeated this dozens of times, in Dutch and international media. Many times I have truthfully named my father and given my correct date of birth. (You will find a selection of these articles in the press folder). I also informed the VVD leadership and members of this fact when I was invited to stand for parliament.

I have said many times that I am not proud that I lied when I sought asylum in the Netherlands. It was wrong to do so. I did it because I felt I had no choice. I was frightened that if I simply said I was fleeing a forced marriage, I would be sent back to my family. And I was frightened that if I gave my real name, my clan would hunt me down and find me. So I chose a name that I thought I could disappear with – the real name of my grandfather, who was given the birth-name Ali. I claimed that my name was Ayaan Hirsi Ali, although I should have said it was Ayaan Hirsi Magan.

You probably are wondering, what is my real name?

I am Ayaan, the daughter of Hirsi, who is the son of a man who took the name of Magan. Magan was the son of Isse, who was the son of Guleid, who was the son of Ali. He was the son of Wai’ays, who was the son of Muhammad. He was the son of Ali, who was the son of Umar. Umar was the son of Osman, who was the son of Mahamud. This is my clan, and therefore, in Somalia, this is my name: Ayaan Hirsi Magan Isse Guleid Ali Wai’ays Muhammad Ali Umar Osman Mahamud.

Following the May 11 television broadcast, legal questions have been raised about my naturalization as a Dutch citizen. Minister Verdonk has written to me saying that my passport will be annulled, because it was issued to a person who does not hold my real name. I am not at liberty to discuss the legal issues in this case.

Now for the questions about my forced marriage. Last week’s TV program cast doubt on my credibility in that respect, and the final conclusion of the documentary is that all this is terribly complicated. Let me tell you, it’s not so complex. The allegations that I willingly married my distant cousin, and was present at the wedding ceremony, are simply untrue. This man arrived in Nairobi from Canada, asked my father for one of his five daughters, and my father gave him me. I can assure you my father is not a man who takes no for an answer. Still, I refused to attend the formal ceremony, and I was married regardless. Then, on my way to Canada -- during a stopover in Germany -- I traveled to the Netherlands and asked for asylum here. In all simplicity this is what happened, nothing more and nothing less. For those who are interested in the intimate details of my transition from a pre-modern society to a modern one, and how I came to love what the West stands for, please read my memoir, which is due to be published this fall.

To return to the present day, may I say that it is difficult to live with so many threats on your life and such a level of police protection. It is difficult to work as a parliamentarian if you have nowhere to live. All that is difficult, but not impossible. It has become impossible since last night, when Minister Verdonk informed me that she would strip me of my Dutch citizenship.

I am therefore preparing to leave Holland. But the questions for our society remain. The future of Islam in our country; the subjugation of women in Islamic culture; the integration of the many Muslims in the West: it is self-deceit to imagine that these issues will disappear.

I will continue to ask uncomfortable questions, despite the obvious resistance that they elicit. I feel that I should help other people to live in freedom, as many people have helped me. I personally have gone through a long and sometimes painful process of personal growth in this country. It began with learning to tell the truth to myself, and then the truth about myself: I strive now to also tell the truth about society as I see it.

That transition from becoming a member of a clan to becoming a citizen in an open society is what public service has come to mean for me. Only clear thinking and strong action can lead to real change, and free many people within our society from the mental cage of submission. The idea that I can contribute to their freedom, whether in the Netherlands or in another country, gives me deep satisfaction.

Ladies and Gentlemen, as of today, I resign from Parliament. I regret that I will be leaving the Netherlands, the country which has given me so many opportunities and enriched my life, but I am glad that I will be able to continue my work. I will go on.

[BRussell]

She should have come to America where we greet illegal immigrants with open arms.

[abe]

http://www.melaniephillips.com/artic...es/001695.html

May 12, 2006
A woman of valour
Jewish Chronicle, 12 May 2006

I had the enormous privilege last week of appearing on a platform with Ayaan Hirsi Ali at the centennial meeting of the American Jewish Committee in Washington.

Ms Hirsi Ali is the Somalian-born Dutch MP who now lives under round-the-clock police protection, because her uncompromising opposition to Islamist fascism has resulted in a death sentence upon her by the people whose monstrosities she has devoted her life to defeating.

