The answer to this question is simple, you don’t want to accept that actually what is going on is horrific, is to be condemned. Regardless of whether you agree completely with the small points in the book, at the end of the day there’s the oppressor and there’s the oppressed. Who’s side was he on? It’s quite blatant really.

Commenting closed. Thank you all for your contributions.

But that’s hardly the contention here. The significant proportion of Afghans don’t have a problem with educating girls. It’s the Taliban who are hardly moderate Muslims, and they had a blanket injunction in place against girls’ education (several UN agencies along with some other NGOs threatened to withdraw support unless Taliban modified their policies, but the Taliban refused. This much anyone with a moderate interest in world affairs would remember). So when someone claims that they were operating girls schools under the Taliban regime, then that contention is very questionable.

“Fatima Mushtaq, the director of education at Ghazni, has had repeated death threats, the notorious “night letters”. Her gender, as well as her refusal to send girls home from school, has made her a particular source of hatred for Islamist zealots.”

As such, it seems to me that the fairest conclusion would be - While it seems quite clear (from the earlier portion of that article) that the extremists in Afghanistan are keen to prevent girls from receiving education, it seems equally clear (as is evident from the subsequent portion of the article) that the more moderate Muslims are keen to encourage girls to receive education.

“The gunmen came at night to drag Mohammed Halim away from his home, in front of his crying children and his wife begging for mercy.

The 46-year-old schoolteacher tried to reassure his family that he would return safely. But his life was over, he was part-disembowelled and then torn apart with his arms and legs tied to motorbikes, the remains put on display as a warning to others against defying Taliban orders to stop educating girls.”

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article2023831.ece

I have been told that a lot of people read at sixth grade level, and it will serve me well to keep that in mind. A bit sad that the discussion has taken a turn to this sort of none sense.

knee-jerk manner
now he waxes on
Must we smack each other with an iron frying pan here
Must I miss the tree for the forest or the forest for the trees?
is being dallied about
who is mauled by Naipul
by everyone’s admission
simply hailing whoever
Enough ink has been spilt

Utterly hilarious.

Ironically enough, that is precisely what I have been saying all along.

I have no talent for comedy. And I don’t carry any illusions. What actually does matter is that I am familiar with Afghanistan. I wouldn’t run around opining on Malaysia and the illusions of Malaysian Islamists purely on the writings of Naipul now, would I? Why? Because there are other possible narratives out there, and not everyone could be as deluded as the poor economist who is mauled by Naipul without his voice. And Naipul is by everyone’s admission the master of English language (and by this criteria, should be the authoritative voice). What matters is giving the victims their voice too. Not simply hailing whoever affirms your point of view.

If I use archaic proverbs then so be it. Neither do I have to belabor the point that Taliban did not look favorably upon female education. Enough ink has been spilt on that issue. Plato beat Gustave Le Bon to that conclusion long ago, and I could quote him to no end.

Evidence of such efforts can be found in Three Cups of Tea which has some material on Greg Mortenson’s efforts and experiences in Afghanistan. (See http://tinyurl.com/yjy3wg)