New at Reason
From our November issue, Rogier van Bakel sits down for an interview with Muslim critic Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
Comments to "New at Reason":
shecky | October 10, 2007, 12:37pm | #
Is it just me, or does she come off as a little bit unhinged?Syloson of Samos | October 10, 2007, 12:37pm | #
There is no moderate Islam. There are Muslims who are passive, who don’t all follow the rules of Islam, but there’s really only one Islam, defined as submission to the will of God.The problem with this argument is that it I think it assumes (and correct me if I am wrong) what one might call "Platonic ideal" of Islam. I agree with Heidegger that such ideals don't exist; "being" is holistic and relational. So yeah, there are moderate forms of Islam and their are radical forms of Islam.
Syloson of Samos | October 10, 2007, 12:43pm | #
The Chinese don’t burn American flags.Well, some folks in Taiwan do.
And so did some folks in China in 1999.
iih | October 10, 2007, 12:44pm | #
Finally, the article is now online. I think I have highlighted pretty much why libertarians should have trouble with some of what she says here. Though the overall discussion was quite interesting.Syloson: I am a practicing Muslims, but OBL and the version of Islam that he and his ilk preach truly disturbs. I think that the majority of the 3,000,000+ American Muslims (not counting Canadian Muslims as well) are overwhelmingly against Ali's view of Islam. So they are all living proof that she is dead wrong.
My concern with Ali can be summarized as: She's a collectivist, and because of her (horrible and terrible) personal experience, she has decided to lash out at everything Islamic. Of course, her neocon friends would not mind that.
Syloson of Samos | October 10, 2007, 12:57pm | #
iih,I think statement encapsulated her views pretty well:
Of course, being assimilated doesn’t necessarily mean that you won’t be a jihadist, but the likelihood of Muslims turning radical here seems lower than in Europe.
Ayaan is a very smart woman. She is just cashing-in on the anti-islam hysteria in the west. If it was not for her extreme views and her anti-islam blather, she would have never been this popular.
Syloson of Samos | October 10, 2007, 1:03pm | #
Wow, I'm surprised there isn't more traffic - perhaps folks are still digesting the article.J sub D | October 10, 2007, 1:04pm | #
Of course, being assimilated doesn’t necessarily mean that you won’t be a jihadist, but the likelihood of Muslims turning radical here seems lower than in Europe.Of course, being born and raised here doesn't mean that you won't adopt psychpatic views either.
megs | October 10, 2007, 1:04pm | #
Very interesting interview. Ali has some very honestly acquired opinions and some of them I really agree with. I think you can make moral calls on which religions are better, but I don't like that she calls for force as a means of dealing with people who believe ideas that require using force on other people. I can understand her frustration and from a practical standpoint, I don't know what other solution she could come up with to combat the problems of Islam. I still disagree strongly with the idea of selective rights for everybody but Muslims.In some ways she's got the whole Ayn Rand coming to America motivations. Country where she comes from is awful, where she goes allows her the freedom to go way overboard on a good idea.
She's got some definite and strongly-held opinions — big surprise — and she certainly says enough that's debatable and with which a reasonable person might disagree, sure. But she didn't come off as "unhinged" to me, no.
anon | October 10, 2007, 1:07pm | #
She had endured a heavily religious upbringing in Somalia, Saudi Arabia, and Kenya, including a brutal circumcision to keep her “pure.”Female circumcision has more to do with traditions than religion. Many non-muslim African women are circumcized.
JMR | October 10, 2007, 1:08pm | #
Is it just me, or does she come off as a little bit unhinged?It's just you.
gabe harris | October 10, 2007, 1:10pm | #
This is another quality interview. I have complained and wondered about why this magazine allows the Michael Young type article, but nearly every interview is interesting and informative with some questions that I rarely get to see put to statist.So forgive me Reason, maybe you are not part of the pro-war CFR front....now did anyone at reason see the Vicente Fox interview from last night....i guess vicente is a tinfoil hat conspiracy nut now huh?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58052
Jake Boone | October 10, 2007, 1:12pm | #
I agree with iih. My wife and I had a discussion about the article when we recieved the magazine, and what iih has been saying pretty much mirrors what we concluded.She's dealt with a particular strain of Islam, and assumes all of Islam must be like that. I don't think it is, judging from the lack of suicide bombings and beheadings in L.A. and Chicago. It's like wanting to bulldoze Christian churches -- Methodist and Pentacostal alike -- because sometimes a Christian will bomb an abortion clinic.
Does not compute.
gabe harris | October 10, 2007, 1:13pm | #
I mean come on if you kill 7 milion jews your pretty bad, but if you kill 1.5 billion muslims your just protecting our freedoms.well if you define unhinged as eliminating 1.5 billion people because they call themselves muslim then yes I guess she is unhinged.
gabe harris | October 10, 2007, 1:15pm | #
wait a sec...i just learned they are big on mutilating their children's genitalia...what kind of animals are these people? of course we should kill all of them.gabe harris | October 10, 2007, 1:16pm | #
isn't it in the bible somewhere that we should only mutilate male genitalia...man those muslims are backward.Syloson of Samos | October 10, 2007, 1:23pm | #
I don't think one has to go into discussing her mental state. It is whether she is right or wrong which is the question. Personally, I do not agree with her.bigbigslacker | October 10, 2007, 1:25pm | #
"I think that the majority of the 3,000,000+ American Muslims (not counting Canadian Muslims as well) are overwhelmingly against Ali's view of Islam. So they are all living proof that she is dead wrong."iih, no doubt believers don't like to be told they are not TRUE believers, but the fact millions, if not billions, of religious people treat their religion like a lunch buffet does not make her assertion wrong. She may be wrong, but the quantity of people that were "raised Muslim" vs. being Muslim does not prove anything. Look at all the "Christians" in prison for real crimes. I might suggest they are not Christians. (Maybe that's a bad example, as getting caught living your life according to various parts of the Christian bible will likely send you to prison)
Was her "horrible and terrible" treatment in line with the teachings of Islam? If it is then wouldn't that make Islam horrible and terrible. If her treatment was not in accordance with Islam then can we assume the people who did that to her were not true Muslims or were otherwise acting outside their faith? Maybe they are interpreting the words wrong?
I don't think there is a correct answer, for anything...
thoreau | October 10, 2007, 1:26pm | #
You know, she's experienced some pretty bad things first hand. I get that.But to insist that moderation is fundamentally impossible for anybody who calls himself or herself a Muslim is to cast one's lot with the Bin Ladens of the world. She might as well go to peaceful, assimilated American Muslims and say "No, don't you get it? You're supposed to attack me! Please, attack me! Prove that I'm right!"
She lashes out against a collectivist ideology by painting with broad brush, and thus becomes the thing that she hates.
I feel sorry for what she's experienced, but that doesn't excuse her collectivist mindset. It may explain it, but it certainly doesn't excuse it. She may deserve sympathy, but most of her prescriptions should not be taken seriously.
gabe harris | October 10, 2007, 1:27pm | #
Did anyone else think it was wierd that she thinks christians don't believe there is a hell? and our god of love is much different than their god of hate.as a person who was indoctrinated in Tennessee crazy "church of christ" religion as a 1-5 year old and was later indoctrinated in catholicism as a 6-14 year old (my dad fled his "crazy" childhood religion) and finally turned athiest....I think she should go talk to some middle religous folks, because they do believe that people go to hell...especially the people who say jesus was not a son of god.
