Or, in this case, Hirsi Ali’s fault.
Her offense? Hirsi Ali failed to submit to the never-never cant that “moderation” is a hallmark of Islam (no sacred Islamic texts support it), while she publicly flayed its teachings of conquest and supremacism. Scroggins invokes supposed Islamic reformers – including Mahmoud Mohammed Taha and Pakistan's Benazir Bhutto (one of three heads of state to recognize the Taliban), whose rhetoric reflects anything but moderation – to try to portray Hirsi Ali as “simplistic.”
But it was Hirsi Ali’s failure to kneel in appeasement of Islam, even in her early days of quasi-media-darlinghood, that bothers Scroggins to no end – far more, it seems, than anything Siddiqui ever did, up to and including WMD-tinkering on al-Qaida’s behalf.
Scroggins reports disinterest – outrage, too – from Islamic women in the Netherlands regarding Hirsi Ali’s erstwhile efforts to emancipate them from Islam’s law. Such attitudes reveal unplumbed depths in the chasm between Islamic and Western cultures. In this signal example, Islamic women in a Western country see themselves as Shariah-compliant Muslims, not repressed women yearning for Western liberty. To Scroggins, long interested in “the treatment of women in Islam,” this almost seems personally liberating. She used to think “the control of women was as fundamental to radical Islam as racism was to the old American South or anti-Semitism was to Nazi Germany,” she writes. She still does. “But” – and here’s where we perhaps approach an evolving mainstream consensus on Shariah and other Islamiana – “I also learned that Westerners who want to keep the Muslim world under Western rule also have used Islamic attitudes toward women not so much to help free Muslim women as to justify the West’s continued domination of Muslim men.”
Huh? Women-centric worldview aside, I think what Scroggins is saying is that honesty about Islam is the New Western Imperialism. No wonder Ayaan Hirsi Ali became Public Enemy No. 1.