Infidel: On leadership

In one of her discussions about the structure of Dutch culture, in stark contrast to the cultures of the African cultures in which she grew up, Hirsi Ali describes the family life of some dear friends who took her in. Among the first things she noticed:

Johanna's husband, Maarten, was not the boss of the household. The two of them talked things over together; they asked each other's advice... And Maarten helped with the housework. (p. 219)

This is a typical error in today's society. Either you're the head of the household, or you work cooperatively and jointly in running a household. It bears noting that Hirsi Ali makes this observation in contrast to the family and culture in which she was raised. There, being a leader meant doing things the things you wanted the way you wanted. But we need not and should not make leadership and cooperation mutually exclusive. A boss who seeks advice from his employees is no less a leader. In the same way, one can be the head of a family and at the same time be cooperative and self-sacrificing.

It is true that many husbands and fathers have used their headship for evil. But we cannot discard headship for that reason. Christian men are called to be heads of their families and leaders in their church communities. This is both a privilege and a great responsibility. God's Word says:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. (Eph. 5:25-27)

Christ's headship is not characterized by his power, authority, needs, wants, desires. It is characterized by giving up of oneself - it is first about service. That's the real way of headship and leadership. What a tremendous example we men have to live up to.

Infidel: On Structure

In the second half of her book Infidel, Hirsi Ali relates her experiences in Holland after having fled there to avoid an arranged marriage with a Somali Canadian. Her initial experience of Dutch culture was one of amazement and fascination. It was so unlike the cultures of the African countries in which she had lived.

One of the biggest differences she noticed was that Dutch culture was structured. If you put your garbage out on a particular morning, the government would come and pick it up (p. 189). Buildings and streets were clean. You could walk alone on the street and be safe. Traffic was controlled (p. 185). Policemen were not oppressors or demanders of bribes (p. 190). Buses were scheduled and punctual (p. 191). Men did not go crazy if women were not covered from head to toe (p. 195-196). Disadvantaged people were taken care of (p. 199). Family life was deliberately structured (p. 219).

All these things in Dutch culture are the outworkings not of Dutch culture per se, but of Christian culture. God is a God of order. The principles of cleanliness, order, service, self-control, and charity are all prescribed by God. These principles are written all over the laws God gave the Israelites through Moses. The laws of Western society are for the most part based on these same principles, and many constitutions still point back to the Word of God as their basis.

Ultimately, Hirsi Ali was not observing the difference between Somali or Kenyan or Saudi culture and Dutch or English or American culture, or even between Islamic culture and Christian culture, but between God's prescribed way and the self-serving way of fallen human nature.

Infidel: Wimpy Misogynism

The reason the new, pure Islam of the Muslim Brothehood requires absolute separation of men and women, and hiding women in the anonymous hijab? The men are scared of the women!

From Infidel:

As women, we were immensely powerful, Sister Aziza explained. The way Allah had created us, our hair, our nails, our heels, our neck, and ankles - every little curve in our body was arousing. If a woman aroused a man who was not her husband, she was sinning doubly in God's eyes, by leading the man into temptation and evil thoughts to match her own. Only the robe worn by the wives of the Prophet could prevent us from arousing men and leading society into fitna, uncontrollable confusion and social chaos.

The woman's form created to be arousing to a man? Check.
Deliberately leading men into temptation is sin? With you so far.
Wearing the hijab and social chaos are mutually exclusive? Whoa! Stop right there!

Women are so powerful that they must be covered up, and men are so weak that they can't be trusted to be responsible for their thoughts and actions. Going to this extreme is an easy way for men to avoid the nuisance of personal morality and responsibility. That said, I'm not sure the pendulum hasn't swung too far the other way in the Western world.

Redefining the Family?

Front page news in the Globe and Mail this morning: Canadians Redefining the Family. The article of course, reported some of the statistics from the latest Canadian census. Special attention was paid to the falling rates of married couples, young women with kids, number of kids per family, etc.