Bob Smith | October 10, 2007, 1:27pm | #
Why? It's exactly the same version of Islam that Muhammad preached and practiced. Authentic hadith (Bukhari, Muslim) record that Muhammad committed mass murder, assassinated his critics, broke his promises to unbelievers not to kill them when killing them became convenient, and preached that it's the duty of Muslims to conquer the world and eliminate all competing faiths. OBL merely follows in his footsteps, which is why there is no theological foundation within Islam to reject him.
I am a practicing Muslims, but OBL and the version of Islam that he and his ilk preach truly disturbs.
You cannot say Muslims should not do these things, because to do so is to say Muslims should reject the example of Muhammad, whom the Koran repeatedly states is an "excellent model of conduct". Once you're done rejecting both the example of Muhammad and the word of Allah, as recorded in the Koran, that you should seek to emulate him, there isn't much left. I'm not even sure you should call the resulting religion "Islam".
Syloson of Samos | October 10, 2007, 1:29pm | #
bigbigslacker,This gets back to the point I made earlier about Platonic ideals.
Ben Rushing | October 10, 2007, 1:30pm | #
This is the type of Anti-Statist content that Reason should be putting on thier website.She is for the fighting of all Statism and for the free market mindset of the US. She supports war on Islamofacism and wants to keep its ideology out of muslim schools! This would be the equivalent of shutting down Communist schools in the US if Communism was a religion.
In her Country, Muslim schools were government funded and the welfare state allowed people to plot murder and not assymilate into the local culture. This is important for us in the US to allow religion, but to keep it out of politics.
Because Christianity often fights within itself and Islam does not, we don't really worry about it too much. Islam is a religion of Statism and Opression of freedom. As she has said it requires full submission of yourself to Islam.
Syloson of Samos | October 10, 2007, 1:32pm | #
Bob Smith,As with the Bible, the Qu'ran and the Hadiths are fairly plastic texts.
tomd | October 10, 2007, 1:33pm | #
"See, the Christian powers have accepted the separation of the worldly and the divine... and they don’t interfere with the state."Not true.
Syloson of Samos | October 10, 2007, 1:35pm | #
The odd thing of course is that there are particular schools of islamic interpretation that we can describe, etc. Yet somehow there is some "ideal" type of Islam.iih | October 10, 2007, 1:38pm | #
anon:Ayaan is a very smart woman. She is just cashing-in on the anti-islam hysteria in the west. If it was not for her extreme views and her anti-islam blather, she would have never been this popular.
Agreed! We agree on something! :-)
ChrisO | October 10, 2007, 1:39pm | #
But to insist that moderation is fundamentally impossible for anybody who calls himself or herself a Muslim is to cast one's lot with the Bin Ladens of the world. She might as well go to peaceful, assimilated American Muslims and say "No, don't you get it? You're supposed to attack me! Please, attack me! Prove that I'm right!"I think that misreads what Ms. Ali is saying. I read her comments as saying that moderation is possible only after Islam as an ideology of power and conquest is defeated, militarily or otherwise. In other words, Islam must become something other than what it is today, since power and conquest are "baked into" the religion, so to speak. And she sees that as being completely independent of what assimilated, relatively non-observant Muslims in the USA believe or do.
Is she right? I have no idea.
anon | October 10, 2007, 1:39pm | #
As long you can argue it with some intelligence, no one interferes.Yeah right. Try to criticize one of their sacred cows and tell us what happens.
You stop the symbol burning and the effigy burning
Wow, what was that talk about freedom of expression again?
Western civilization is a celebration of life—everybody’s life, even your enemy’s life
I guess world-war 2 didn't happen in the West in her world view.
The British sailors who were kidnapped this year
Where those sailors kidnapped from London? Did I miss that?
See, the Christian powers have accepted the separation of the worldly and the divine. We don’t interfere with their religion, and they don’t interfere with the state.
I guess she need to listen to the Reupublican debates.
J sub D | October 10, 2007, 1:40pm | #
Bob Smith,As with the Bible, the Qu'ran and the Hadiths are fairly plastic texts.
I'd use contradictory, inconsistent, or doubtfully accurate, instead of plastic. But yeah, the Bible is replete with horrid stuff as well as the good stuff.
iih | October 10, 2007, 1:42pm | #
anon:Female circumcision has more to do with traditions than religion. Many non-muslim African women are circumcized.
True. As far as the Muslim world is concerned, it is only practiced in Somalia, Ethiopia (partially Muslim), Kenya (partially Muslim as well), and the Egyptian country side (not Metropolitan areas like Cairo and Alexandria). Elsewhere in the Muslim world, it is almost nonexistent.
iih | October 10, 2007, 1:48pm | #
Jake Boone:She's dealt with a particular strain of Islam, and assumes all of Islam must be like that. I don't think it is, judging from the lack of suicide bombings and beheadings in L.A. and Chicago.
You are right, but I am also one of those Muslims who realize that the problems with extremist Muslims is big and needs to be attended to. Sometimes, force is the only way (e.g., Taleban), but I am of the view that force should always be a last resort. Extremism is an ideology best fought using ideas. Fighting it with force will give the extremists more propaganda opportunity to grow in numbers.
She is a Somalie and a lot of what she experienced has more to do with culture than Islam. Islam is practiced in places like Indonesia and is very tolerent. When it is practiced in places like the Sudan, Somalia parts of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia it is downright horrible. But, those places had oppressive cultures to begin with. It is not like Arabia was a tolerant place before Islam.
Tacos mmm... | October 10, 2007, 1:58pm | #
She may deserve sympathy, but most of her prescriptions should not be taken seriously.It's the enthusiasm of a convert. More catholic than the pope, so to speak.
thoreau | October 10, 2007, 2:00pm | #
It's the enthusiasm of a convert. More catholic than the pope, so to speak.She should join with the evangelical atheists, and denounce the agnostics who are unwilling to come out and completely reject theism.
Yeah, she'd fit right in.
iih | October 10, 2007, 2:02pm | #
bigbigslacker:Was her "horrible and terrible" treatment in line with the teachings of Islam? If it is then wouldn't that make Islam horrible and terrible. If her treatment was not in accordance with Islam then can we assume the people who did that to her were not true Muslims or were otherwise acting outside their faith?
FGM is not mandated by Quran. There is one saying of the Prophet where he suggests that, since the parents of a local girl at the time were going to do it anyway, that FGM be performed minimally. (This I found after a quick Google). In any case, FGM is not Islamic. Outrageously, last year Ali was interviewed on NPR's On Point (if my memory does not fail me), and I was outraged when she said that FGM is an Islamic practice. Callers called in to object to that statement. Sometimes, Ali spews these things hoping that Muslims, or those who know, would note notice.
As far as judging whether those who perform FGM are to be considered Muslim or not, most likely the answer is yes as long as the people do not practice something that goes against the 5 basic criteria that determine whether a person is Muslim or not (prayer, fasting, alms-giving, Hajj, "witnessing"). But that is a different question. By the "mainstream" Muslim community, they'd be considered Muslim of course. There is a lot of debate in Egypt right now regarding the practice of FGM in the countryside and in poorer, more traditional neighborhoods of the capital.
dcpotts | October 10, 2007, 2:06pm | #
Because Christianity often fights within itself and Islam does notDo the words Sunni and Shia mean anything to you? Islam has been struggling within itself almost since its inception.
iih | October 10, 2007, 2:07pm | #
gabe:Did anyone else think it was wierd that she thinks christians don't believe there is a hell? and our god of love is much different than their god of hate.
