INFIDEL!

I've been reading Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Infidel this week, and I thought I'd share at least one particular passage.

Remember this when a friend, or a colleague, or both, tells you that we, Western Civilization, have no right to tell people from another culture (or any "different" culture) what is Right, and what is Wrong. Fine. Let this smart and beautiful Somali say it then.

Also remember that when a friend, or colleague, says that we shouldn't tell others what is Right or Wrong, that they are in fact already doing what they supposedly thunder against: they are telling others what is Right and Wrong. The paradoxes are always interesting.

In one Ayaan Hirsi Ali's many passages from True Believer to outspoken Infidel who (thematically harnesses the spirit of Socrates) Questions-Questions-Questions in the pursuit of Answers-Answers-Answers:

"I found it remarkable how many esteemed [male & female] Muslim thinkers had philosophized at such length about precisely how much female skin could be bared without causing chaos to break out across the landscape. Of course, almost all these thinkers agreed that once a girl reaches puberty, every part of her body except her face and her hands must be covered when in the company of any men who are not immediate family, and at all times outside the home. This was because her bare skin would involuntarily cause men to feel an uncontrollable frenzy of sexual arousal. But not all thinkers agreed on exactly which parts of a woman's face and hands were so beguiling that they must be covered.

Some scholars held that the eyes of women were the strongest source of sexual provocation: when the Quran said women should lower their gaze, it actually meant they should hide their eyes. Another school of thought held that the very sight of a woman's lips, especially full ones that were firm and young, could bring a man into a sexual state that could cause his downfall. Yet other thinkers spent pages and pages on the sensual curve of the chin, a pretty nose, or long, slender fingers and the tendency of some women to move their hands in a way that attracted attention to their temptations. For every limitation the Prophet was quoted." (Ayaan Hirsi Ali, 2007: 110)

When it comes to the above, I'm reminded of the logically deficient arguments that ran throughout the ante-bellum South, where Southern Gentlemen trying to defend and advance the Peculiar Institution of Slavery used to rail against anyone who pointed out the contradictions and inhumanity inherent in the backwards anti-abolitionist way of thinking. They also spoke of such things as State's Rights, but it ultimately was to retain the Southern State's Right to keep the Institution of Slavery.

Another example comes from Charles Darwin in his autobiography. Darwin asked Captain Fitz-Roy (of the HMS Beagle) whether he thought slavery was morally wrong. Captain Fitz-Roy said it was fine, and thought Darwin was wrong to question it. Fitz-Roy backed up his claim with a personal experience, where he asked slaves -- in front of their Master -- if they were happy. Fitz-Roy said they all responded in the affirmative, that they were happy. Darwin then asked Fitz-Roy, "Do you suppose they agreed with you because their Master was present?" The hot-headed Fitz-Roy flew into a rage, and didn't speak to Darwin for about two or three days. They eventually returned to being friends, but I'm uncertain if Fitz-Roy ever conceded to Darwin's point. I'll have to re-visit his autobiography.

The reason this is of interest bears on our own predicament today. There are similarities with the anti-abolitionists of yesteryear defending the Institution of Slavery then, and all compared with a variety of Moral Relativists(1) today telling you or I that we are not allowed to comment on forced female circumcision, forced marriages (which includes rape after the said arranged marriage), brutality that goes unpunished (the majority being towards women), and so on. Ask these women in front of their husbands if it is okay, and you'll likely get the same response that Darwin got from Fitz-Roy, and that Fitz-Roy got from the slaves when in front of their Masters.

In regards to anti-abolitionists calling for State's Rights, you'll note today that argument advanced in defense of the countries that retain and defend the way of thinking that Ayaan Hirsi Ali discusses above.

With that said, here's to Infidels and Heretics once more. I raise a heathen glass to them.

1. As for the term "Moral Relativists." Until a better name is constructed, this is what is used to categorize them.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Infidel (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2007): 110.

Also see: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, The Caged Virgin: An Emancipation Proclamation for Women and Islam (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2006).