True to form, the leftist media continue to cling on firmly to their tradition of moral relativism/Islamic apologetics. This time, Salon.com, in an article titled “Muslim women don’t need you to save them” preaches to us heathens and “Islamophobes” to stop blaming Islam as the cause for crimes against women, even if such crimes are committed exclusively in Muslim majority countries and in the name of some of Islam’s most cherished doctrines, “modesty” and “protection”. After all, don’t we realize how un-nuanced (read: politically incorrect) blaming Islam is, when it deserves blame?
The selective media narrative expands to include the evils of Islam’s stances on women — this, again, despite protests and condemnation from Muslims of both genders against violence. While it is convenient in a 24-hour news cycle to ignore the endemic issues related to honor killing and violence against women, it is perhaps necessary to acknowledge that Islam is neither monolithic nor are fundamentalists indicative of every (or even most) Muslims.
Of course, this is nothing but a repetition of the straw man argument often used by apologists to defend Islam: Yes, Islamic views do lead to violence against women. How can you blame women’s “immodesty” for social ills, and even natural disasters, and expect that some would not take this claim to its natural conclusion-that women who are not modest enough need to be taught a lesson? If you believe firmly that someone is bringing your home down, won’t you want to stop them-including through violence, if need be?
The Islamic apologists tell us blaming Islam for what is done in the name of Islam is not “nuanced”, because a) There are some Muslims who are against violence and b) Islam is not a monolith. As it happens, though, both of these claims are flawed and irrelevant. That teachings of Islam have the tendency to lead to violence, and in a significant number of the Islamic faithful lead to condoning violence (if not actually committing) violence against women, doesn’t require Islam to be a monolith, for that NO Muslims can be against violence. In effect by demanding “nuance”, these apologists are simply trying to divert attention from their classical straw man fallacy.
Further, we learn:
It is simple to sensationalize a story and dismiss Muslims as barbarians who stone their women. It is even simpler to reduce the issues of horrific violence against women to simple culture or, even more easily, religion. This ignores the endemic socioeconomic, political, cultural, and psychological factors that need to be addressed when discussing honor killings.
Aside from the fact that a large minority of Muslims do indeed support the idea of killing women for the “crime” of betraying the “honor” of family, throwing in the mix of multiple factors and trying to distract attention from the elephant in the room is by no means an invention of Islamists. Science deniers, from the tobacco industry to the fossil fuel industry, have employed this tactic for many decades: throw in a kernel of truth by saying the phenomenon in question (lung cancer, climate change, etc) is multifactorial, then use this as justification that the one factor that clearly stands out from the background, and is tied through biological or physical mechanism to that phenomenon, should not be given a disproportionate share of the blame-a “nuanced” approach, if you will. A glance at the 2006 federal court case against the tobacco industry can help clarify this matter:
A U.S. District judge in Washington, D.C., ruled on Thursday that the tobacco industry engaged in an illegal, decades-long campaign to deceive smokers about the health hazards of smoking, in violation of the 1970 federal anti-racketeering law (RICO). The tobacco companies, the judge wrote, “have marketed and sold their lethal product with zeal, with deception, with a single-minded focus on their financial success, and without regard for the human tragedy or social costs that success exacted.”
Kessler found both a conspiracy to violate RICO, and actual violation of that law. Discussing what “this case is really about,” the judge said it was “about an industry, and in particular these defendants, that survives, and profits, from selling a highly addictive product which causes diseases that lead to a staggering number of deaths per year, an immeasurable amount of human suffering and economic loss, and a profound burden on our national health care system. Defendants have known many of these facts for at least 50 years or more. Despite that knowledge, they have consistently, and repeatedly, and with enormous skill and sophistication, denied these facts to the public, to the Government, and to the public health community.”
What the ignorant world does not realise is that once you have the permission of your husbands, fathers, brothers, uncles, the approval of your neighbours, in-laws, their relatives and the consent of your spiritual guardians, their God and their scriptures, you can be quite the rebels.
It takes volumes of bravery and valour to bow down to the status quo, and toe the lines that have been forced upon you. It takes unbelievable amounts of gallantry to act out a script that someone else has written for you.
Who are those unabashed infidels to protest on your behalf? Do they not realise that you are not allowed to express, let alone clamour in favour of, anything that contradicts the ostensibly divine scriptures? Who are those shameless activists to try and liberate you? Do they not realise that you can’t be liberated without the permission of your mehrams? [husbands, fathers, brothers, uncles]