Colbert made mild fun of her on the Question of Christianity's tolerance here.
Syloson of Samos | October 10, 2007, 2:08pm | #
thoreau,Would you consider your last statement trolling?
________________________
Anyway, on the business of the Constitution, freedom of religion, etc. the dangers associated with shutting down Muslim schools, etc. are I think obvious.
Joshua Holmes | October 10, 2007, 2:08pm | #
She's Ann Coulter with an inspiring personal story.shecky | October 10, 2007, 2:11pm | #
I just re read it, and still get the feeling she's a little unhinged. Perfectly understandable, given her upbringing. But still, it seems perhaps something in her is broken, from long ago. Her ideas seem somewhat contradictory. Do we really have to destroy freedom in order to save it?Her role in the AEI certainly seems at odds with much of the line of thinking around this forum. The more cynical view is her "cashing-in on the anti-islam hysteria in the west", which seems to follow.
Hitchens wrote recently about her security woes.
http://www.slate.com/id/2175458/fr/rss/
After the obligatory Europe bashing, he goes on to scold the Netherlands for discontinuing her bodyguards while she lives in the US, and the US for not stepping up to the plate. Interesting article.
iih | October 10, 2007, 2:11pm | #
Bob Smith:OBL merely follows in his footsteps, which is why there is no theological foundation within Islam to reject him.
No. There is. You clearly need to do a lot of reading. May I ask where you get your assertions from?
Syloson of Samos | October 10, 2007, 2:11pm | #
gabe,This is what she stated on the issue of hell:
Catholics should be proselytizing about a God who is love, who represents a hereafter where there’s no hell, who wants you to lead a life where you can confess your sins and feel much better afterwards.
I think she is saying what she would like Catholics to be like. Is this correct?
Ben Rushing | October 10, 2007, 2:15pm | #
What she is saying is that Christianity in the West unlike Islam in the Muslim world, does not overwhemingly control policy or base all of thier laws on the Bible. Christians have left a lot of the Old Testament laws out of our laws. This was due to reason and Deist beliefs of our founding fathers. Not saying that they wouldn't if they could, it is just that people in America for the most part will not allow this ideology to happen. She wants this type of practice to occur in Europe as well. Just as any sane person would have wanted a dangerous religious cult stopped if they were known to be terrorists (Timmothy Mcveigh Christianity, if it ever established itself) In the US we don't have as big of a problem with racist hate organizations that they have in the Muslim world (Anti-Semitism and laws based on a persons religion or race). She is doing what any former born again Christian turned aitheist would want to do, get backwards ass religion out of politics. You may not agree that we need to defeat ideologies that support Statism. But when you look at the Muslim world, there are few places that support real freedom. Most of the Muslim world is oppressed, and she simply want to destroy the ideology thatis aflicting and poisoning the minds of her country's immigrants.iih | October 10, 2007, 2:19pm | #
Ben Rushing:As she has said it requires full submission of yourself to Islam.
Not true. I give a response to a similar question here. You'd be surprised. While Islam is not libertopia, it is not the diametrical opposite either. There is away, with some work and specific interpretations, where libertarianism and Islam can be practiced in society. This view of mine, and people like Zuhdi Jasser is that of a minority right now, but it is not that far away from mainstream Muslim views in North America. See the point raised by Neu Mejican here and the discussion that followed (including my response).
Syloson of Samos | October 10, 2007, 2:21pm | #
Ben Rushing,Whatever one wants to say about Europe, in much of it religion plays little part in political decision making.
R C Dean | October 10, 2007, 2:23pm | #
There is no moderate Islam. There are Muslims who are passiveI think what she's getting at here is that there seem to be relatively few Muslims who stand up to the radicals and actively push for a more tolerant, nuanced, liberal (in the old sense) version of their faith.
The great mass of Muslims aren't radical, I'm sure, but they don't seem to be doing much to marginalize and defeat the radicals in their midst, either.
thoreau | October 10, 2007, 2:28pm | #
but they don't seem to be doing much to marginalize and defeat the radicals in their midst, either.How should a moderate guy defeat and marginalize the radicals? He's busy raising his kids, doing his job, living his life, being a good neighbor. If he happens to have knowledge of violent activities by a radical, sure, he can report that guy. But it's not like violent radicals give the details of their plans to every Tariq, Daoud, and Hari.
Otherwise, all he can do is raise his kids well, attend and support mosques with moderate teachers, and generally live a good life. He can't really go out and "defeat" radicals.
iih | October 10, 2007, 2:34pm | #
ChrisO:since power and conquest are "baked into" the religion, so to speak.
Islam did expand in many parts of the world by means of conquest, but not everywhere. Not a single Muslim soldier set foot in Indonesia (the most populous Muslim country), Malaysia, Western China, and Africa (south of the north African modern-day "Arab" countries).
And she sees that as being completely independent of what assimilated, relatively non-observant Muslims in the USA believe or do.
I have problems with the "non-observant" part. It is Ramadan now, if you have a mosque near you, why don't you pay a visit and see how many "non-observant" Muslims there praying as part of the Ramadan "ritual".
Syloson of Samos | October 10, 2007, 2:35pm | #
R.C. Dean,What are you doing at this moment to defeat radical Islam?
I think what she's getting at here is that there seem to be relatively few Muslims who stand up to the radicals and actively push for a more tolerant, nuanced, liberal (in the old sense) version of their faith.
Or it might be that a lot of these moderate Muslims aren't getting much air time. I can think of at least a half a dozen examples of Muslims who have written books which are critical of radical Islam, of Islamic practices like FGM, etc. Go down to the local bookstore and they are easy enough to find.
iih | October 10, 2007, 2:39pm | #
shecky:In Hitchen's and Applebaum's articles, some of the responses from Dutch citizens were quite interesting to read. It seems that the American audience was just fed sensationalized version (surprise, surprise!) of the actions of the Dutch government.
An Ottawa Reader | October 10, 2007, 2:41pm | #
She's Ann Coulter with an inspiring personal story.Ann Coulter? No. Ann Coulter's so over the top it's hard to believe even she believes the rubbish she spouts. Like iih said at some point, for Ann Islamophobia is a job. Hirsi Ali means what she says.
Norman Finkelstein, perhaps. Whatever the motives of Finkelstein and Hirsi Ali might be, they've been most useful to those convinced that the Elders of Zion/Mecca are one step away from taking over the world. After all, why would an actual Jew/Muslim criticize their own people like this if it weren't all true?
iih | October 10, 2007, 2:48pm | #
Ben Rushing:Most of the Muslim world is oppressed, and she simply want to destroy the ideology thatis aflicting and poisoning the minds of her country's immigrants.
You do realize that most of the oppressive dictators of the ME are secular, don't you? This includes: Tunisia (where the head scarf is banned), Egypt, Syria (baathist, fringe religious group for leaders -- the Alawites), Saddam's Iraq (secular baathist), Musharaf's Pakistan? Is it possible that if Muslims and the practice of Islam was given a little bit more leeway, is it all possible that Islamists would not have gone underground, which resulted in the breeding of all the hate, darkness, and closed-mindedness that we see today among the Islamists?
