706. Saving Italy by Robert M. Edsel. This book gives insight to the difficulty in saving art in Italy during World War II. The group, later called the Monument Men (women were involved, too), was put in charge of finding ways to preserve art in Italy as the war progressed during the Allied invasion. In June of 1943 President Roosevelt announced the creation of the Roberts Commission due to the efforts of George Stout. He had seen first hand the potential for destruction which modern weaponry posed for objects of art during the Spanish Civil War.
One of the reasons which urged the President to form the commission was the news of the results of bombing Milan, Italy. The building in which Leonardo da Vinci had painted the Last Supper had been destroyed. Just about the only thing that remained was the wall which held the painting. Priests, townspeople, volunteers had gathered earlier to build a wall facing the painting to protect it. Luck and the wall had saved the day.
Another aspect which persisted throughout the war was a war conducted on the world stage. In this war Nazis claimed that Allied forces were not only murderers but would come as looters of art and destroyers of art. The bombing of Milan's Santa Maria dell Grazie and its Refectory (where the monks ate their meals) in which the Last Supper was located gave much force to Nazi claims. The US did not want a repeat of such a thing. (Alas, not the last).
Numerous people volunteered from universities here in the United States. Not a few had training in Classical languages. These and experts in the history of art, landscape design, architecture would be essential. These were trained in northern Africa, in fact not far from the ancient ruins of Lepcis Magna. While there one of the trainees, Mason Hammond, a Classical scholar convinced the army to protect the ruins and began explaining the value of these to humanity.
In the beginning the group had training but no one had a clue, except the Monument people, where they fit in to the military machine of the US. They had little authority, near none in fact. But General Eisenhower issued a general order which gave legitimacy and authority to the group.
Matters were made worse when in mid-July of 1943, when it had become clear to Hitler that its ally, Italy, would not hold off the US/British invasion, the German army entered Italy in full force. The Allied advance slowed to a crawl, casualties were incredible (casualities not in thousands but tens and tens of thousands). Germany had decided on a slow retreat which would cost the Allies dearly. This was done in the hopes (which came close on occasion) that the Allies would split, since German intelligence knew that ties between US/United Kingdom and Soviet Union were thin.
What has this to do with art? In the rest of Europe Nazis had been plundering art from musea, private collectors but Italy was an ally. But when the German army entered the picture the desire which Hitler, Goering and others had for art accelerated. Large, very large collections of art were gathered, to be taken to Germany (Hitler had plans for a mammoth museum in Germany to house all of this) under the pretense of protecting art from the Allies. When the Italian army disintegrated, the German soldiers resented this and the utter disregard which Germans had for life other than fellow Germans became clear. Villages were simply eliminated, people forced out of their homes to watch an execution and in some cases the wanton destruction of property.
The University of Naples, where Thomas Aquinas had studied, met a nasty end. Some German soldiers hassled two Italian soldiers (remember Italy has in essence left the war), one resisted. The Germans decided that an example needed to be set. The Germans went through houses nearby and forced everyone out to watch the execution. When finished the Germans used armored vehicles to blow open the gates of the university, ran in with gallons and gallons of gasoline. Dumped it everywhere and then burnt the place to the ground. In another incident more than 80,000 documents from the Middle Ages, 250,000 books, 1,200 of these were printed by hand before 1500 AD were burnt. This had no military significance. It was just done in the process of leaving nothing behind.
The Allies, via bombing and the chaos created by war led to some unsavory incidents in Naples. Many had never seen art and in the agony of survival saw no value to it.
The Monument people had a difficult task.
But they were assisted by Priests who often risked their lives to save art dear to their town, citizens of Italy who found ways to work with the Nazis to save what they could, by a priest who even became a paratrooper and was frequently parachuted into enemy territory to gain vital information on the whereabouts of important pieces, by museum directors, custodians, art collectors. Some of these were Germans who valued art so much that they ignored orders.