The daughter of a Muslim intellectual, she fled an arranged marriage and sought asylum in the Netherlands. There she observed the hidden plight of many Muslim women, suffering from such obscenities as genital mutilation or ‘honour killings’ when family members suspect them of sexual impropriety.

This led her to help write an 11-minute film called Submission about the violence practised against Muslim women and its justification in religious doctrine. As a result the film’s director, Theo van Gogh, was murdered and Ms Hirsi Ali went into hiding for her life as the Dutch finally woke up to the horrendous madness that now threatened to engulf their society.

Subsequently, however, Ms Hirsi Ali emerged from the shadows and went into politics, where despite the threat to her life she continues to call for reforms both to Islam and to immigration. Muslims, she says, must openly debate why their religion has provided justification for acts of terrorism, and Europeans need to grasp that their failure to assimilate immigrant Muslim communities derives from a tolerance that has gone too far.

Her courage is simply astounding. In the flesh she appears quiet, demure and modest. At the AJC conference she spoke briefly and simply, and you could have heard a pin drop. What she said was devastating. ‘I used to hate you’ she said. In her Somalian Muslim family, she said, she was brought up to hate the Jews.

She was taught that the Jews were to blame for the war in Somalia, for driving the Palestinians out of their homes, for the fact that no water came out of Somalian taps. ‘If my mother was unkind to me, I knew the Jews were definitely behind it’, she said. The Jews, she was taught, were evil, had evil powers and used these to evil ends.

But somehow she managed to grasp that she was being taught lies, and she determined to fight them. That was hard; learning to hate was easy, she said, but unlearning it was very difficult. Yet she did it; and now she stood before an audience of more than 1500 Jews and said: ‘I am ashamed of my prejudices against you in the past’.

Her personal moral and physical courage obviously make her a most unusual and outstanding person. Even so, there were, she said, many Muslims like her who, having been taught in similar fashion to hate the Jews, had learned that this was wrong and that they had been fed a diet of lies. But the tragedy was that there were many more who were still driven by this hatred, blaming the Jews for 9/11, for the Iraq war, for the Danish cartoons and for every ill they could think of.

The conclusion she reaches from all this is one that should be rammed home to the pusillanimous governments of Britain and Europe. The lesson of the Holocaust, she said, was ‘never appease evil’. The choice over what to do about Iran’s President Ahmadinejad was not between peace and war. It was a choice between war against an Ahmadinejad who possessed the nuclear bomb and war with an Ahmadinejad who did not possess a nuclear bomb.

For such moral clarity, she was applauded to the echo. Later that evening, some 2000 people packed into the AJC’s gala dinner where an extraordinary line-up presented itself on the platform – President Bush, Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel and UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. And just in case anyone might have thought the AJC’s pulling power was waning, there were video presentations from Israel’s Ehud Olmert, Australia’s John Howard and Poland’s President Lech Kaczynski.

President Bush declared that he would never let Israel be destroyed. Angela Merkel said rather more emotionally that Germany’s Chancellor would never let Israel be destroyed. Everyone applauded wildly except for Kofi Annan, who appeared to have difficulty moving one palm towards the other.

In the end, though, none of them delivered anything more than platitudes. We were left none the wiser about how Ahmadinejad was to be stopped from getting the bomb. We heard nothing about how free societies were to defend themselves against cultural submission. President Bush praised his wise best friend Angela Merkel. The AJC Director David Harris praised Angela Merkel. Prime Minister Olmert praised the AJC.

Meanwhile, elsewhere in Europe where organisations like the AJC are presented as the world Jewish conspiracy, it’s appeasement as normal.

[abe]

Originally Posted by BRussell

She should have come to America where we greet illegal immigrants with open arms.

11,000,000 of them and counting.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by BRussell

She should have come to America where we greet illegal immigrants with open arms.

That's what's likely to happen now.

Do you know what the procedure is in the US about people like this? That is people who have lied on their applications before and then denied residency/nationality.

If I recall it correctly she will now be denied residency/nationality in all EU countries.

[yakkiebah]

As far as i know she's already been accepted for American citizenship.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by yakkiebah

As far as i know she's already been accepted for American citizenship.

Lucky she wasn't a Mexican, you'd all be up in arms talking about shooting her in the head for crossing our border.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

And a liar.

Lying once doesn't make you a liar. Or we all would be liars, including you. And she had already been admitting for years that she was cheating in the immigration application papers.