KSA is an interesting case. The wahabis were the "puritans" and Saud wanted to have more a religious leverage over the country to be able to establish the kingdom. Hence, it was a twisted political arrangement from the outset, which resulted in, eventually, the fundamentalist wahabis taking over the religious discourse in KSA.
Thomas Paine's Goiter | October 10, 2007, 2:49pm | #
But to insist that moderation is fundamentally impossible for anybody who calls himself or herself a Muslim is to cast one's lot with the Bin Ladens of the world.She seems to blur the line between true muslims and muslims by name. You can see what she's saying "submission" and "passive", but that's only true of practitioners of the faith. There are plenty of "muslims", especially in this country. "Muslims" that drink, eat whatever and only fast for the opening day of Ramadan.
Ben Rushing | October 10, 2007, 2:50pm | #
When you consider the fact that Pro-American Immams are given death threats, kidnapped, and murdered in Iraq, you can see that the powers that control Islam don't want to give thier people freedom. They seek to oppress and keep people from the choosing another religion (an act which is punnishable by death).Mecca may notbe pure tyranny but it is only a few steps away from it. The taliban destroyed any remmanence of Buddism in Afgahnastan and kept people oppressed. Iran kills homosexuals. The Islamic world has few places which a homosexual man can live freely. To think that the Islamic world chooses this for themselves is lunacy.
The followers of Islam are not fanatical unless they are brainwashed. When a muslim goes to a place where other ideologies exist they tend to follow thier religion less. This is the way it is here on a US military base in Iraq where numerous Pakistani, Iraqi, Turkish Muslims are not fanatical, because the rule of law here does not allow it. They are treated just as well if not better here than they are in thier own countries.
Islamic Statism does not seek freedom for its followers it preaches a fundamental rule of law that does not allow descent. Because of this, millions are killed in wars started by the actions of religious leaders who say that thier people can not have a free choice in religious matters (such as Darfur, Rawanda, Taliban controlled Afgahnistan, and other places where Islam becomes the norm).
No one should be incited to kill others for thier beliefs, rather they should be allowed to chose for themselves what to believe. Religions should promote peace and tollerance. For the most part Islamic leaders as well as most religion's leaders, even Christianity's, do not do this.
Syloson of Samos | October 10, 2007, 2:51pm | #
iih,You do realize that most of the oppressive dictators of the ME are secular, don't you?
I think that is an important thing to point out. of course one could ask what popularly elected governments in the middle east might look like.
iih | October 10, 2007, 2:52pm | #
How should a moderate guy defeat and marginalize the radicals? He's busy raising his kids, doing his job, living his life, being a good neighbor. If he happens to have knowledge of violent activities by a radical, sure, he can report that guy. But it's not like violent radicals give the details of their plans to every Tariq, Daoud, and Hari.Otherwise, all he can do is raise his kids well, attend and support mosques with moderate teachers, and generally live a good life. He can't really go out and "defeat" radicals.
I would add to that this. How many years did it take the Europeans to get to the Enlightenment? Right now, this is the Islamic "Dark Ages". It has been like that for some 200 years, and now seems to be the peak. These things do not happen overnight. It is a process. The roots of reform are starting to take shape.
And, quite honestly, while I disagree with Ali on almost everything, I think that she is inadvertently playing a major role in the reform. I'd be for protecting her (from private funds though), of course. But I also see that her rhetoric is very very dangerous if taken seriously by enough people in the West.
iih | October 10, 2007, 2:56pm | #
An Ottawa Reader:Right on mark.
P.S. The Sens are doing great so far. But Les Canadiens sont sur la marche!
iih | October 10, 2007, 3:00pm | #
Syoloson:I think that is an important thing to point out. of course one could ask what popularly elected governments in the middle east might look like.
I personally would not trust today's Islamists in any government. It has to be a process, a slow one, as in Turkey and somewhat Egypt, to have parties with Islamic agendas re-evaluate their positions as they get to experience the realities of the world we live in. Any fixing should have happened a long time ago, before the political discourse in the ME becomes so poisoned and oppressive. Any un-calculated changes now could be dangerous, so lets leave it to due process.
ChrisO | October 10, 2007, 3:02pm | #
Islam did expand in many parts of the world by means of conquest, but not everywhere. Not a single Muslim soldier set foot in Indonesia (the most populous Muslim country), Malaysia, Western China, and Africa (south of the north African modern-day "Arab" countries).But the problem is that Muhammad himself and the early "rightly guided" caliphs were the big conquerers, and the religion exists due largely to their efforts. In order to renounce the power/conquest aspects of Islam, much of Muhammad's own life and actions would have to be repudiated. Are you willing to do that?
I have problems with the "non-observant" part. It is Ramadan now, if you have a mosque near you, why don't you pay a visit and see how many "non-observant" Muslims there praying as part of the Ramadan "ritual".
I went overboard with that.
Syloson of Samos | October 10, 2007, 3:06pm | #
ChrisO,Much of what might be called Christendom came to be so via bloody conquest. Indeed, killing apostates, heathens, etc. is a long and at one time highly praised tradition in that religion. If that tradition no longer for the most part hinders Christianity then I don't see why such a tradition in Islam should necessarily hinder it.
iih | October 10, 2007, 3:08pm | #
Ben Rushing:I appreciate what you say, but you still haven't told me what your sources are.
To make my point, you mention Rwanda. Rwanda is 4.6% Muslim. But you are right, the Taliban, the Wahabis, the Pakistani tribal areas are very radicalized and extreme. But who said that these are the norms accepted in Egypt, Morocco, Malaysia, or Indonesia.
But it seems to me that your are projecting the snippets of angry, violent Muslims that Fox, CNN, MSNBC spews (if you look closely, you'll find the O'Riely recycles his angry Muslim videos a lot) on to the over all global Muslim community. Why don't you pay a visit to, say, Egypt sometime. It'll be fun and you'll be surprised.
Syloson of Samos | October 10, 2007, 3:12pm | #
Ben Rushing,To be blunt, in Rwanda it was Christians who were involved in the genocide there, not Muslims. Indeed, since that event the Muslim faith has seen singificant growth in that nation in part because Muslims did not involve themselves in the genocide.
Check out this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53018-2002Sep22.html
Ben Rushing | October 10, 2007, 3:27pm | #
I have visited Dubai and liked it very much. The deal with Dubai is that they have a high level of economic freedom and the government there seeks to allow as much development as possible and does not try to have protectionist philosophy.Dubai has started to allow more personal freedom as well. My beleif is that personal freedom will follow economic freedom. THe UAE has already allowed women to be the head of Universities there. Times are changing.
I fault other Islamic Countries that refuse to give thier people both Personal and Economic Freedom based on some dusty old book that was invented because Muhamed was jelous of the success of Judism and Christianity (two other false religions that Islam borrows from).
Egypt has been a tourist spot for years, but they have a lot of trouble with big government getting into thier business (such as buildings not being completed due to the tax required of them, but remain in use). I am not really against Islam when the leaders of it are not advocating terrorism or the submission to old and foolish laws. But to act like there is an enlightenment period in the religion is false. It is in the minority and hopefully will change places like Saudi Arabia (where religious police beat women that are alone in thier cars).
ChrisO | October 10, 2007, 3:29pm | #
Much of what might be called Christendom came to be so via bloody conquest. Indeed, killing apostates, heathens, etc. is a long and at one time highly praised tradition in that religion. If that tradition no longer for the most part hinders Christianity then I don't see why such a tradition in Islam should necessarily hinder it.The founding figure of Christianity did not engage in or advocate such action. The founding figure of Islam did.