It is interesting to see the list of those primarily responsible for saving Florence. Florence was in serious danger since the city contained large rail lines used by the Germans for supplies. Who were these people who saved Florence? The German Consul to Florence, Gerhard Wolf, the Archbishop of Florence, Cardinal Elia Dalla Costa, the Extraordinary Envoy and Minister Plenipotentiary of San Marion, to the Holy See, Marchese Filippo Serlupi Crescenzi and the Swiss Consul ion Florence, Carlo Alessandro Steinhauslin. Kind of an interesting group, eh? But it shows that those who know what art represents crosses nationalities, religion and government. Florence escaped but not without some serious damage.
(I have been to Italy a number of times. I have on occasion complained of lack of friendliness on the part of Florentines. After reading this, I now understand why the people of Florence are so protective of their inheritance. I will never complain again.)
There is another very interesting fellow in this: General Wolff, of the SS. A shadowy guy whose mystery will probably never be solved, did much to protect and save the art taken from Florence. He also engineered the surrendered of German forces in Italy. THAT is a story in itself, complex and convoluted almost beyond imagination.
So where did much of the art work end up? Much of it was stored in villas throughout Italy, monasteries and in salt mines in Austria. Get that, Austria? Not in one or two mines but hundreds of mines and caves. Thousands and thousands of works of art were found in these caves/mines. One was rigged to blow up- to prevent the art from falling into the hands of Jews or friends of Jews.
I mentioned monasteries. Monte Cassino was/is a famous monastery southeast of Rome. The Germans had held off the Ally advance using this area as a fortified position. The Allies decided to send a contingent just south of Rome by 35 miles at Anzio. The hope was to force a German retreat. The German command was ready. Only brave fighting by the British and Americans held off total disaster. Still the Germans held. Their defensive position had as its center Monte Cassino. Here was a monastery established by Saint Benedict in 529. The area provided a clear view for miles and miles. By this time there was more concern for ancient monuments but the Allies had been pinned down here for weeks. Moral was low. Air views by Allies showed no presence of Germans in the Monastery and also that there were. It was destroyed. After capture it was learned that not a single German was killed there. It was empty. But even Monument people felt that the attack was necessary, so desperate were the Allies for success.
The book is a monument to a soldier of a different type, one most, including me, have perhaps never thought of before.
The work at many places still continues to this day (2012, when the book was written).
A theme, present in the book throughout was this: is a work of art worth a soldier's life? I found this interesting. And just as the author I hope expected, it causes one to think. It seems unwise to separate the two- the value of art and the value of humans. Part of the reason that Rome is filled with people is the attractiveness of the city. What makes it attractive? Some of it has to do with the art which is there. This is just a thought. Another is this: Does great art (and there may be argument here) embody an idea? If it does, are there any ideas worth dying for?
Showing posts with label history general. Show all posts
Showing posts with label history general. Show all posts
Friday, March 7, 2014
Monday, December 2, 2013
643. Churchill Defiant by Barbara Leaming- summary
643. Churchill Defiant by Barbara Leaming. Well written with a hint of a mystery. If you are like me and do not know this period well, the story unfolds in an exciting way. World War II ends. Churchill, after leading his country through the war and many have said saving Western Civilization in the process, lost his position as Prime Minister in the elections held in 1945. Privately he was devastated. But he decided the he would not step down as head of the Conservative Party. Just about everyone expected him to retire. He was after all 77 when re-elected in 1951. In fact he was so taxed in World War II that it is quite the miracle that he survived the war. In fairness a young healthy man would not have physically done better. He was indeed defiant in several ways. He defied his age. He ignored requests to retire. He defied his own party. He defied the opposition party which jumped on his blunders which he committed partly due to his age. He at least diplomatically defied the United States. What drove him? Well, ambition, but something else. He foresaw World War I and no one listened. He knew that the manner in which World War I was concluded that another war was in the future. He predicted World War Two and no one believed him. He tried in vain to convince President Roosevelt not to trust the Russians and was ignored. He tried to persuade President Truman that Russian would never leave territory conquered from Nazi Germany. He was brushed aside. Yet, in every case he turned to be right, dead on, hit the nail on the head. Must have been frustrating and irksome to say the least. So when World War II ended and he lost power what he saw was the danger of the USA pitted against USSR. The two must be brought together in order to strengthen world peace. He was rebuffed again and again by Truman. When one avenue was closed, Churchill opened up another path to negotiations. He had to defy his own party members, some of which simply disagreed with his program; others were angling for their own hopes to become Prime Minister. Churchill seemed to view government and rules as a conundrum to be made into a tool to be used by him as a serve to his fellow citizens. A twisted path convoluted and mined which pleased his human mind to navigate.
