Freedom | Factonista

Posts Tagged ‘freedom’

Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the Value of the Printed Word

Thursday, June 25th, 2009

In the book of Genesis Adam works the garden of Eden, maintaining it for God. He lives a blissful, perfectly righteous and innocent life, albeit a lonely one. So God makes him a suitable partner in Eve. Adam and Eve have it all. They have thousands of trees from which to eat, harmless animals to co-inhabit the beautiful garden with, and no shame or evil. Eve is then tempted by the Serpent to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Traditionally most people look at this story as representing the folly of mankind. But was Adam not a slave to God in that garden? A slave with limited knowledge and thus limited ability to make decisions for himself? Did the serpent not tempt humankind into a wold filled with knowledge and free will? Likewise, in Greek mythology the hero Prometheus is condemned to eternal torture because he stole the knowledge of fire from Zeus and gave it to mankind. Again a mythical character gave the world knowledge and was punished. After reading Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s book Infidel I realized that she too has been punished for the transmission of vital knowledge. This is a brief outline of her story and its relation to knowledge and power.

Childhood

Ayaan Hirsi Ali was born in 1969 in Somalia. During her childhood and young adult life her family would move from Somalia to Saudi Arabia, to Ethiopia, and then to Kenya. Although her father was a rather liberal political activist (by Somalian standards) she was raised under strict Sharia law, which led to a tormenting youth. Her genitals were mutilated by female circumcision, she was not allowed outside of the house without a male, her sexuality belonged to the head of her family, she went through an unwanted arranged marriage, and she suffered the humiliation of losing her virginity on marriage night – the penis of a man was violently forced into her sewn-shut vagina. She had no freedom and was subject to do all of the cleaning and cooking that her brother did not have to do, simply because he was male. If she refused chores, or spoke out of line, she was beaten. On one such occasion she disobeyed her Ma’alim- whom her mother had hired to teach her more about the Quran – by locking herself in her room. The Ma’alim came back later and whipped her with a sharp stick, ending the assault with the smashing of her head into a wall, cracking her skull. The next morning she was in too much pain to do chores so her mother beat her. Several days later, in much pain, her head had swollen. When taken to the hospital for immediate surgery the doctors said that if she had not received surgery that day then she would have surely died. At school she learned only Islam, math, the Quran, and “all the evil things Jews have done and plan to do against the Muslims” (47 Hirsi Ali). One of her teachers even beat her. Suffice to say, her childhood was violent and lacked freedom, most of which was due to strict Sharia law. Childhoods like hers were common among most other children she knew.

Religious Control of Knowledge

In her childhood Ali was taught nothing outside of Islam; everything she knew was viewed through a fundamentalist Muslim mindset. It is clear that the clerics and Imams had control over what she read. This type of religious control of knowledge has been around since the start of religion. It is no wonder that the development of the printing press brought about the banning of books by religious institutions. The first example of religious censorship of the printed word came in 1517 when Pope Leo X condemned Martin Luther’s Ninety Five Theses (15 Foerstel). Then, in 1564 the Papacy set into motion its Index Librorum Prohibitorum, defining books which Catholics were not allowed to read nor print (15 Foerstel). It has progressed into 1989 when Salman Rushdie was forced into hiding for publishing The Satanic Verses because Ayatolla Khomeini of Iran put a one million dollar bounty out to anyone who killed him. Most recently, Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion was nearly banned in Turkey after Harun Yahya filed a complaint that it was insulting to Islam and Sherry Jones’ novel The Jewel of Medina was dropped by publishers Random House – the same company that published the Satanic Verses – for fear of violent Muslim reactions.

The banning of books in developing countries is an effective means of controlling knowledge because these countries lack a robust information society full of newspapers, magazines, television, and the internet. How could a young girl like a Ayaan Hirsi Ali gain any new knowledge if she had no way of obtaining it? The reading of books leads to new insights, ideas, and opinions. It expands the mind to think outside of narrow mindsets. That is, of course, if one is reading books with a view that is not within their dominant meaning structure. The knowledge gained through reading leads to freedom, both philosophically and in real life situations. Daniel Dennet describes this acquisition of freedom by getting his readers to imagine a straight line traveling across a page. This line represents time. If you have no new knowledge your line will continue straight, but as you gain knowledge new lines branch off of the main line. It is now your choice which line you want to take. As more knowledge is attained more branches emerge, thus leading to more choices, until your world of freedom looks like an immense tree with intertwining branches of possibility.

Escape to Freedom

In her young teens Hirsi Ali would finally be presented with new branches of knowledge when she attended a school in Kenya that had a library full of books written in English.
“Once I had learned to read English I discovered the school library. If we were good, we were allowed to take books home… We began with Nancy Drew adventures, stories of pluck and independence. There was Enid Blighton, the Secret Seven, The Famous Five: tales of freedom, adventure, of equality between boys and girls, trust, and friendship” (64 Hirsi Ali).
This started a new path in her life – “An entire world of Western ideas began to take shape” (69 Hirsi Ali). She started to become interested in experiencing the same romance, equality, and adventure she found embedded in her ragged paperbacks.
“All of these books, even the trashy ones, carried with them ideas – races were equal, women were equal to men – and concepts of freedom, struggle, and adventure that were new to me” (69 Hirsi Ali).

