Then I suggest that you read this Maclean’s article, an interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and then read the comments. Specifically, focus on the comments against Ms. Hirsi Ali. Their logic would be funny if it weren’t so scary.
Now, I don’t know too much about Ms. Hirsi Ali. I haven’t read her books, though I’ve read a few articles on her and she sounds like a compelling figure. She grew up in an Islamic family, in Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, and Kenya. As a child, she was forced to have a clitoridectomy. She fled her family to the Netherlands at age 22, in order to avoid an arranged marriage, and since then, she has written a great deal about the horrors of Islam. The Muslim extremist who murdered Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh for making a film about Islam’s treatment of women left a note promising that she would be next, and she continues to require continuous security protocols.
All of that information would be enough to make her sound like a fascinating and heroic figure. But that’s until you read the comments and learn the other side of the story, from Islam’s defenders. There you will learn that the actions of Islam towards women like Ms. Hirsi Ali is also found in the Christian church. There are no links given to Christian clitoridectomies or forced marriages, but apparently they are rampant. We learn that she is a well-known liar. We know this because, after all, she lied to avoid the arranged marriage. This shows her true character and that she can’t be trusted. Her family (the ones that mutilated her) were not even that religious or extreme. We know, because they say so. The few people who have committed violent acts in the name of Christianity, who are currently in prison or, in the case of Timothy McVeigh, in the ground due to law enforcement actions made up of mostly Christians, show that Islam and Christianity are exactly the same. She, by inciting the wrong people, is responsible for what happens to her. She’s just after money, because she needs so much of it to pay for her protection (a frivolous luxury item, to be sure).
In law, we sometimes talk about whether or not an off-the-wall argument passes the “smell test”- that is, can you say it with a straight face, seriously expecting that someone might buy it. I’ve seen judges dress down attorneys who make arguments that clearly don’t pass this test. None of these arguments come close, but none of the people writing them are attorneys duty bound to support a client in the best way possible; they can choose their side. Why do they choose a side with, and even advocate with, such flimsy arguments?