Sunday, December 1, 2013
583. Infidel- Ayaan Hirsi Ali (2007)- Summary
583. Infidel- Ayaan Hirsi Ali (2007)
Islam means submission and its root is the base for the Arabic word for freedom.
This book is a biography of a young Somali woman who eventually rejects the Islamic way of life. She realized, as time passed and she had contact with non-Islamic people, that Jews were not the monsters she had been taught that they were. Christians were not pigs who would burn in hell because they happened to be born Christians instead of Muslim. The authors review of surgery performed on young girls to guarantee that they would be virgins at time of marriage are subjects I find most difficult to express. The story itself sets women off as less human than a man. Such as system puts women at the disposal of men. To define the practice as just makes language almost meaningless.
She came to realize that government to achieve quality must be secular, that tolerance is derived from a willingness to see that there are other ways to look at life.
I was numbed when I read that young muslim women greedily read Harlaquin novels. Novels which I have always condemned as literature of the lowest quality, but her story made me realize that even these simple novels contain something utterly absent in the Muslim world- the presence of free will.
Her father arranged a marriage for her. When on her way to Canada where her husband lived, she escaped and went to Holland.
Many Westerners condemn Western colonialism and imperial capitalism as the reason for chaos in so many African countries. Ali sees it differently. Somali has civil war and Holland does not is summed up in her assessment that in Somali a child is taught to hit first, in Holland aggression is not acceptable and institutions exist to control and deal with aggression. In Somali aggression is the answer.
She wondered why in shelters there are so many Muslims who have suffered beatings. Beatings are accepted in Somali society. Muslim education does not teach contemplation, thought, drawing conclusions, gather evidence, examine and question. Muslim education is rote learning, paradigms, dogma, no questions, just submission to Allah’s will, Allah will solve problems, there is no self will, Allah replaces that.
She admitts that spouse abuse exists in Holland and racism but it is not approved by society at large and instututions are in place to deal with it.
She learned that freedom is intimidating because it requires constant thought and deep responsibility on one’s part.
The book gives detailed description of her sister’s difficulty with life and final death. Muslim culture had sapped her sister’s will, she could find no direction, discover no purpose to her life.
Her sister died. She does not blame Islam yet she does it was part of helped to shape a culture which sucked the marrow out of life and removed hope, presented countless problems and because there was no room for questions, discussion and thought eliminated any means of drawing conclusions.
She was amazed that people could break up and a woman fall in love with someone else and there was no murder or aggression. A woman could choose. This was something which Ali had never seen until her arrival in Europe.
In a discussion with her father she once said that a state ruled by Islam could not be safe because humanity is varied and Islam requires that all be the same. It is totalitarian.
She read an article by Paul Scheffer. In it he said that social unrest would be the result of the presence of Muslim people who denied rights to women, homosexuals and rejected separation of church and state. She did not accept this until she saw two planes strike the World Trade Center in New York.
After watching a program on TV that a gay teacher was harassed by Moroccan students she wrote a letter to the news editor stating that Islam had never gone through a “process of Enlightenment that would lead people to question its rigid approach to individual freedom. Islam didn’t just oppose the right of homosexuals to live undisturbed. Anyone who had been to an abortion clinic or a women’s center could readily see that the sexual morals of Islam can only lead to suffering”.
Full realization came when she saw planes strike World Trade Center in New York on September 11. She prayed that Muslims were not the attackers. She said that evening that America was not like Holland; America would retaliate. Hollanders, she found looked for excuses: colonization, American imperialism, a self indulgent society The Dutch found it inconceivable that a people could murder and make war in the name of religion.
“It was not a lunatic fringe who felt this way about America and the West. I knew that a vast mass of Muslims would see the attacks as justified retaliation against the infidel enemies of Islam.
People talked of the Islam that was peaceful and civilized. Ali seems to say that that religion no longer exists. It has become backward and primitive and intolerant, bent on controlling all thought and keep women in suppression. Men in a way are also suppressed because any questioning is squeezed out from a very early age.