The family being the basic unit of society and civilization, it is proper to be concerned with its health and status. But the Globe and Mail's primary interest isn't how the size of families or the number of single-parent families have changed. It deliberately ties the phrase "redefining the family" to stats on same-sex "marriages" and couples. It wants its readers to consider a same-sex couple a family. The Globe and Mail wants you to know that the debate is over, and you might as well shut up and get used to it. Same-sex "families" are here to stay.

Here follows the first paragraph under the headline of a similar story on the Globe and Mail website:

The redefinition of family continues apace in Canada, with the latest household figures from the 2006 census showing a significant increase in the number of same-sex couples and a first-ever count of same-sex marriages.

Four of the article's first five paragraphs are about same-sex couples. For the Globe and Mail, this is the most important aspect of the census.

A family is a family, and regardless of what Canadians do, they cannot change its definition. But the Globe and Mail is trying anyway, by implicitly and explicitly equating same-sex households with families. And it just can't resist shilling for them at every little opportunity.

Infidel: African Political Systems in the 70s

I'm doing a second reading of Infidel, Hirsi Ali's memoir.

Largely due to her father's involvement in the resistance against the Somali leader Siad Barré, Hirsi Ali was moved from country to country. She was born in Somalia, lived in Mecca and Riyadh in Saudi Arabia, and then briefly in Ethiopia before moving to Kenya.

Right before she discusses the move to Kenya, she offers this gem of a reflection on the political systems she had lived under:

That is how, by the time I turned ten, I had lived through three different political systems, all of them failures. The police state in Mogadishu rationed people into hunger and bombed them into obedience. Islamic law in Saudi Arabia treated half its citizens like animals, with no rights or recourse, disposing of women without regard. And the old Somali rule of the clan, which saved you when you needed refuge, so easily broke down into suspicion, conspiracy, and revenge. (p.60)

No wonder she can not subscribe to the PC relativist notion that all civilizations and political systems are equal.

A Musical Interlude

Apparently I am late in jumping onto the McKee YouTube bandwagon, but better late than never. Use the menu in the YouTube viewer to see a lot of other cool songs. Presenting finger-picking virtuoso Andy McKee.

The Phobia Fallacy

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is outspoken against abuses in the Islamic world. The most obvious of these are abuse against women, adulterers, and of course, homosexuals. So she often comes to their defense. This is good. We cannot consent to the killing of homosexuals for being homosexual. But this should also not preclude vigorous debate about homosexuality.

In the interview discussed earlier, Hirsi Ali rejects the term Islamophobia because Islam is not an inherent trait, as race and sex are, for instance. Critiquing an idea or practice is not necessarily an act of phobia. (Even hatred of an idea or practice is not de facto phobia.) This is a sound argument. The term Islamophobia is very new, created and used deliberately to shut down critical debate about Islam by putting it on the same level as racism. Redefining the debate is a favourite tactic for those who don't have the facts on their side.

Those who created the term Islamophobia were merely copying those who created the term homophobia. This term, while older, is still a relatively young term, created for the very same reasons, with great success. It makes the assumption that homosexuality is an inherent trait, and therefore is off-limits for critical debate. Homosexual activists have been quick to label detractors racists. The problem is that they do so with impunity, even though it is absurd to equate inclinations or behaviour with race.

So we hear Hirsi Ali making the same error with regard to homophobia as she is refuting in regard to Islamophobia. To her credit, the error is not due to obviously faulty logic, but to a false premise. Her logic is sound; if homosexuality is an innate trait, determined by one's genes, then sexual orientation could legitimately be considered to be on the same plane as sex and race. It is her premise regarding sexual orientation - "It's something you can't do anything about" - that is fallacious. Homosexuals are not born that way. There is no gay gene. Thus homophobia joins Islamophobia in the dictionary of deceptive nonentities, and we should strive for vigorous debate about the health and effects of both Islamic society and homosexual behaviour.