Last night I finally saw the film based on Khaled Hosseini’s novel The Kite Runner. I loved it–yes, even if it captures a pre-Taliban country more mythical than real. Nevertheless, the musical soundtrack, the recitation of classical poetry, the innocent kite-flying competitions in Kabul, (not to mention Homayoun Ershadi who strongly resembles Marcello Mastroianni), all comprise utterly charming scenes and characters carefully chosen and calibrated to help us distinguish between sophisticated and westernized Afghans who are non-violent, (I know many), and the barbarians amongst them.
I think that the film is also brave. First, it depicts a tall, thin, slightly effeminate, incredibly brutal pederast (“Assef”) who, although he is an Afghan through and through, reminds one of none other than Osama bin Laden. Both figures walk languidly; both teach “harsh” lessons. The film also shows us how the Taliban publicly stone a sobbing woman in a pink burqa to death and how they kidnap or purchase Afghan orphans, mainly girls, but sometimes also boys, as “dancing” sex-objects.
True, as shown, wealthy and western-educated Afghans did have private, gender-integrated dancing parties in the 1970s in Kabul–but the nature of Afghan society is better represented in both the novel and the film in how they depict Afghan marriage and family customs in America. Even those immigrants who live in San Francisco guard their women, expect would-be suitors to ask a father for his daughter’s hand in marriage. (The film has a wonderful Afghan Wedding scene every bit the equal of any Bollywood Indian Wedding.) And, Afghan immigrants continue to live with or geographically near to their parents and to center their adult social lives together with them.
Not a bad idea at all.
Ah, but now I come to the hard part. Daily, I receive news of Islamic gender and religious apartheid, both in the Islamic East and as it has steadily penetrated the West. I write about this at length in my latest book The Death of Feminism.
But, the same continent (North America) and culture (the West) which is so proud of its multi-cultural sensitivity and tolerance–and whose people have embraced books such as The Kite Runner and Reading Lolita in Tehran, are all more eager to embrace the immigrant “Other,” (which is commendably open-hearted), and reluctant to take into account the cultural “baggage” that most immigrants bring with them into their new lives.
Although fewer immigrants arrive in the West from Iran or Saudi Arabia, these two countries have exported their versions of Islam to Muslims in very effective ways. For example, in the last month:
IRAN
A top Muslim cleric, Hojatolislam Gholam Reza Hassani said that Muslim women who do not wear the hijab “should die.” He went further: “These women and their husbands and their fathers must die.”
The use of the word “women” has just been banned from Iranian state TV. They have begun using the word “family” instead. In recent weeks, Iran’s Center for the Participation of Women changed its name to the Centre for Family Matters.
Two Kurdish women’s rights activists, Ronak Safazadeh and Hana Abdi, were just arrested in Teheran and charged as “terrorists.” These two feminists were collecting “a million signatures for equality” but have, instead, been charged with a car bomb.
PAKISTAN
Seventy one percent of the men polled in Pakistan “justify beating women.” The survey documents that 80% of Pakistani women are the “victims of domestic violence.” The report claims that “Women in Pakistan face death by shooting, burning, or killing with axes” in shame and honor murders.
Also, a former Muslim in Pakistan who converted to Christianity has been receiving “death threats from his Muslim siblings” and is now in hiding together with his wife, their four daughters and son.
IRAQ
Religious vigilantes have killed at least 40 women in the southern city of Basra because their dress “violated Islamic teachings.” Maj General Jalil Khalaf said: “The women of Basra are being horrifically murdered and then dumped in the garbage with notes saying they were killed for un-Islamic behavior.”
SAUDI ARABIA
The parents of a nineteen year-old Saudi girl chained her by the feet in order to prevent her from meeting her fiancée whom her family would not accept.