[yakkiebah]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Lucky she wasn't a Mexican, you'd all be up in arms talking about shooting her in the head for crossing our border.

uh, and why exactly would i want something like that?

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Lucky she wasn't a Mexican, you'd all be up in arms talking about shooting her in the head for crossing our border.

Shooting in the head? Come now -- don't be so barbaric.

We should shoot them in the knee so that can't walk any further, not kill them.

[Taliesin]

Oh, well, she lied once, doesn't really matter, a small sin.

She raises a few interesting questions regarding part of Islam's practices, like the still existing forced marriages and the mutilation of female genitals, and the general lower rights of women regarding education, movement and expression in some parts of the islamic world.

These are important questions and should be studied by muslims and worked upon to discard wrong traditions and sinful practices and to lecture muslims regarding them.

What I don't like about her is her provocative style to put the blame on the Quran, while it's clear that she doesn't know the Quran very well if at all, instead of blaming the ones who do such wrong practice of their religion and lifestyle.

Regardless I think muslims should be mature enough to forgive the offending and to look at the underlining criticism, those that have merit and to do their best to struggle (jihad) for a change to the better.

Taliesin

[deomacius]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

those that have merit and to do their best to struggle (jihad) for a change to the better.

Yes and I will do MY best to "war" for change too...

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

Shooting in the head? Come now -- don't be so barbaric.

We should shoot them in the knee so that can't walk any further, not kill them.

Yeah. That way, they take a longer time to leave on their own.

How clever!

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

Yeah. That way, they take a longer time to leave on their own.

How clever!

No, you shoot their knees out BEFORE they get here. DUH!

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by deomacius

Yes and I will do MY best to "war" for change too...

Jihad does not translate as war, war is in arabic "harb". Jihad means the internal struggle to overcome the laziness, apathy and egoisms and to try the best to change things for the better in the own personal life but also in the society as a whole or in religions.

It requires for example a jihad to stand up against radical islamism and to denounce their literalistic and deeply wrong ideologies, tactics and actions; it also requires a jihad to study, criticize and call orthodox sunnism to finally face their own overladen historic traditions and to discard bad and wrong traditions; it requires also a jihad to stand up and do something against the fate of the most poor, not only by proliferating the basics like water, food, shelter, clothing and money, but also by trying to integrate them into the productive part of society by educating them, improving infrastuctures...

And when an invader or a tyrant oppresses people and kills with impunity, steals, rapes and burn through societies, it requires a jihad to stand up and stop the tyrant or invader from doing so.

It's important to rescue this important term from the hands of islamistic extremists and western islamophobes, that's why I will use it whenever it fits as an example, which is also a sort of jihad.

Taliesin

[PacHead]

Europeans are a cowardly bunch, and apparently the Netherlands is currently leading the pack. Europeans are cowards because they want to get rid of people who are critical of radical islamists, while at the same time they protect terrorists living amongst them. Europeans have no balls. Notice how quickly the Netherlands went into action in trying to get rid of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and meanwhile terrorists have been living freely in other European countries for years, like the terrorist Mullah Krekar who is having a dandy time living freely in Norway.

[analogika]

PacHead, I have to say it again, because it really stands out every once in a while:


You really are a complete idiot.

Truly stunning.

[deomacius]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Jihad does not translate as war, war is in arabic "harb". Jihad means the internal struggle to overcome the laziness, apathy and egoisms and to try the best to change things for the better in the own personal life but also in the society as a whole or in religions.

It requires for example a jihad to stand up against radical islamism and to denounce their literalistic and deeply wrong ideologies, tactics and actions; it also requires a jihad to study, criticize and call orthodox sunnism to finally face their own overladen historic traditions and to discard bad and wrong traditions; it requires also a jihad to stand up and do something against the fate of the most poor, not only by proliferating the basics like water, food, shelter, clothing and money, but also by trying to integrate them into the productive part of society by educating them, improving infrastuctures...

And when an invader or a tyrant oppresses people and kills with impunity, steals, rapes and burn through societies, it requires a jihad to stand up and stop the tyrant or invader from doing so.

It's important to rescue this important term from the hands of islamistic extremists and western islamophobes, that's why I will use it whenever it fits as an example, which is also a sort of jihad.

Taliesin

Perhaps the term I should have used was "battle". It's just as ambiguous as "jihad". Like so...

* I battle my own selfish desires.
* I battle world hunger.
* I battle lefties.
* I battle jihadis.

