Newsweek: Ayaan Hirsi Ali: The Global War on Christians

I think this might interest many tropers around here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/02/05/ayaan-hirsi-ali-the-global-war-on-christians-in-the-muslim-world.html

The author is Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the famous Somali-Dutch pundit. The article is about the ongoing persecution of Christians in Muslim lands and the media turning a blind eye on it. It's a rare a gem in these days of declining journalism which I think makes it all the more valuable. Wholeheartedly recommended.

edited 9th Feb '12 5:03:20 AM by Scando

Well, it's not exactly a 'global' war if it's mainly in Muslim controlled or heavily populated lands, but it certainly is a thing that happens. I think that Christianity is so much in power in the western world that it's easy to forget there are some areas where it's genuinely oppressed to the point of violating basic human rights.

Nothing new.

• Lacks a suitable plan of action for the reader to follow, no request or appeal that makes one care.

I've read a few of her books, highly recommend "Infidel" by Hirsi Ali. Explains her struggle growing up. She's a victim of female circumcision, very shocking tale.

Though I don't see what's gotten her talking about a global war on Christians, she's an atheist, and usually rails against the Islamic world encroaching its way into the secular world like a disease.

edited 9th Feb '12 7:41:44 AM by Barkey

So fact that thousands of people who are murdered across much of the Muslim world because they are Christians is not something worth caring about? Seriously? Did you read the article? And note, I did not say all of the Muslim world and accuse all of them of taking part in this murder. Persecution of anyone because of their religion and religious beliefs is wrong in almost all circumstances, wherever it comes from.

I find it baffling as much as I find religion baffling. But that is just me. Deep dyed in the wool heretic and pagan.

Nobody said that, Tam.

All I'm saying is that it's odd that she is singling out a particular group being murdered, and not just everyone being murdered by fanatical Islam, as that is her usual position on the matter.

Sorry, but on this occasion I feel I am right. And I quote:

"Lacks a suitable plan of action for the reader to follow, no request or appeal that makes one care."

Since this is an issue that I would find really difficult to be nice on I am bowing out before I get kicked out.

I was not directing any comment at you, Barkey. I apologise if you thought I was.

edited 9th Feb '12 7:57:55 AM by TamH70

Oh, misunderstanding then.

Don't mind him, that's the same guy who was talking about how 9/11 proved that individuals with faith in Allah would prevail, et cetera. He's either an Islamic Nutcase or a Troll.

I think the Muslim death toll as a result of those actions may prove to trend otherwise.

edited 9th Feb '12 8:04:44 AM by Barkey

Two answers depending on the question:

The impetus for the article seems to be perceived underreporting and bias. It comes through in only a couple of lines as I read it but that seemed to be the issue.

Alternatively, it's just because that's what you do when you regularly write and campaign about a broad issue. You will write about the general thing, you will write about specifics, you will discuss different aspects, you will call to light different issues. It's the necessary functional behaviour.

Well, I suppose you have to get the right handle on what the broad topic she handles is. Broadly: Islam bad, will get West to hate Islam. So maybe she's trying to feed into neoconservative narrative of Islam being at war with Christianity to garner some allies. The "war on Christianity" aspect I take as a ploy due to the admitted lack of the necessary qualities to characterise it as a "war".

edited 9th Feb '12 9:34:10 AM by SomeSortOfTroper

More power to her. Persecution is persecution and it should be called out whenever it appears.

That seems like an odd title just meant to catch attention. It would probably be better to talk about the general trend for minorities to be oppressed in the respective countries.

Well, it certainly caught our eyes, didn't it?

It is true that Christianity, on average, is the most persecuted of the big world religions right now.

But I think that it is important to put this fact in the proper context. Ultimately, the issue is that poor, underdeveloped countries with small literacy rates tend to generate more intolerance from majority groups towards minority ones than prosperous, well-developed ones.