She came to question state support of parochial schools.
Poverty she says does not cause terrorism- poor people are too busy with sustenance living. Intellectuals flock to the west. Claims of racism had little to do with reality. Other blamed USA and its support of Israel. The attackers were not Palestinians, not poor- it was religious belief. She watched Osama Bin Laden’s old interviews in which he quoted the Quran:
When you meet the unbelievers, strike them in the neck.
If you do not go out and fight, God will punish you severely and put others in your place.
Wherever you find the polytheists, kill them, seize them besiege them, ambush them.
You who believe, do not take the Jews and Christians as friends: they are allies only of each other. Any one who takes them as an ally becomes one of them.
This from the hadith:
The Hour (of Judgement) will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them.
Ali says the she read the Quran. These she says are quotes from the Quran. It pained to check but there they were.
She says the no Muslim can now ignore the conflict between reason and religion.
Muslims were taught that life on earth was/is temporary. Does this cause someone to question injustice in everyday life? Prevent innovation? What mechanism was there in Islam to adjust to modern concepts of human rights? What role would debate, argument, collection of facts, logic have in accommodating human diversity?
She calls the Islamic system “static tyranny”. “It spreads a culture that is brutal, bigoted, fixated on controlling women and harsh in war.”
She cautions again and again on the blunder in not coming to grips with the fundamental nature of Islam and the West’s perpetuating guilt about past mistakes of imperialism. These are not the root of the problem, not poverty, but a religion which views all those not part of Islam as not expendable but in need of elimination.
She mentions the difficulty of writing articles which honestly discussed these matters. News agencies did not want to offend, parties did not want to contribute political disruption or injure a party’s chance at election.
She belonged to a think tank for the Labor Party. She recommended research into causes of unemployment crime due to cultural issues.
“Most women in Holland cold walk the streets on their own, wear more or less what they liked, work and enjoy their own salaries and choose the man they wished to marry. They could attend university, travel, purchase property. And most Muslim women in Holland simply couldn’t. She asked: How could you say that Islam had nothing to do with that situation? And how could that situation be in any way acceptable?
Ali: “When people tell me that it is wrong to make this argument- that it is offensive, that it is inopportune at this particular moment- my sense of basic justice is outraged. When, exactly, will it be the right time? Dutch parents breed their daughters to be self reliant; many, perhaps most, Muslim parents breed them to be docile and submissive. As a result, immigrants’ children and grandchildren don’t perform the same way as Dutch young people.
At this point Ali became an atheist.
She sees danger in the relativism of the Left. If you think it is ok, then it is ok. This is the formula for using the power of the intellect to make no decision, ironically a vote for the status quo. (It seems to me that Leftists in their resistance to ideas by Conservatives have become reactionary and intrenched. The essence of human rights is not found in hard and fast adherence to the status quo but in a willingness to change and adjust to changes in society. Curious isn’t it?)
Once elected to Parliament Ali’s interview she had before the election was aired. In it she said that Muhammad was a perverse man and a tyrant. Death threats increased. There was uproar. She was under guard at all times. She was confronted by members of her own party (Liberal Party) for her remarks. She said:
“What surprises me is not that one person in this room has asked “Is this true?’ If the Prophet Muhammad went to bed with a nine-year-old girl, then according to Dutch law he is a pedophile. If you look at how the Prophet Muhammad ruled, he was a lone ruler, an autocrat, and that is tyranny. In Parliament Ari did get bills passed fro support for Muslim women.
“Many well meaning Dutch people have told me in all earnestness that nothing in Islamic culture incites abuse of women, that this is just a terrible misunderstanding. Men all over the world beat their women, I am constantly informed. In reality, these Westerners are the ones who misunderstand Islam. The Quran mandates these punishments. It gives a legitimate basis for abuse, so that the perpetrators feel no shame and are not hounded by their conscience or their community. ...I wanted non-muslim people to stop kidding themselves that “Islam is peace and tolerance.”
Government at her insistence began to keep statistics about honor killings. The news was appalling. Ali’s ideas were no longer looked at as kooky ideas.