And that, I believe, is a large part of why Christians were able to change their religion and why Muslims have not despite a couple of centuries worth of contact with Enlightenment ideas. The Carolingian "convert or die" ethos directly contradicts the entire New Testament and the words ascribed to Jesus. I can't claim to be Mr. Expert on Islamic texts, but it's well known that the Koran supports both violent and pacifist interpretations. The life of Muhammad and his early successors, however, makes things a lot more difficult for Muslims who would renounce violence.
heyjustasec | October 10, 2007, 3:32pm | #
Not that I agree with male circumcision, either, but there is a HUGE difference between male and female "circumcision." I've never heard of a male circumcision where the actual organ is removed. In some cultures, the entire clitoris is removed. Then, in a super-freaky twist, some of the cultures sew up the women so that there is only one hole for both urinating and for sex. MUCH bigger deal than just removing the foreskin, IMHO. As you can well imagine, it leads to HORRIFIC ongoing medical problems and is very very painful. At least with male circumcision you would heal from it telatively quickly.iih | October 10, 2007, 3:34pm | #
ChrisO:In order to renounce the power/conquest aspects of Islam, much of Muhammad's own life and actions would have to be repudiated. Are you willing to do that?
I have a problem with the first part of this statement. Before and after Islam, civilizations have decided that the best way to protect yourself is to be aggressive. One has to carefully study the history of these times. Many neighboring civilization felt endangered by this new religious movement (think Rome and early Christianity), especially the Byzantines and the Persians. They were on the march to crush the Arabs. It is simply how things worked back then. Should not be evaluated on today's scale.
So when I say I "follow Muhamad", if by that I mean I will blindly follow the literal word of Hadith I'd be an idiot and I'd be wrong. No, I follow the moral value of his experience. At this point, people would mention "pedophilia". The least one can say is that Muhamed's actions are highly shaped in the West by the writings, translations, and interpretations of 18th and 19th century Orientalists (sometimes a dirty word to many scholars of Islam), who mixed Dark Ages myths with poor and twisted translations of Islamic text and scripture. As for the pedophelia charge, the age of the girl in question (Aisha -- most highly respect Islamic reference, who also was madly in love with the Prophet) is highly debateable, and most Muslim (non-Western) scholars say that marriage happened after Aisha reached puberty (the legal equivalent of being an "adult" in modern Western terms).
But you see, Muhamad is not only about war and a marrying young girl. He is whole lote more than that to many Muslims. The West is just so hung up on those two things: "Jihad" and pedophilia (both widely controversial -- surely you've heard of "the greatest jihad is the jihad against one's evil desires"?) To Muslims it is a whole lot more.
In any case, let me just explain this. What infuriates me is not that my religion is being attacked on an intellectual level (I am fine with the intellect part). What I think sucks is when people attribute stupidly wrong things to (1) the religion, (2) to an entire group of people and to portray them as monolith. Even worse is when some portray them as a monolith using lies and half truths. Liars are disgusting. Some do not lie, but they just ignorantly propagate these lies.
Should Islam not be criticized? Absolutely not! It is one of the ways that Muslims will start to have to think about what their belief mean to them. They will have to come up with answers. They have to re-evaluate themselves and this re-evaluation came from such things as the Cartoon Crisis, Irshad Manji's views, Hirsi Ali's views, and so on. As I mentioned on previous threads, I prefer a civilized discussion (especially by the West) more than an insult-based approach (e.g., the Danish cartoons, which I found stupidly insulting and not the best way to have discourse).
Syloson of Samos | October 10, 2007, 3:38pm | #
ChrisO,The founding figure of Christianity did not engage in or advocate such action. The founding figure of Islam did.
I honestly don't think that matters much at all. Then again, one can debate who really started Christianity. Was it Jesus? Paul? Constantine?
And that, I believe, is a large part of why Christians were able to change their religion ...
If it wasn't part of the founding then why did they have to change their religion?
The Carolingian "convert or die" ethos directly contradicts the entire New Testament and the words ascribed to Jesus.
Actually they don't. Jesus did preach a lot about the sort of things that would be visited (and quite quickly) on those he disapproved of. Indeed, the early gospels are suffused with the notion of Jesus as an apocalypticist. Well, guess what happens when the world is turned upside following that apocalypse? Guess who gets the shaft as it were?
Syloson of Samos | October 10, 2007, 3:43pm | #
Anyway, it doesn't take much of a leap of logic to go from Jesus' statements on the coming kingdom and who would profit and not profit by its arrival to discrimination by state which is officially Christian.iih | October 10, 2007, 3:46pm | #
I fault other Islamic Countries that refuse to give thier people both Personal and Economic Freedom based on some dusty old book that was invented because Muhamed was jelous of the success of Judism and Christianity (two other false religions that Islam borrows from).Ben, I thin this statement is patently false as I explain above. Most of these oppressive regimes are primarily secular. That is not to excuse governments like the Taliban, KSA's wahabis. The King of Morocco for example is a direct descendant of the Prophet. He is a decent guy, and while Morocco still has to do a lot work on the democracy front, they are a very tolerant Muslim nation , with a quasi-religious quasi-secular government.
iih | October 10, 2007, 3:47pm | #
ChrisO:The life of Muhammad and his early successors, however, makes things a lot more difficult for Muslims who would renounce violence.
See my response at 3:34.
iih | October 10, 2007, 3:48pm | #
heyjustasec: FGM is brutal, yes.Bob Smith | October 10, 2007, 3:51pm | #
Ok, what do I need to read?
OBL merely follows in his footsteps, which is why there is no theological foundation within Islam to reject him.
No. There is. You clearly need to do a lot of reading.
OBL stands for a number of things:
1) The dominance of Islam over all
2) The permanent subjugation of non-Muslims as second-class citizens (dhimmis).
3) The installation of Sharia as the supreme law of the world
4) A permanent state of war, whether prosecuted by combat, propaganda, proselytizing, or money, between Muslims and non-Muslims until the non-Muslims submit to Islamic rule or are killed
5) The rejection of existing, on a permanent non-repudiable basis, as equals with infidels
6) The subverting and corruption of infidel governments and institutions in order to accomplish these aims
You have a big job ahead if you want to convince me there is a specifically Islamic theological basis to reject these things. Please refrain from resorting to unreliable hadith or abrogated verses. Further explain how a Muslim can reject these goals without rejecting Muhammad himself, who did exactly these things.