As she progressed into early adulthood Hirsi Ali would start to rebel and disobey her mom. She went to cinemas and experienced new food. She even secretly married a man she liked. Her marriage was short lived as her father soon after arranged a marriage with a man he had met only for several minutes. He was a Somali from Canada who she was set to marry in a weeks time. She was utterly disgusted by her new husband to be. After a short while he moved back to Canada and left her money for her flight to join him there. Instead of a direct flight she stayed a few nights in Frankfurt, Germany with relatives. She went out alone and roamed the streets – something she was never allowed to do back home. She walked without a man at her side, without other males calling her names, and without the fear of being called a bad Muslim. And she could go anywhere she wanted without restraint…she was free.

“I felt as though I had been thrown into another world, calm and orderly, as in the novels I’d read and certain films, but somehow I’d never really believed them before” (185 Hirsi Ali).

People had always told her that the rest of the world was dirty and filled with violence because it was not under Muslim rule. She was amazed that they were not just wrong, they were completely wrong. In fact, it was the opposite. From her young teen years reading trashy romance and adventure novels that spoke of a beautiful world of passion, freedom, equality, and romance to these few days in Germany, Hirsi Ali had reached a climactic decision about her future.

“I could disappear here. I could escape it all, hide, and somehow make my own way, like someone in a book” (187 Hirsi Ali).

And so she did. She packed her bags and boarded a train to Amsterdam to find Asylum in the Netherlands.

Death of Van Gogh

After a short stay in a refugee camp she received full Dutch citizenship in 1992 and stayed in municipal housing where she worked several menial labour jobs to save up for schooling. After Hirsi Ali finished University she found interest in Dutch politics and won a position in 2003 in the Peoples’ Party for Freedom and Democracy. This same year she co-wrote and produced a short film with Theo Van Gogh (a descendent of Vincent Van Gogh) entitled Submission, which focused on the poor state of woman’s rights in Islam. After the film aired on Dutch national television both Hirsi Ali and Van Gogh received death threats, which they both ignored. In November of 2004, Van Gogh was murdered by a Muslim radical in broad daylight. After the murderer had shot Van Gogh in the back 8 times, then slit his throat, he stabbed a knife with a letter attached into his chest. In this letter was a call for Ayaan Hirsi Ali to be murdered next. She has been in hiding ever since.

Knowledge secures power. Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s acquisition of freedom came from knowledge of that freedom. She understood the importance of knowledge and attended university as soon as she could, where she solidified her view that the reading of ideas leads to empowerment. She then used this knowledge – this kernel of information so important to the flourishing of a free and democratic society – and wrote an autobiography entitled Infidel. Like the condemned serpent and the heroic Prometheus, Hirsi Ali has stolen knowledge from her oppressors, empowered herself with this knowledge, and used it to teach others the value of knowledge. I highly suggest you read Infidel. It is a beautiful book that puts a voice to the values of freedom and knowledge.

Tags: freedom, hirsi ali, knowledge, print
Posted in Feature | 1 Comment »

On the 60th Annivesary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Wednesday, December 10th, 2008

The word “human” sends out shockwaves; reverberations that quiver with expectations and disappointments. “To err is human,” Alexander Pope wrote in his Essay on Criticism, “to forgive divine.” But just before this often (mis)quoted line, Pope says more fully:

To what base Ends, and by what abject Ways,
Are Mortals urg’d thro’ Sacred Lust of praise!
Ah ne’er so dire a Thirst of Glory boast,
Nor in the Critick let the Man be lost!
Good-Nature and Good-Sense must ever join;
To err is Human; to Forgive, Divine.

Pope could not have been more wrong. It is not “divine” to forgive – there is no celestial force needed to warrant forgiveness. To err and forgive are both human and only human. Of course, in this context Pope was referring to the great power of forgiveness, as “great power” could be synonymous with “divine”. It is in this way, and only this way, that forgiveness receives the mantle of divinity. And nowhere is this “great power” of human interaction and fraternity so boldly put forward, so beautifully contended, and so carefully laid out than the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHH).

Today is its 60th birthday and seems as good a time as any to reflect on its articles, its implications and its necessity for living. This is worthy of a book and the great AC Grayling^* has done just that (for most of his publishing career). It is a sad reflection that people do not have or know the UDHH. Of course, we all know of it, but how many realise its importance? As a suggestion, I would ask all those to follow the links I’ve given above and print out the UDHH, stick on the wall and to quietly reflect on it.

Let us briefly see why it is important. The Preamble begins in the steadfast gleam against the bullying of divine and political tyrannies from our past:

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Humans first before words, ideas and opinions. There is no propitiation toward a totalitarian dictatorship in the sky; there is no grovelling at the feet of men or gods or statues; there is no discrimination or rejection of these rights to others, based on colour, creed or country. “All members of the human family” only stresses everyone and the inherent fraternity of human beings (and scientifically provable relation of all living things to a common ancestor).