”What matters is abuse, and how it is anchored in a religion that denies women their rights as humans. What matters is that atrocities against women and children are carried out in Europe. What matters is that governments and societies must stop hiding behind a hollow pretense of tolerance so that they can recognize and deal with the problem.”
She meets Theo van Gogh, movie director. They make a 10 minute movie, Submission: Part One revealing Islamic lack of consideration for women. In Christianity and Judaism one is not submissive to God but in Islam one is utterly submissive to Allah.
She suggests that Islam must be modernized. But to do so requires dialogue with God. At the moment this is insolence for such dialogue means that one is equal to Allah. Ari asked for protection for Theo. No one saw any reason for concern.
Theo was butchered. Not murdered but butchered. If you want to know the details, read the book for yourself.
Events seemed to unfold rapidly. Upheaval in Holland. The government feared for Ali’s life. She was shuttled off to the USA. Upon her return there was a movement to have her citizenship revoked. It was. Then more turmoil. A movement to have her citizenship reinstated. It was. By then she lived in the USA working for a think tank (American Enterprise Institute). She does not complain or blame the Dutch but it is difficult not to draw the conclusion that someone(s) saw security in having her out of Holland.
At the end of the book she reflects upon events and circumstances. Radical of Islam do not understand how committed Westerners are to an open society. She is thankful that someone with her background could achieve such success. Once she encountered Saudi Arabia’s Islam. It is wishful thinking by Westerners to imagine that Islam practices peaceful tolerance: hands are still cut off, women are still stoned, etc.
The thinking she saw in Saudi Arabia is incompatible with human rights and liberal values. Tribal concepts determine right and wrong. “It rests on self-deception, hypocrisy and double standards. It relies on the technological advances of the West while pretending to ignore their origin in Western thinking. This mind-set makes transition to modernity very painful for all who practice Islam.”
“The message of this book...is that we in the West would be wrong to prolong the pain of that transition unnecessarily, by elevating cultures full of bigotry and hatred toward women to the stature of respectable alternative ways of life.”
“Life is better in Europe than it is in the Muslim world because human relations are better, and one reason human relations are better is that in the West, life on earth is valued in the here and now, individuals enjoy rights and freedoms that are recognized and protected by the state. To accept subordination and abuse because Allah willed it-that, for me, would be self-hatred.”
Islam means submission and its root is the base for the Arabic word for freedom.
This book is a biography of a young Somali woman who eventually rejects the Islamic way of life. She realized, as time passed and she had contact with non-Islamic people, that Jews were not the monsters she had been taught that they were. Christians were not pigs who would burn in hell because they happened to be born Christians instead of Muslim. The authors review of surgery performed on young girls to guarantee that they would be virgins at time of marriage are subjects I find most difficult to express. The story itself sets women off as less human than a man. Such as system puts women at the disposal of men. To define the practice as just makes language almost meaningless.
She came to realize that government to achieve quality must be secular, that tolerance is derived from a willingness to see that there are other ways to look at life.
I was numbed when I read that young muslim women greedily read Harlaquin novels. Novels which I have always condemned as literature of the lowest quality, but her story made me realize that even these simple novels contain something utterly absent in the Muslim world- the presence of free will.
Her father arranged a marriage for her. When on her way to Canada where her husband lived, she escaped and went to Holland.
Many Westerners condemn Western colonialism and imperial capitalism as the reason for chaos in so many African countries. Ali sees it differently. Somali has civil war and Holland does not is summed up in her assessment that in Somali a child is taught to hit first, in Holland aggression is not acceptable and institutions exist to control and deal with aggression. In Somali aggression is the answer.
She wondered why in shelters there are so many Muslims who have suffered beatings. Beatings are accepted in Somali society. Muslim education does not teach contemplation, thought, drawing conclusions, gather evidence, examine and question. Muslim education is rote learning, paradigms, dogma, no questions, just submission to Allah’s will, Allah will solve problems, there is no self will, Allah replaces that.
She admitts that spouse abuse exists in Holland and racism but it is not approved by society at large and instututions are in place to deal with it.
She learned that freedom is intimidating because it requires constant thought and deep responsibility on one’s part.