There are plenty of Muslims who aren't actively working to kill me. Unfortunately, most of them believe that 1-3 would make an ideal world, which is why they don't stop the "radicals". In fact they support them with money and shelter. The difference is not in their goals, merely the means which they will employ. Plenty of Muslims would love to see Sharia be installed in the US by non-violent means, but "non-violent" will be no consolation to the guy who got his hand chopped off for stealing a bag of potato chips.
scott | October 10, 2007, 3:53pm | #
She gets it! When will the rest of us get it!I authored a proposal to ban Islam in the US, see it at http://pedestrianinfidel.blogspot.com/2007/02/proposed-constitutional-amendment.html
Here is the whole thing -
Thursday, February 08, 2007
A Proposed Constitutional Amendment
Background and justification to Amendment 28
Whereas Religion is defined as an institution dedicated to improving social conscience and promoting individual and societal spiritual growth in a way that is harmless to others not participating in or practicing the same;
Whereas the United States of America was founded on the ideals of individual rights, including the individual right to practice one’s religion of choice, or no religion, and that there would be no compulsion of religion, nor state sanctioned religion, nor a “religious test” for participation in the body politic;
Whereas Islam includes a complete political and social structure, encompassed by its religious law, Sharia, that supersedes any civil law and that Islam mandates that no secular or democratic institutions are to be superior to Islamic law;
Whereas Islam preaches that it and it alone is the true religion and that Islam will dominate the world and supplant all other religions and democratic institutions;
Whereas Saudi Arabia, the spiritual home of Islam does not permit the practice of any other religion on its soil and even “moderate” Muslims states such as Turkey and Malaysia actively suppress other religions;
Whereas Islam includes as its basic tenet the spread of the faith by any and all means necessary, including violent conquest of non-believers, and demands of its followers that they implement violent jihad (holy war) against those un-willing to convert or submit to Islam, including by deception and subversion of existing institutions;
Whereas on 9/11/2001 19 Muslim hijackers acting in the name of Islam killed 3,000 Americans, and numerous other acts of terrorism have been directed at the American people around the world;
Whereas representatives of Islam around the world including Osama Bin Laden (architect of 9/11), the government of Iran including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, HAMAS, Hezbollah, and other Islamic groups have declared jihad (war) on America, and regularly declare that America should cease to exist;
Whereas there is no organized Islamic opposition to violent proponents of Islam;
Therefore: Islam is not a religion, but a political ideology more akin to Fascism and totally in opposition to the ideals of freedom as described in the United States Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights.
Be it resolved that the following Amendment to the Constitution be adopted:
Article I
The social/political/ideological system known around the world as Islam is not recognized in the United States as a religion.
The practice of Islam is therefore not protected under the 1st Amendment as to freedom of religion and speech.
Article II
As representatives of Islam around the world have declared war, and committed acts of war, against the United States and its democratic allies around the world, Islam is hereby declared an enemy of the United States and its practice within the United States is now prohibited.
Article III
Immediately upon passage of this Amendment all Mosques, schools and Muslim places of worship and religious training are to be closed, converted to other uses, or destroyed. Proceeds from sales of such properties may be distributed to congregations of said places but full disclosure of all proceeds shall be made to an appropriate agency as determined by Congress. No compensation is to be offered by Federal or State agencies for losses on such properties however Federal funding is to be available for the demolishing of said structures if other disposition cannot be made.
The preaching of Islam in Mosques, Schools, and other venues is prohibited. The subject of Islam may be taught in a post high school academic environment provided that instruction include discussion of Islam’s history of violence, conquest, and its ongoing war on democratic and other non-Islamic values.
The preaching or advocating of Islamic ideals of world domination, destruction of America and democratic institutions, jihad against Judaism, Christianity and other religions, and advocating the implementation of Sharia law shall in all cases be punishable by fines, imprisonment, deportation, and death as prescribed by Congress. Violent expressions of these and other Muslim goals, or the material support of those both in the United States and around the world who seek to advance these Islamic goals shall be punishable by death.
Muslims will be denied the opportunity to immigrate to the United States.
Article IV
Nothing in this amendment shall be construed as authorizing the discrimination against, of violence upon, nor repudiation of the individual rights of those Americans professing to be Muslim. The individual right of conscience is sacrosanct and the practice of Islam within the privacy of home and self is strictly protected to the extent that such individuals do not violate the prohibitions described in Article III.
Daze | October 10, 2007, 3:54pm | #
I'm surprised at the level of hostility here. Hirsi Ali is an eloquent, nuanced writer squarely in the classical liberal tradition. Comparing her to an authoritarian theocratic blowhard like Ann Coulter is a contemptible cheapshot.Hirsi Ali's comments on how a tolerant, open society should fight a totalitarian enemy remind me of Goldwater's chapter on fighting communism in "Conscience of a Conservative". I don't agree 100% with either, but saying "Hirsi Ali is an intolerant fanatic just like Osama" makes as much sense as "Goldwater was just like Stalin".
Ben Rushing | October 10, 2007, 3:56pm | #
The idea that they are secular or islamic does not matter. There is no real freedom in the Arab world except in small parts of it. (like Dubai where the Arab population is low)So what are you saying that if a real muslim was put into power there would be freedom? That is like Saying Pat Robertson (of the Christian TBN TV show the 700 club) would allow gay rights, gay adoption, and would allow the free worship of religions other than Christianity if he were President of the United States.
Daze | October 10, 2007, 3:56pm | #
I mean come on if you kill 7 milion jews your pretty bad, but if you kill 1.5 billion muslims your just protecting our freedoms.Where did Hirsi Ali advocate genocide against muslims?
iih | October 10, 2007, 3:57pm | #
Regarding Christianity and "violence". Where did things the DoD come from? Can we say that Christianity lacked an innate "right to bear arms" (pun intended)! Didn't Christians have to protect themselves later. It is not like the crusades did not happen!iih | October 10, 2007, 4:00pm | #
Ben:So what are you saying that if a real muslim was put into power there would be freedom?
No.
Please at least read my comments. I spend time (I really do have other things to do, oo) to respond to you. In fact I responded to this very statement above at 2:48 and at 3:00.
Amazing and thought provoking. Ali is a voice we in the West need to heed. We are at war whether we admit as much or not.
Syloson of Samos | October 10, 2007, 4:04pm | #
Daze,For the most part it seems to me that people just disagree with her.
dhex | October 10, 2007, 4:09pm | #
Hirsi Ali is an eloquent, nuanced writer squarely in the classical liberal tradition.she certainly doesn't come off as such in the interview.
Reason: We have to crush the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims under our boot? In concrete terms, what does that mean, “defeat Islam”?
Hirsi Ali: I think that we are at war with Islam. And there’s no middle ground in wars. Islam can be defeated in many ways. For starters, you stop the spread of the ideology itself; at present, there are native Westerners converting to Islam, and they’re the most fanatical sometimes. There is infiltration of Islam in the schools and universities of the West. You stop that. You stop the symbol burning and the effigy burning, and you look them in the eye and flex your muscles and you say, “This is a warning. We won’t accept this anymore.” There comes a moment when you crush your enemy.
now do i totally understand why she would feel this way? you fuckin' bet.
but it's not particularly levelheaded.
iih | October 10, 2007, 4:10pm | #
Bob Smith @ 3:51:Many of your statements are collectivist in nature.
Ok, what do I need to read?
Well there is plenty. Stop watching FOX or reading michellemalkin.com would be a good start. Visit a bookstore near you. Borders or B&N would do. I can not tell you what to read, do you have to be told?
Well, read this or this for example.
Ben Rushing | October 10, 2007, 4:15pm | #
iih: I understand your conviction to defend the right to practice your religion, but to say that it doesn't promote Statism or the ability for secular governments to come into power and cause a loss of freedom is incredible.I work with muslims who are moderate, or liberal depending on what words you use, who have stopped caring about their religion since
working over here. I and my American co-workers don't actively stress it.
They enjoy watching videos with scantly clad women and they will sometimes eat pork when told that it is beef (I didn't do this someone before me did).
They have found out that Americans are not the evil people that they are portrayed to be, but that we are more prone to use science as a way to stop diseases while Muslim countries will not talk about condoms (just like Evangelicals in the US) but they will sell them in the stores.