Saudi women are not allowed to drive or change the color of their clothing or shake a man’s hand (which some mullahs view as “adultery of the hand.”) She cannot marry without permission, retain custody of her children after a divorce, or “annoy” her husband. She is also forbidden to “speak in public.” A popular Saudi television preacher has stated that “a girl who is not beaten from an early age grows up to be a rebellious woman, difficult to control” and that “a woman who leaves her home without a veil is like a woman who goes out naked.”
Those who emigrate into the West from these countries take these attitudes and customs along with them. So far, the West has been slow in noting or in trying to prevent what for us are crimes. On the other hand, the West has also offered refuge to and published the work of Islamic dissidents; appointed and elected pro-woman and anti-violence Muslims to public office; offered police protection and shelter to those in flight from Islamist violence in the West. Thus, also in the last month:
BRITAIN
The daughter of an imam who herself has converted to Christianity, is under serious police protection after receiving death threats from her family. She has, so far, had to move 45 times since she converted 15 years ago. She did so after she ran away from home to escape an arranged marriage.
Waris Dirie, who herself underwent female genital mutilation in her native Somalia has, together with Corinna Milborn, published a new book in Britain. They estimate that 500,000 girls and women have been genitally mutilated in Europe–even though it is illegal to do so. Dirie considers the “difficulties of bringing such cases to court, the culture of silence that keeps affected women quiet, and the muddled association of circumcision with Islam.”
NORWAY
Norwegian author, Tor Erling Staff has published a book in which he calls for “reduced sentences for honor murders.” In his view, such Muslim men who kill are “betrayed by Norwegian society. They come from places where equality is an unknown concept. Where the thought of equality is a humiliation. Suddenly they land here, in the middle of equality paradise. It is clear there is stress…”
HOLLAND
Dutch Minister of Integration, Ella Vogellar, admitted that the emancipation of immigrant women is expected to lead to more cases of honor related violence. A special task force has received about 470 such cases this year. Men are also the victims, either because they are homosexuals or because they try to help their sisters.
Not everyone is keeping their heads firmly down. In Amsterdam, Ehsan Jami, the founder of the Committee for Former Muslims is about to release a film about The Life of Mohammed. He says: “I show how violent and tyrannical Mohammed was. This man murdered three Jewish tribes, killed people who left the faith, and married a 6 year-old girl with whom he had sex when she was 9.” Jami remains under heavy police protection and has offered EUR 50,000 to “anyone who can refute these facts.”
Too many people in the West are misguided and believe that telling the truth about Islam is “Islamophobic” or simply dangerous. May we all begin to have the courage of Ehsan Jami (or Khaled Hosseini) because we are going to need it.
I haven’t seen the movie. When I read the book, the Assef character reminded me not of Osama bin-Laden but of a Nazi. He seemed to combine anti-Semitism with his personal cruelty, even though his victims weren’t Jewish. He was an admirer of Hitler before he became a Talib. His victim was a Hazara (related to the Khazars?) and therefore persecuting him was justified.
Perhaps the book was designed to make us think of the similarities between the Taliban and the Nazis.
Dear Dr. Chesler:
I have not yet seen the film version of The Kite Runner. Nor have I read the book. However, based on your description I will do both.
Would you please provide a full citation to the report on Pakistan from which you quote. I would like to read the entire report. (I have already read The Death of Feminism).
Thank you.
Not long ago, I visited with a Muslim lady at a local pizzeria. Well, “visited” doesn’t really sum up our brief clandestine conversation.
Let me elaborate:
The lady in question had a black eye. A real shiner.
I sat down behind her and speaking softly, I said “Ma’am, this is the United States. You don’t have to let him beat you like that”.
And she responded to me, her English perfect, but her voice quavering in fear. “Please, don’t talk to me. If my husband sees you talking to me he’ll hit me harder.”
I will never forget this exchange. I do not know who this lady is. I don’t frequent this pizzeria often, so our paths have not crossed since then. I do not know if she has suffered more beatings. I pray that she has not.
Quran, 4:34 Says:
“Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in their sleeping places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.”