That sort of thing.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

No, you shoot their knees out BEFORE they get here. DUH!

You are such a sensitive humanist.

"RAILhead" is a nick that suits you perfectly!

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by deomacius

Perhaps the term I should have used was "battle". It's just as ambiguous as "jihad". Like so...

* I battle my own selfish desires.
* I battle world hunger.
* I battle lefties.
* I battle jihadis.

That sort of thing.

Jihad doesn't translate neither as warring, battling nor fighting. It translates as "becoming active" or "struggling", or "standing up" and describes the internal (within one's soul) struggle to overcome what hinders one to do good, to stand up against injustice, and to help others.

It's an internal struggle against apathy, indifference, laziness and egoism, and it's outside manifestation can take myriad forms, and only one of them is a fight, for example against oppressors, tyrants or invaders enforcing injustice..

Taliesin

[yakkiebah]

Taliesin, aren't there two states of jihad? The internal jihad, the one you just posted, and the external(or physical) jihad? External as in a real fight/battle.

[azt33]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Oh, well, she lied once, doesn't really matter, a small sin.

She raises a few interesting questions regarding part of Islam's practices, like the still existing forced marriages and the mutilation of female genitals, and the general lower rights of women regarding education, movement and expression in some parts of the islamic world.

I do not recall anything about the mutilitation of female genitals as being part of an Islamic custom/ritual. It is rather a Somali custom/ritual, so it is not really fair to say that is part of the Islam, as in some Islamic countries, these kind of actions are frowned upon.

What I don't like about her is her provocative style to put the blame on the Quran, while it's clear that she doesn't know the Quran very well if at all, instead of blaming the ones who do such wrong practice of their religion and lifestyle.

I do agree with you here. The only reason that she was actually accepted into the party (VVD) is because she has such a profound opinion about the Islam, IMHO.

What is worse is, that the political party knew that she had lied, and that she was still accepted into the party.

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

And a liar.

You want your politicians to be liars? Well, to each his own.....

I would say that what she has accomplished kinda outweighs that she lied about her immigration papers, don't you agree?

[azt33]

And what did she accomplish? I know a lot of Muslim-women in the Netherlands opposed her, even though she claimed that she was the 'voice' of these women. The organization of which I am a board member does not want to be related to her, and we represent the Turkish women in one of the larger cities of the Netherlands. And 99.99% of these women are Muslim, I would say 100%, but there can always be one that is not a Muslim.

I think the only thing that she has accomplished up until now, is to create more tension between Muslims and the Dutch people, as she is saying that the 'Islam' is 'bad'.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by yakkiebah

Taliesin, aren't there two states of jihad? The internal jihad, the one you just posted, and the external(or physical) jihad? External as in a real fight/battle.

Remember that I'm always talkin from the point of view of the Quran. What islamic empires have done to interpret it according to their empire-needs is not my business, and unfortunately orthodox sunnism has overtaken some parts developed during these empire-times.

But according to the Quran, jihad means merely a struggle to overcome one's apathy, indifference, egoism and laziness, and to stand up for right, justice and to do good, to help others, to set records straight...

Just an example: Everyone knows that Jesus was a pretty non-violent guy, not pacifistic, but still prefering love, forgivance..., and he did his best to set records straight, to call injustices and wrong practices for what they were and to become the advocate of the poor.., eventhough he faced growing opposition, and he continued despite the possibility of getting sentenced to death.
Jesus did his jihad, delivered the message, exposed the shallow practices and the injustices and warned of judgment day and promised eternal life for those who would follow him.

Another example would be Ayaan Hirsi Ali, she felt that there was/is an injustice happening against women in Islam, and she set out onto her own jihad to do something against it...

So jihad is clearly a very big and important term, one of the most important imho, it's the call for us humans to not be egoistic and to do and say what is best, true and just under all circumstances, and when the circumstances are that nothing other than fighting can reestablish justice, peace and law and order, then and only then it's also a jihad to join your own army and to defend against an evil invader or against a injust tyrant..

Taliesin

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4986418.stm

And will probably start working for American Enterprise Institute.

What a perfect fit.

Does Islam teach you to be aggressive and throwing stones at people for doing something you also do.

You have also lied. So YOU TOO are a liar.

So tell us von. What makes you better than her?

Uh absolutely noooothin.