I have met incredible self educated muslims from Pakistan that have learned English on thier own and have done some amazing things when they have stopped listening to the crazyness of thier religion and have opened thier eyes to science.
One of my guys has told me about how ignorant people are in Pakistan because the religion calls science a plot of the infidels to subvert Islam! It is incredible that anyone would actively defend Muslim nations! They have not yet contributed to the advancement of society, merely kept it 300-400 years back.
iih | October 10, 2007, 4:18pm | #
Stop watching FOX or reading michellemalkin.com would be a good start.I did not mean that literally of course. It was a figure speech implying that you should not rely on either one of them solely, if you did. I can not tell you what to watch and what not to watch. Sorry.
regarding dhex: Good luck. While you crush them make sure to look the other way, so that you do not feel the guilt.
Thomas Paine's Goiter | October 10, 2007, 4:21pm | #
she certainly doesn't come off as such in the interview.I'm SHOCKED! SHOCKED I SAY that an eloquent writer would come off less than eloquent in a spoken interview.
SHOCKED!
Mark | October 10, 2007, 4:21pm | #
Amazing. If Ms Ali said that Christian churches needed to be razed, I bet half or more of the atheists on here would applaud and nod. Since she's attacking islam, she gets called unhinged. Very telling.R C Dean | October 10, 2007, 4:26pm | #
What are you doing at this moment to defeat radical Islam?I'm not a Muslim, so I'm not sure what your point is, since my observation was that there seem to be a lot of passive Muslims.
Unlike, say Christians. You don't have any trouble finding Christians who vocally condemn and actively oppose abortion-clinic bombers.
Now, with Muslims, I am the first to admit that I am relying on what I read and see on the media, so this is all very impressionistic, and who knows what's going on in the big world.
Even in the US, though, the "public" face of Islam is the likes of CAIR, which seems to operate under the maxim "No enemies in the Dar al Islam".
It seems to me that, given the obviously overwhelming desire of the MSM to normalize Muslims, it is odd that we don't see (in the MSM) more Muslims taking public issue with their radical and violent brethren.
iih | October 10, 2007, 4:26pm | #
Ben,From your description, I guarantee you that I am probably more like your colleagues. I have trouble with what happens back in Muslim countries, but:
it doesn't promote Statism or the ability for secular governments to come into power and cause a loss of freedom is incredible.
Yes, it has been used to do that before. But I am one of those Muslims ("reformers" if you will) who see a version (an "interpretation") of Islam that does not translate into promoting statism , or the ability of a secular government to come into power. There does exist such an interpretation. It is a very small minority interpretation, but it does exist in theory. It only takes legal craftsmen, and hard work. This I call reform, which I thought what people in the West would like to see. The naive idea that Islam needs to be eliminated or will be elliminated is simply unpractical. One has to work with what one has.
Syloson of Samos | October 10, 2007, 4:33pm | #
R.C. Dean,...given the obviously overwhelming desire of the MSM to normalize Muslims...
That doesn't seem particularly obvious to me.
Mark,
I bet none or very few would.
Ryan | October 10, 2007, 4:38pm | #
She characterizes radical Islamism as some kind of a mind virus that spreads itself.There is a core of radical Islam that has always been there and will always be there, just as there is a core of radical white supremacists that have always been there and will always be there.
Radical Islamists that kill themselves in battle can no longer recruit new radical Islamists. At best they are referred to as martyrs by other recruiters.
But where are the new recruits coming from? Why the sudden rise of recruits to radical Islam in the last 50 years?
I submit that radical Islam recruitment is not a mind virus, but an opportunity driven by the lack of economic opportunity that US foreign policy has left young people in Islamic countries; and by the anger that the deaths of millions of their family members due to US foreign policy produces.
Fix the US foreign policy that is guaranteeing a dead end for young people, and you end recruitment. Why? Because making money and enjoying life are more important than any religion, judging by the number of people in the US who are Christians in name only but really practice a religion of materialism instead.
It's impossible to live in Iraq and make money and enjoy life today, so it's impossible for material comfort to divert young people away from the message of radical Islam. Why wouldn't young people listen to Islamic zealots who offer them paradise? They've got nothing to lose because our foreign policy has taken any hope at opportunity away from them.
When recruitment is ended, then you're left with a core of neutered blowhards just like any other marginalized religion. And just like radical Islam pre-1950 before our foreign policy started feeding their recruitment prospects.
Radical Islamists are like hornets. You can't kill 'em all because there's another nest somewhere you can't see or reach. You can't exterminate a hornet problem by killing the nests that are within reach. The only way to reduce them to a manageable or undetectable level is to get rid of whatever is feeding them.
In the case of the Middle East, it's our foreign policy of sanctions, aid, coups, alliances, bombs, and selectively implementing UN resolutions that is feeding the hornet population in radical Islam.
600,000 to 1.2 million dead Iraqis, on an expedition that had nothing to do with addressing radical Islam in the first place, probably guarantees a matching number of new radical Islam recruits.
When are we going to stop making the problem worse, beef up our defense, take our licks for this round of recruitment, and let radical Islamism suffer an eventual collapse upon its fundamental flaws compared to a market society?
Instead, we continue to exacerbate the problem, using the problem itself as justification for the continued exacerbation. Not logical...
ben rushing | October 10, 2007, 4:39pm | #
One has to work with what one has.Well true, but you will be accused of plotting to help the jews and the kaufers. I am sure the leaders of Islam would likely have you killed. Just as the Catholics sought with thier reformers. Would it not be easier to confess that you are a human and say:
"There is no god who activly influences our lives, nor scientifically reveals himself/herself/itself, and therefor does not deem himself/herself/itself worthy of being praised, feared, or worshiped. I shall not live my life perscribing to a belief system that has caused more division, racism, sexism, and bigotry to all of the people of the world. I will be who I am and will allow the free worship of a religion and will only criticize the leaders and defenders of which who make it possible to legally harm someone either physically or financially using thier religion." ?
iih | October 10, 2007, 4:40pm | #
R.C. Dean:I think what she's getting at here is that there seem to be relatively few Muslims who stand up to the radicals and actively push for a more tolerant, nuanced, liberal (in the old sense) version of their faith.
You have one right here. There are a lot of progressive (some are Muslim, non--secular) movements in the Muslim world working to change things. But it takes time. Again, how many years to take Europe from the Dark Ages to the Enlightenment?
An Arab | October 10, 2007, 4:44pm | #
Well, this is certainly not surprising. That dog Ayaan is now given free rein to spew her hate, on American soil no less, and by what you would normally like to think of as moderate and freedom loving American Institutions. She wants to 'go at war with Islam' and use 'whatever means' to 'remove' it, shut down schools, curb expression thereof in clear violation of the Constitution I took an oath to, and yet still be on the payrolls of those institutions.It says a lot about American institutions, and Americans who support them. I continue to be completely side swiped and surprised by the degree of hypocrisy exhibited by Americans in this country. Each day I wake up and tell myself that its ok, they would never go that low, but they still manage to.
And as usual I am being asked my complete strangers to 'denounce out loud' the actions of other complete strangers simply because we happen to beleive in the same God.
Sometimes I wonder... sometimes, I really do...