The book gives detailed description of her sister’s difficulty with life and final death. Muslim culture had sapped her sister’s will, she could find no direction, discover no purpose to her life.
Her sister died. She does not blame Islam yet she does it was part of helped to shape a culture which sucked the marrow out of life and removed hope, presented countless problems and because there was no room for questions, discussion and thought eliminated any means of drawing conclusions.
She was amazed that people could break up and a woman fall in love with someone else and there was no murder or aggression. A woman could choose. This was something which Ali had never seen until her arrival in Europe.
In a discussion with her father she once said that a state ruled by Islam could not be safe because humanity is varied and Islam requires that all be the same. It is totalitarian.
She read an article by Paul Scheffer. In it he said that social unrest would be the result of the presence of Muslim people who denied rights to women, homosexuals and rejected separation of church and state. She did not accept this until she saw two planes strike the World Trade Center in New York.
After watching a program on TV that a gay teacher was harassed by Moroccan students she wrote a letter to the news editor stating that Islam had never gone through a “process of Enlightenment that would lead people to question its rigid approach to individual freedom. Islam didn’t just oppose the right of homosexuals to live undisturbed. Anyone who had been to an abortion clinic or a women’s center could readily see that the sexual morals of Islam can only lead to suffering”.
Full realization came when she saw planes strike World Trade Center in New York on September 11. She prayed that Muslims were not the attackers. She said that evening that America was not like Holland; America would retaliate. Hollanders, she found looked for excuses: colonization, American imperialism, a self indulgent society The Dutch found it inconceivable that a people could murder and make war in the name of religion.
“It was not a lunatic fringe who felt this way about America and the West. I knew that a vast mass of Muslims would see the attacks as justified retaliation against the infidel enemies of Islam.
People talked of the Islam that was peaceful and civilized. Ali seems to say that that religion no longer exists. It has become backward and primitive and intolerant, bent on controlling all thought and keep women in suppression. Men in a way are also suppressed because any questioning is squeezed out from a very early age.
She came to question state support of parochial schools.
Poverty she says does not cause terrorism- poor people are too busy with sustenance living. Intellectuals flock to the west. Claims of racism had little to do with reality. Other blamed USA and its support of Israel. The attackers were not Palestinians, not poor- it was religious belief. She watched Osama Bin Laden’s old interviews in which he quoted the Quran:
When you meet the unbelievers, strike them in the neck.
If you do not go out and fight, God will punish you severely and put others in your place.
Wherever you find the polytheists, kill them, seize them besiege them, ambush them.
You who believe, do not take the Jews and Christians as friends: they are allies only of each other. Any one who takes them as an ally becomes one of them.
This from the hadith:
The Hour (of Judgement) will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them.
Ali says the she read the Quran. These she says are quotes from the Quran. It pained to check but there they were.
She says the no Muslim can now ignore the conflict between reason and religion.
Muslims were taught that life on earth was/is temporary. Does this cause someone to question injustice in everyday life? Prevent innovation? What mechanism was there in Islam to adjust to modern concepts of human rights? What role would debate, argument, collection of facts, logic have in accommodating human diversity?
She calls the Islamic system “static tyranny”. “It spreads a culture that is brutal, bigoted, fixated on controlling women and harsh in war.”
She cautions again and again on the blunder in not coming to grips with the fundamental nature of Islam and the West’s perpetuating guilt about past mistakes of imperialism. These are not the root of the problem, not poverty, but a religion which views all those not part of Islam as not expendable but in need of elimination.
She mentions the difficulty of writing articles which honestly discussed these matters. News agencies did not want to offend, parties did not want to contribute political disruption or injure a party’s chance at election.
She belonged to a think tank for the Labor Party. She recommended research into causes of unemployment crime due to cultural issues.
“Most women in Holland cold walk the streets on their own, wear more or less what they liked, work and enjoy their own salaries and choose the man they wished to marry. They could attend university, travel, purchase property. And most Muslim women in Holland simply couldn’t. She asked: How could you say that Islam had nothing to do with that situation? And how could that situation be in any way acceptable?