[yakkiebah]

Originally Posted by azt33

And what did she accomplish? I know a lot of Muslim-women in the Netherlands opposed her, even though she claimed that she was the 'voice' of these women. The organization of which I am a board member does not want to be related to her, and we represent the Turkish women in one of the larger cities of the Netherlands. And 99.99% of these women are Muslim, I would say 100%, but there can always be one that is not a Muslim.

I think the only thing that she has accomplished up until now, is to create more tension between Muslims and the Dutch people, as she is saying that the 'Islam' is 'bad'.

She didn't create this tension, this tension comes from muslims who can't stand any form of opposition. The fact that someone was murdered, Theo van Gogh, and the fact that she has to live in hiding with 24/7 protection underlines the importance of her battle against radical Islam.

[azt33]

Originally Posted by yakkiebah

She didn't create this tension, this tension comes from muslims who can't stand any form of opposition. The fact that someone was murdered, Theo van Gogh, and the fact that she has to live in hiding with 24/7 protection underlines the importance of her battle against radical Islam.

That is a very important distinction, yet is overseen quite often. I agree and would have supported her if her battle was only aimed at the radical Muslims, but unfortunately it wasn't. She decided to speak in the name of *all* the 'underpressured' (I am not sure if this is the correct word) Muslim women. But she never took the time to ask these women if that is what they wanted. If she would have, I think she would have seen a much greater support.

And of course, people are going to say that these women will not admit the situation they are in. This is true to some extent only, we have been running several projects on domestic violence, and trust me, women do talk when they feel comfortable that the listener will not abuse the information (e.g. use it as propaganda). But we are going off-topic here I think. Or not?

[yakkiebah]

Originally Posted by azt33

That is a very important distinction, yet is overseen quite often. I agree and would have supported her if her battle was only aimed at the radical Muslims, but unfortunately it wasn't. She decided to speak in the name of *all* the 'underpressured' (I am not sure if this is the correct word) Muslim women. But she never took the time to ask these women if that is what they wanted. If she would have, I think she would have seen a much greater support.

And of course, people are going to say that these women will not admit the situation they are in. This is true to some extent only, we have been running several projects on domestic violence, and trust me, women do talk when they feel comfortable that the listener will not abuse the information (e.g. use it as propaganda). But we are going off-topic here I think. Or not?

Why should she ask these women? She was one of these women herself. She was also a Muslim until she had read the 'Atheist manifest' and after 9/11. I'm not sure she was looking for support, she wanted this thing brought out in the open, breaking taboo's. This was difficult, and still is. Being provocative i think is therefore needed. Christianity went through the same thing in the Netherlands and much of Europe. I can make a painting of Christ nailed on a swastika without fear.

I think the word you were looking for is oppressed.

It's not off-topic at all, it's about Ayaan.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by yakkiebah

in the Netherlands and much of Europe. I can make a painting of Christ nailed on a swastika without fear.

Well, in Germany it is illegal to publish the following picture *):



*)
In a way that is suited to disturb the public peace – which was given in this case where the picture was printed on t-shirts.

[abe]

Originally Posted by azt33

That is a very important distinction, yet is overseen quite often. I agree and would have supported her if her battle was only aimed at the radical Muslims, but unfortunately it wasn't. She decided to speak in the name of *all* the 'underpressured' (I am not sure if this is the correct word) Muslim women. But she never took the time to ask these women if that is what they wanted. If she would have, I think she would have seen a much greater support.

And of course, people are going to say that these women will not admit the situation they are in. This is true to some extent only, we have been running several projects on domestic violence, and trust me, women do talk when they feel comfortable that the listener will not abuse the information (e.g. use it as propaganda). But we are going off-topic here I think. Or not?

Would you please produce an example of what you find to be one of her offensive statements?

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by PacHead

Europeans are a cowardly bunch, and apparently the Netherlands is currently leading the pack. Europeans are cowards because they want to get rid of people who are critical of radical islamists, while at the same time they protect terrorists living amongst them. Europeans have no balls. Notice how quickly the Netherlands went into action in trying to get rid of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and meanwhile terrorists have been living freely in other European countries for years, like the terrorist Mullah Krekar who is having a dandy time living freely in Norway.

Now I remember why you were banned..

V

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Now I remember why you were banned..