I truly agree with Dr. Chesler’s assertion that “Muslim immigrants pack cultural baggage”.
FROM WAFI:where amnesty international gets its’ info, not the other way around despite what the leftist want you to believe:
BOSTON, MA- – On Wednesday December 19, 2007, the Iranian regime executed 3 men and one woman as part of a brutal wave of suppression and hangings. All four were hanged in the notorious Evin prison in Tehran.
The woman was only identified by her first name, Zahra and charged with poisoning her husband. A few days earlier, the student organizations had reported that a woman by the name Zahra N. will soon be hanged.
According to Amnesty International the number of public executions has increased sharply in Iran in 2007, especially in the wake of crackdown on “social vices” announced in April.
On December 18, 2007, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution condemning human rights violations in Iran. It expressed “deep concern” at “ongoing systematic violations of human rights and fundamental freedom” of its own people.
The Women’s Forum Against Fundamentalism in Iran (WFAFI) calls upon The United States government as well as the European Union to hold Tehran responsible for gross violations of human rights, treatment of women and to denounce the brutal practices of the Islamic Fundamentalist regime in Iran.
Khamenei, Ahmadinejad and the rest of the leaders of the clerical regime in Iran must be held responsible for severe violations of human rights, especially the rights of women in their country.
Recent public hangings, execution, stoning, are only a few examples of Tehran’s inhumane and criminal behavior.
Silence and indifference is unforgivable. The world must stand in defense of human rights and stop the policy of appeasement towards Tehran’s regime.
Any policy on Iran must place the human rights issues at the center of countering the threats by Islamic Fundamentalist regime. The Iranian regime must be pressured to put an end to the relentless suppression and execution of its own people.
web: http://www.wfafi.org
Once again, Greenconsciousness is caught in a logical contradiction of her own making, as the article that she cites as evidence that Amnesty International gets its information from WAFI includes the following sentence:
“According to Amnesty International,
the number of public executions has increased sharply in Iran in 2007 . . .”
It may well also be the case that Amnesty sometimes gets information from WAFI. That does not discredit WAFI and that does not discredit Amnesty. Nor does it discredit leftists, as Amnesty is a nonpartisan human rights organization that campaigns against human rights abuses in over 100 different countries. Please check the websites for yourselves:
http://www.wfafi.org (WAFI)
http://www.aiusa.org (Amnesty International)
Indeed with the exception of Dr. Chesler, Its curious to me which women so specifically concerned and aroused to the need of bringing world focus on abuses of women under Islam, are so dedicated to WAFI and Amnesty International that post here – and elsewhere no doubt – dedicate even an iota of concern over the Islamic instigation of viral anti-Semitism in Europe, in international forums exemplified at the UN, the abuse launched against the Jewish State and thereby Jews everywhere and the sufferings wrought against her people, her citizens?
And if not, why?
And if not now – when?
Mama Palama’s attempt to link support for Amnesty International [AI]and WAFI with indifference to fighting anti-Semitism is preposterous. In May 2002, Alexandra Arriaga, Director of Governmant Relations for Amnesty International USA, testified at a hearing on “Escalating Anti-Semitic Violence in Europe.” Here is an excerpt from her remarks:
“. . . Amnesty International strongly condemns all anti-Semitic acts and firmly opposes the recent wave of attacks in Europe. . . .Amnesty International unconditionally opposes anti-Semitism, and all such racist and threatening acts.”
The full hearing transcript is available at http://www.csce.gov; the website for the U.S. Helsinki Commission’s Committee on Security and Cooperation in Europe.
“Too many people in the West are misguided and believe that telling the truth about Islam is “Islamophobic” or simply dangerous.”
These people dominate the Democratic Party. Please note how rarely, if ever, either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama are willing to touch this subject. They are terrified of irritating their base. The Republicans have a hard enough time dealing with the evils committed by dark skin people. The politically correct George W. Bush is solid evidence of this mindset. Democrats, however, find the task impossible.