Ali: “When people tell me that it is wrong to make this argument- that it is offensive, that it is inopportune at this particular moment- my sense of basic justice is outraged. When, exactly, will it be the right time? Dutch parents breed their daughters to be self reliant; many, perhaps most, Muslim parents breed them to be docile and submissive. As a result, immigrants’ children and grandchildren don’t perform the same way as Dutch young people.
At this point Ali became an atheist.
She sees danger in the relativism of the Left. If you think it is ok, then it is ok. This is the formula for using the power of the intellect to make no decision, ironically a vote for the status quo. (It seems to me that Leftists in their resistance to ideas by Conservatives have become reactionary and intrenched. The essence of human rights is not found in hard and fast adherence to the status quo but in a willingness to change and adjust to changes in society. Curious isn’t it?)
Once elected to Parliament Ali’s interview she had before the election was aired. In it she said that Muhammad was a perverse man and a tyrant. Death threats increased. There was uproar. She was under guard at all times. She was confronted by members of her own party (Liberal Party) for her remarks. She said:
“What surprises me is not that one person in this room has asked “Is this true?’ If the Prophet Muhammad went to bed with a nine-year-old girl, then according to Dutch law he is a pedophile. If you look at how the Prophet Muhammad ruled, he was a lone ruler, an autocrat, and that is tyranny. In Parliament Ari did get bills passed fro support for Muslim women.
“Many well meaning Dutch people have told me in all earnestness that nothing in Islamic culture incites abuse of women, that this is just a terrible misunderstanding. Men all over the world beat their women, I am constantly informed. In reality, these Westerners are the ones who misunderstand Islam. The Quran mandates these punishments. It gives a legitimate basis for abuse, so that the perpetrators feel no shame and are not hounded by their conscience or their community. ...I wanted non-muslim people to stop kidding themselves that “Islam is peace and tolerance.”
Government at her insistence began to keep statistics about honor killings. The news was appalling. Ali’s ideas were no longer looked at as kooky ideas.
”What matters is abuse, and how it is anchored in a religion that denies women their rights as humans. What matters is that atrocities against women and children are carried out in Europe. What matters is that governments and societies must stop hiding behind a hollow pretense of tolerance so that they can recognize and deal with the problem.”
She meets Theo van Gogh, movie director. They make a 10 minute movie, Submission: Part One revealing Islamic lack of consideration for women. In Christianity and Judaism one is not submissive to God but in Islam one is utterly submissive to Allah.
She suggests that Islam must be modernized. But to do so requires dialogue with God. At the moment this is insolence for such dialogue means that one is equal to Allah. Ari asked for protection for Theo. No one saw any reason for concern.
Theo was butchered. Not murdered but butchered. If you want to know the details, read the book for yourself.
Events seemed to unfold rapidly. Upheaval in Holland. The government feared for Ali’s life. She was shuttled off to the USA. Upon her return there was a movement to have her citizenship revoked. It was. Then more turmoil. A movement to have her citizenship reinstated. It was. By then she lived in the USA working for a think tank (American Enterprise Institute). She does not complain or blame the Dutch but it is difficult not to draw the conclusion that someone(s) saw security in having her out of Holland.
At the end of the book she reflects upon events and circumstances. Radical of Islam do not understand how committed Westerners are to an open society. She is thankful that someone with her background could achieve such success. Once she encountered Saudi Arabia’s Islam. It is wishful thinking by Westerners to imagine that Islam practices peaceful tolerance: hands are still cut off, women are still stoned, etc.
The thinking she saw in Saudi Arabia is incompatible with human rights and liberal values. Tribal concepts determine right and wrong. “It rests on self-deception, hypocrisy and double standards. It relies on the technological advances of the West while pretending to ignore their origin in Western thinking. This mind-set makes transition to modernity very painful for all who practice Islam.”
“The message of this book...is that we in the West would be wrong to prolong the pain of that transition unnecessarily, by elevating cultures full of bigotry and hatred toward women to the stature of respectable alternative ways of life.”
“Life is better in Europe than it is in the Muslim world because human relations are better, and one reason human relations are better is that in the West, life on earth is valued in the here and now, individuals enjoy rights and freedoms that are recognized and protected by the state. To accept subordination and abuse because Allah willed it-that, for me, would be self-hatred.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)