Ben | October 10, 2007, 4:44pm | #
"It's impossible to live in Iraq and make money and enjoy life today, so it's impossible for material comfort to divert young people away from the message of radical Islam. Why wouldn't young people listen to Islamic zealots who offer them paradise? They've got nothing to lose because our foreign policy has taken any hope at opportunity away from them"Uh actually it is not. What is impossible is to live here and not at some point face threats from foriegn supplied Arab Terorists (usually Iran or Syria). US troops supply what are known as haji shops on the base (this is how they are refered to by the Iraqi shop owners as well). So I would say that while Iraq is hurting, they are also improving themselves. In Kurdistan (Northern Iraq) they build thier buildings with glass and not concrete and are extreamly pro-American. Visit www.theotheriraq.com to find out more.
iih | October 10, 2007, 4:45pm | #
Ben:but you will be accused of plotting to help the jews and the kaufers
Yes, by those that the MSM keeps talking about 24/7. Most Muslims and many Muslim leaders are not like that.
Would it not be easier to confess that you are a human and say:...
Trust me, no. Plus, I do believe in a God and Islam seems pretty good to me (not the one preached by OBL, or what the MSM wishes the general public to beieve Islam is -- simply put, Islam is not, has not, and will not be a monolith.)
iih | October 10, 2007, 4:51pm | #
Finally, I really have to go, let me just put on the table some of what Ali has to say and ask yourself if, as libertarians, you agree with these statements (taken from a previous post):And you really have to read about her views in reason to see why even peaceful Muslims are alarmed by her propositions.
For example:
"we are at war with Islam."
When asked about defeating radical Islam, she answers "[n]o. Islam, period."
She says: "There comes a moment when you crush your enemy." (Referring to Islam, not radical Islam). Bakel then asks: "Militarily?", she responds: "In all forms, and if you don't do that, then you have to live with the consequence of being crushed."
Then there is her proposition to close all Muslim schools.
She suggests that the Bill of Rights and Constitution are not infallible in defense of asking for closing all Muslim schools.
When asked if she met any American Muslims while here, she simply says that she did not have time to meet any. But still she's for closing all Muslim schools.
I have a lot of trouble with her views (and still believe she has every right to her free speech). She should also be protected, because if a radical Muslim hurts her, it is the ordinary peaceful Muslims who end up having to live with the consequences in the public discourse. But I think that she should be protected by contributions from private donors (and I'd be more than happy to contribute, as I am sure her AEI friends would want to do, too).
ChrisO | October 10, 2007, 4:55pm | #
I have a problem with the first part of this statement. Before and after Islam, civilizations have decided that the best way to protect yourself is to be aggressive. One has to carefully study the history of these times. Many neighboring civilization felt endangered by this new religious movement (think Rome and early Christianity), especially the Byzantines and the Persians. They were on the march to crush the Arabs. It is simply how things worked back then. Should not be evaluated on today's scale.That does not follow any understanding I have of early Muslim history. The Rashidun Caliphs invaded and conquered Persia and southeastern Byzantium, starting in the 630s. There was no Persian or Byzantine invasion of the Arabian peninsula, which was to them an insignificant backwater. Persia and Byzantium had fought a crushing war against each other a decade earlier that led to a high degree of military exhaustion and vulnerability, particularly on the Persian side.
So when I say I "follow Muhamad", if by that I mean I will blindly follow the literal word of Hadith I'd be an idiot and I'd be wrong. No, I follow the moral value of his experience. At this point, people would mention "pedophilia". The least one can say is that Muhamed's actions are highly shaped in the West by the writings, translations, and interpretations of 18th and 19th century Orientalists (sometimes a dirty word to many scholars of Islam), who mixed Dark Ages myths with poor and twisted translations of Islamic text and scripture. As for the pedophelia charge, the age of the girl in question (Aisha -- most highly respect Islamic reference, who also was madly in love with the Prophet) is highly debateable, and most Muslim (non-Western) scholars say that marriage happened after Aisha reached puberty (the legal equivalent of being an "adult" in modern Western terms).
The pedophilia stuff is silly, and "child brides" are certainly not unique to Islam. However, there is simply no getting around the fact that Muhammad was a conquerer, and a ruthless one. Obviously there was more to his message than that, but that's not the point in this discussion, when dealing with Salafists and their ideas.
BTW, iih, I'm on your side on this one, really. A reinterpretation of Islam that fits with the modern world benefits everyone. I hope you and your cohorts are successful.
I honestly don't think that matters much at all. Then again, one can debate who really started Christianity. Was it Jesus? Paul? Constantine?
Syloson, I think you are stretching greatly on this. Doctrinally, the words ascribed to Jesus do not invite any form of conquest or violence. And to reformers, it is that which matters, not what Christian emperors/kings had done in the name of the religion centuries earlier. I'm a devout atheist, and I can see this quite clearly.
This is all academic, I suppose. People are going to see in any religion what they wish to see.
megs | October 10, 2007, 5:14pm | #
Syloson of Samos - if you get this far down the comments to a question you asked at the top:No, the Netherlands is awful. I meant Kenya/Somalia.
Ben Rushing | October 10, 2007, 5:16pm | #
Well most muslims don't want the Quran translated the same was true about the Bible (which wasn't always available in Engrish)And look at what Christian reformation brought us: weak Christianity that was open to criticism followed by a growth of: deism, agnosticism, and atheism. Is this what you really want for Islam? Protestant Islam followed by Atheism? If so, then good luck. I hope the Saudis don't find you, because if you look at Christianity's reformation, there is going to be a huge tribulation period before all is well.
iih | October 10, 2007, 5:21pm | #
That does not follow any understanding I have of early Muslim history. The Rashidun Caliphs invaded and conquered Persia and southeastern Byzantium, starting in the 630s.Shall we call it, to use an often used term in recent years, a preemptive strike? The spread of Islam at the time was certainly noticed and the Persians and Byzantines were worried and were preparing for the assault. Simply, it all boils down to war tactics. Does this justify terrorism? Absolutely not. Terrorism is criminal and goes against Islam (named in Arabic by "heraba", and is prohibited).
What also goes unmentioned is the fact that many locals did see in the incoming new forces as a change for the oppressive status quo. For example, the Copts in Egypt were fed up with the Byzantines and were in fact supportive of the oncoming Muslims. They reached an agreement by which all Coptic churches remained open, and Egyptians pretty much kept their self rule (except for the Arabian Emir who was appointed by the Caliph). This policy led to many conversions.
Much later, as in India, some Muslim rulers were brutal in their conquests (e.g., Akbar, who was Mongol -- Mongols were known for their brutality). Is he a mainstream Muslim figure? No. Salah El Din (Saladin), on the other hand is loved by all Muslims, and is a very respected figure in the West.
So yes, some Muslim invaders were brutal in their methods, but that was more imperialism, than being Islamically motivated. And as with any religious text, yes you can find something in there to justify your brutal actions. I can find many other things that do not justify these kinds of actions.
One can also talk of "Dhimitude". As recently as the 20th century, Canada, for example, had a head tax. So it is not an entirely foreign concept. Yes it is discriminatory, that is why you won't find many Muslims, or Muslim nations even applying the concept today (in fact since the 17th and 18th century). I do not know about KSA. I think they'd still impose it.
However, here is the explanation I know of: it is a tax paid by non-Muslims so that they are exempt from joining the army. That is why it was imposed on male non-Muslims only. It is the cost of having the Muslim state defend and protect the non-Muslim in the state, from foreign invasion. On today's standards, is it right? Is it applicable? No.