In addition to being logically incoherent, Thomson’s reference to Republicans “dealing with the evil of dark skin [sic.] people” is patently racist. If this is the prevailing “mindset” of Republicans in power and their supporters, then this country still has a lot of work to do in the struggle against racism.
As I find African women of Muslim origin such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali to be infinitely more intelligent and courageous than Thomson, I will seek the “truth” about Islam from them.
In response to Marion L’s assertion that Amnesty International is a “nonpartisan human rights organization”: This is what Amnesty claims for itself. I learned something a bit different when I visited AI’s London headquarters in the 1980s on behalf of the Afghanistan Relief Committee, to ask why they had not taken a stronger stand on the horrendous human rights violations then occurring in Afghanistan — midnight arrests, torture, secret executions, thousands crammed into political prisons like Pul-i-Charkhi, secret police, schoolgirls shot down, etc. To my surprise, I found the walls decorated with pro-Castro posters of Che Guevara, others promoting the Sandinistas and condemning the U.S.
The head of the South Asia section told me that Amnesty’s chief concern in the region was Pakistan, which, he said, was holding 200 political prisoners. (The Communist regime in Afghanistan was holding thousands while Iran’s ayatollahs were persecuting the Baha’is.) Amnesty had previously issued an inquiry about the welfare 13 former Afghan officials of the democratic constitutional period (1964-1973), all of whom were in fact known to have ben murdered — but had hardly said a word about the thousands tortured and killed.
By 1986, Amnesty’s silence about the horrific atrocities in Afghanistan, widely reported elsewhere (including a 200-page report from Helsinki Watch), had become such a scandal among European NGOs that a group of them, including Doctors Without Borders, notified Amnesty that they were prepared to go public and condemn Amnesty’s silence. AI then hastily published a limited 50 page report and increased its efforts to get a prominent scholar released from prison. AI then lapsed again into relative silence about the sufferings of the Afghans.
Thus alerted, I have since then watched AI more closely — and sure enough found that AI is not as non-partisan as it claims. It’s politics are not entirely clear, but it is usually much more severe on even the slightest misconduct of the U.S. and its democratic allies than it is on the more horrific misdeeds of socialist, Marxist, and Islamic regimes. Perhaps AI’s most serious bias is not in its raising of minor cases but — as before in Afghanistgan — in its silences about more horrendous ones.
True, an injustice is an injustice anywhere, but a failure in the justice system of, say, Switzerland or Texas is likely to be less horrific than one in North Korea, Syria or Gaza.
Dear Ms. Klass:
Thank you for taking the time to describe the disturbing experience you had with Amnesty International UK during the 1980s. Like you, I do not believe that partisanship should ever trump strong advocacy for human rights.
However, my current experience with Amnesty International USA has been much different. The AIUSA and Amnesty International UK websites post extensive criticisms of human rights abuses in North Korea, Syria, Afghanistan and Gaza. Until my job schedule changed, I attended meetings of Amnesty’s Group 27 in Brooklyn, and we wrote letters to help human rights victims from a wide range of countries. I’m still a member of AIUSA and I participate in their online and email campaigns.
On balance, I think that AIUSA is especially worthy of strong support from feminists. Its program for women’s human rights has been instrumental in saving the lives of women worldwide.
Once again, to everyone who reads this: please look at the websites and decide for yourselves:
http://www.aiusa.org or http://www.amnestyusa.org – Amnesty International USA
http://www.amnestyusa.org/page.do?n=39 -
Amnesty International USA Women’s Human Rights Program
http://www.aibrooklyn.org – Amnesty Interational Group 27 in
Brooklyn
http://www.amnesty.org.uk – Amnesty International UK
In addition, you may also wish to look at:
http://www.hrw.org – Human Rights Watch
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org — Human Rights First
http://www.equalitynow.org – Equality Now
http://www.cpj.org – Committee to Protect Journalists