V

For expressing my political thoughts and views on this topic ? Because I don't subscribe to the pro-terrorist way of thinking that the majority of Europeans do ? Because I'm not a coward who wishes to kiss the dirty asses of terrorists ?

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by PacHead

For expressing my political thoughts and views on this topic ? Because I don't subscribe to the pro-terrorist way of thinking that the majority of Europeans do ? Because I'm not a coward who wishes to kiss the dirty asses of terrorists ?

No, just for being Pachead.

Taliesin

[paul w]

I am so proud of this thread.

She lied, sure, but didn't exactly hide that fact afterwards. Nobody ever called it on her until recently when the climate changed and the new Dutch Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk decided to make a big deal over it. Whatever, she had already made plans to leave the country so one wonders if Verdonk would've had the courage to take on the issue otherwise.

[Monique]

Little white lies which has nothing to do with the battle she is waging now to help women. Muslim men hate her because she is againts female mutilation, for women to get an education and to be able to work if they choose to, againts domestic violence and she dare put that on screen for the whole world to see what kind of cowards many Muslim men are.

[azt33]

Originally Posted by yakkiebah

Why should she ask these women? She was one of these women herself. She was also a Muslim until she had read the 'Atheist manifest' and after 9/11. I'm not sure she was looking for support, she wanted this thing brought out in the open, breaking taboo's. This was difficult, and still is. Being provocative i think is therefore needed. Christianity went through the same thing in the Netherlands and much of Europe. I can make a painting of Christ nailed on a swastika without fear.

I think the word you were looking for is oppressed.

It's not off-topic at all, it's about Ayaan.

Because she is saying that she is speaking in the name of me and the other Muslim-women. Then she should know what plays a role. And as a Muslim, she should know that every country has a somewhat different understanding of the Islam, what might be perfectly normal in Morroco is not normal in Turkey (two of the largest Muslim groupings in the Netherlands). Of course it is good that she brings up topics that breaks taboo's. But I think that she could have done it better by not directly saying that the prophet Mohammed is 'perverse'. With that kind of 'insults' you know that you are not going to be taken serious by the Muslim population.

To give an example, although both my parents are Muslim (one is Sunni, the other is Shi'i), I have been raised rather freely. I could go out to clubs with friends, which was at first frowned upon by the Turkish/Iranian community here, as I am a girl. But later on people started to realize that girls are just as capable of taking care of themselves just as boys, so most of them were allowed to act more freely. Now this is the improvement we need in the Islam. Someone who is insulting a prophet will only cause anger and protests towards the community which she supposedly is trying to help.

Ah, thanks for the word. As you might have noticed, English is not my mother tongue, it is rather the third language I have learned. And I am still learning

[abe]

How accurate is this cartoon?

[azt33]

Pretty funny cartoon, but I don't believe it is very accurate. Not everyone in the Middle East wears that type of coverage (I don't know the English word), at least not in Iran or Syria. But yeah, now the question is, which one is better?

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by azt33

But yeah, now the question is, which one is better?

If western societies forced women to dress in a bikini all the time when they go out, then it would be as bad as Afghan society forcing women to wear a burka. But they don't.

[azt33]

True, but are the Western societies really that free? I mean, would I for example be allowed to play a tennis match in a burka?

[ThinkInsane]

Originally Posted by azt33

True, but are the Western societies really that free? I mean, would I for example be allowed to play a tennis match in a burka?

Of course you'd be allowed. You'd just have everyone standing around scratching their head trying to figure out why you'd want to.

[MinM]

Originally Posted by azt33

True, but are the Western societies really that free? I mean, would I for example be allowed to play a tennis match in a burka?

A professional tennis match? Probably not, since whichever professional league you would be playing in would have dress regulations (although Serena Williams seems able to wear whatever she wants).

In a recreational match, you could wear a burka or whatever else you wanted to, provided it didn't violate any indecency laws.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Now I remember why you were banned..

V

Why were you?

Glass houses and stuff.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Why were you?

Glass houses and stuff.

VOODOO WAS BANNED???

Oh, man! Voodoo, I'm sorry for you.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Why were you?

Glass houses and stuff.

Aw poor Zimphy. Still suffering emotional scars after bad bad voodoo picked on you

(I had almost forgotten about it, but I was banned from the P/L for teasing Zimphire here when he was being stupid. this happened a lot)

To be fair I spanked Slimey as well when he deserved it. Heh that was quite often too.



V