Right now, because of a bunch of historical and socioeconomic factors that it would take too long to recap here, even if I understood them to begin with, many of the poor and underdeveloped countries have non-Christian majorities and Christian minorities, while many developed countries have the opposite. Hence, Christians are, worldwide, subject to more persecution than non-Christians.

The answer, however, is not to buy into a sterile us-against-them worldview. Rather, we should attempt to help turning these countries into prosperous, well-educated ones, or at least try to stop making things worse. Ultimately, that's bound to reduce religious fanaticism.

edited 9th Feb '12 12:37:52 PM by Carciofus

Everyone knows that minority Muslim sects are persecuted in countries where other sects rule, minority Hindus are fought for by majority Hindu populations, and nobody cares about persecuted atheists. Or persecuted Buddhists. Unless they live in Tibet.

The above post is an attempt at dry humour.

The shortened "Global War" title (of the thread, at least — Ayaan Hirsi Ali at least makes it clear she's speaking of the Muslim world) is highly misleading, since she is speaking primarily about the Middle East and Africa.

She really should have titled it non-Muslims in the Muslim world, JMO. Even though it's predominantly Xtians being ****ed over at every turn, atheists, Jews, and Hindus fare no better in most places.

edited 9th Feb '12 1:08:31 PM by ForlornDreamer

The long term solution is to raise the literacy level and give the people access to the internet and the time to use it.

The short term solution is to have a task force that finds people who murder others for religious reasons, regardless of which religion they represent, and execute them.

Well the Buddhists and atheists are just as bad as any other. In Sri Lanka, the Buddhist Sinhalese persecute Hindu and Muslim Tamils for the sake of "purity". In Communist states, religion in general gets oppressed.

Anyway, not too interested in the article. I find it disingenuous. She and her husband will do anything to have a crusade against the middle east as a first step to go against religion in general. If there wasn't the MENA, there would be Africa as a whole, or Asia, or some other place. They're exactly the type of people the fundamentalist recruiters talk about when they say everyone is out to get them because they're Muslim.

Are Christians being prosecuted? Yes, unfortunately. Why? Because the West is majority Christian and have been the source of MENA grief for awhile. Not a good excuse of course, but that is the reasoning. If the West was majority Hindu, the same would happen to the many Hindu workers in the middle east, but it isn't, so they're not. This is a political game, not a religious one.

This connection just digs their own "Muslims want to kill all christians" hole.

Stupid extremists. They ruin everything.

I respectfully disagree.

The long term solution would be the varrious religions/factions arming enough that MAD style peace or total extinction is achieved.

Litteracy and the ability to think, speak, act reasonably is all well and good but this is Religion, reason is useless.

edited 9th Feb '12 5:25:46 PM by Natasel

Don't ultra-conservative Muslim countries tend to persecute anyone who's not Muslim, not just Christians?

Who is not their "Type" of Muslim or not Muslim "Enough".

Same old, same old.

You could swap the word Muslim for Christian, French, Republican, etc. and you'd get the same behaviour in lesser/greater degree.

Giving unstable religious crazy's WM Ds! Wtf, that's a terrible idea. Do you not care about the millions of innocent civilians that would die?

Actually, it kinda sounds like your advocating genocide. uhh.

edited 9th Feb '12 7:06:32 PM by kyfhv

At a guess, he's using an argument of the form "the only solution to the problem is horrible, so trying to solve the problem is at best pointless." While incredibly cynical, it's not necessarily wrong. (That said, almost every time someone tries to use it in this subforum, a multi-page flame war results, so I'd recommend we avoid this argument.)

edited 9th Feb '12 7:10:33 PM by feotakahari

Are you kidding me? These groups are the people most likely to just say "fuck it" and drop the nuke.

The same people willing to martyr themselves, and you want to give them nukes?

Besides, factions shouldn't have nukes, nations can if they are responsible enough.

edited 9th Feb '12 7:18:27 PM by Barkey