Here’s the beautiful thing: These Articles can be contested (Article 1: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”; Article 3: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”). These are not resolute, divinely given rights – they are, by definition, human rights. We may contend on each article, we may perhaps find some ambiguous – perhaps we may not fully condone others.

For example, Part 3, of Article 26 states: “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.” Yet, when we consider the resolute poison that can be fed to children, given their credulity and trust in elders; when we see the damage done to those who suffer from psychological disorders from “hell” and neuroses passed down from the Bronze-Age; when we consider, for example, that private schools can teach that “Evolution is just a theory” or “Evolution is wrong!”, does this Article really sound appropriate? Should this Article really be adopted universally? In Africa, children are still taught to see witches and to be viewed as witches (and then murdered out of fear). Thus, in this light we may question and be sceptical.

Indeed, my hope is that we scan this document for ideas we find unsuitable. Taking this example of Article 26, Part 3, there may be good and bad reasons for employing it. We may discuss and debate, be open to change of policies. This seems perfectly reasonable and at least we can all agree on this process, if not the Article’s stipulation itself. (A good case could be made, using the other Articles to justify Article 26. For example, the right of every individual to be free from oppression.) The beautiful thing is just this: It is a human declaration and we all know it. By being human, we easily sit with it and can shift the gates of appraisal, when Articles find favour or dismissal.

By contrast, a declaration given by a god, numbering only 10 is not amenable to change. The 10 Commandments, or Decalogue, is found in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy (of the “stone the non-virgin on her wedding night” fame). There are sometimes noted to be more than 10 but that is beside the point. The 10 Commandments demand the worship of this god, Yahweh. This command to worship and grovelling takes up large parts of the commandments:

1. I am the Lord your God

2. You shall have no other gods before me

3. You shall not make for yourself an idol

4. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God

Correctly described by Christopher Hitchens as the “throat clearing” part of the commandments, it then launches into a self-righteous expose on the idiocy of human sensibility. As if to say, “by the way, murder is wrong”, “by the way, stealing is wrong”, “by the way, respect your parents.” There is nothing incredible, beautiful or revolutionary in the Decalogue and, nowadays, quite insulting to the majority of people. Yet, it finds its place in many important arenas and public places. Nowhere in the Decalogue, by the way, is there any mention of compassion or respect (I’m not focusing on the New Testament in this article and using the Decalogue simply as a contrast to the UDHH. I expect critics will mention Jesus and his lovely message).

One list, from a random desert god, from a pantheon of others, who chose a group of people, who weren’t in Egypt, to escape from Egypt, demanding to worship “Him” who helped them escape from a land they were never captive in the first place. It seems perfectly silly to me. Yet it is “divine”, it is not “human” and – instead of being rejected or, at least, changed – it is held to be perfect because it is divine. This is backwards and illogical. It seems no fault that the Decalogue is exactly what Joseph Kony’s The Lord’s Resistance Army uses as its basis for child-soldiers and zombie factories; its disgusting affront to human rights.

Kony is of course a soft target. But think of a scenario where someone using the UDHH, the basis of which stems from the writings of Jefferson, Paine, the intense fraternity explained by Russell, Kurtz and Mandela and Desmond Tutu, is going to turn tyrannical and bloodthirsty. It is not impossible, but it seems unlikely. Why then this paradox: the blatantly human declaration receives openness to change, discussions, and dismissals but finds little to no acceptance amongst tyrants – But one that is “divine” from a “loving god” can easily be imagined in the hands of any raging warlord (as the examples of any theocratic regime show).

It is the acceptance of humanity, first and forthright, that is important now. It is more important than whose theology is more correct or can prove the existence of a god. First, let us establish the peace we all want. Let the world allow the ash of war to settle. Let us help our fellow men and women (and especially children), wherever they are, to liberate them from oppression. It is not charities that will help, but the charitable spirit that keeps charities alive. But that spirit must be fostered into organisations and movements that will actualise the human behind the beggar, that will liberate the human from the “untouchable” he or she is. This, and not giving them money or constant supplies of food, will help more (indeed, charities are needed for the basic living but the long term goal of human restoration will be alongside and not despite charitable organisations. Just in case the reader thinks me too sceptical of charity!).

Russell said “The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge.” And this ghost smiles over the echoes of UDHH. It is a sense of hope, a sense of gratitude that we gaze onto the lines of UDHH. Six decades has passed since its appearance and still we are nowhere close to liberating our fellow man. But I am optimistic it will happen: We are, by our very nature, compassionate beings, I sincerely believe that. We must begin by allowing us to channel such reserves of hope and love and compassion as we have, into arenas which are barren of such qualities. Guided by knowledge, we will get there and with the spur of, if not love, then empathy. Even if there is a god, it seems he would be more proud of us creating a “brotherhood of man” for the sake of them being fellow beings than forcing them into the shadow of worship.

On both levels, every one wins. And it is this notion of the liberated human that is the undercurrent for longstanding Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

* – Grayling has a beautiful series of blogs, concerning the different articles of the UDHH, avalaible at The Guardian.

Tags: anniversary, fear, freedom, Humanism, liberty, religion, terror, UN, universal declaration of human rights
Posted in Featured | 2 Comments »

Welcome to Factonista.org