Comment is free: Everything in moderation

Everything in moderation by Ali Eteraz

Ayaan Hirsi Ali should note that when addressing injustice in Islam, there is a need for reconciliation between secular humanists and Muslims

Ayaan Hirsi Ali recently published an op-ed in the New York Times entitled Islam's silent moderates, wondering where were the Muslims speaking out against the Saudi rape tragedy, the Sudanese teddy bear fiasco, and the persecution of feminist writer Taslima Nasreen in India. Her article makes me think two things.

First, she clearly doesn't read leftwing magazines. Four days before her piece, Mahir Ali wrote in at Znet discussing Saudi Arabia, Sudan and India, and called the Muslim demagogues in each place "dimwits". He is just one example of a "moderate" Muslim speaking out, but it makes one wonder how many other condemnations Hirsi Ali ignored.

Second, her article is about more than condemnation. Her argument is that when Islamic dictates collide with a person's sense of "compassion and conscience", a Muslim should opt for the compassionate solution. She wants a compassionate interpretation of Islam spread "more widely".

Putting aside Hirsi Ali's questionable political affiliation and history of appalling statements - Islam must be defeated - hers is a hopeful piece. It makes me wonder whether she has finally realised that not all people who adhere to Islam are prone to cruelty and violence. If the future Ms Ali is more like this, she might resonate in a community that matters most: Muslims. However, in order to do so, she will need to have a better grasp of how Muslims respond to injustice in the name of Islam.

When, in the name of Islam, something horrifying occurs - say a raped woman is punished, or a bombing occurs - there are, in fact, a vast number of average Muslims who find the situation unconscionable. Their usual reaction, as Ms Ali points out, is to say something like, "But Islam means peace!" or that "this is a hijacking by extremists!"

Now, Ms Ali thinks that such slogans are platitudes, and do not reflect actual opposition. Thus: her pessimism about the unlikelihood of a moderate Islam.

Yet, the fact that Muslims around the world insist "Islam means peace" is evidence that a vast number of Muslims do not think that Islam means violence. Given that Islamically sanctioned violence is the actual threat we are dealing with, this is a good thing. Further, when a Muslim does commit something nasty against fellow human beings, and other Muslims decry this person as an "extremist", this is evidence that a vast number of Muslims find brutish behaviour worth distancing themselves from. This too is a good thing. At the least, it shows that most Muslims share in the universal definitions of good and bad.

Comment is free: Everything in moderation

Hirsi Ali, atheism and Islam

Hirsi Ali, atheism and Islam
By Spengler

Few public figures have done more to earn our sympathy than the Muslim apostate Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a fugitive from her native Somalia, and now a virtual exile from her adopted country, the Netherlands. Under constant threat since the 2004 murder by an Islamist of her collaborator, the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, Hirsi Ali warns the West that Islam presents a mortal threat to its freedoms.

America took her in last year when the Dutch government connived to remove her refugee status, but she remains



something of an embarrassment to the George W Bush administration. This autumn the Dutch government removed her security detail, and the Americans have taken no steps to protect her. That is a stain on the honor of both countries.

Although she has the credibility of a witness as well as the moral standing of a victim, Hirsi Ali remains a bystander civilian in the great war of our times, whose broadest front is in the global South. That is, she proclaims herself to be an atheist. Millions of Muslims reportedly convert to Christianity each year, mainly in Africa. Islam is stagnant in Asia while tens of millions become Christian. Yet all the Muslim apostates whose voices we hear are atheists - not only Hirsi Ali, but also Salman Rushdie, the celebrated author of The Satanic Verses, the Syrian poet Adonis, and the pseudonymous Ibn Warraq, author of Why I am not a Muslim and several compendia of Koranic criticism.

Why do Muslim apostates gravitate towards atheism? That is not true of other religions. Many Jewish converts achieved prominence in 20th-century Christianity - for example, the recently deceased Cardinal Danielou of Paris, the martyred Carmelite nun Edith Stein (now canonized), and the great Protestant theologian Eugene Rosenstock-Huessy. But the name of no prominent Muslim convert to Christianity (much less to Judaism) comes to mind.

It is easy to change what we think, but very hard to change how we think. Contrary to superficial impressions, Islam is much closer in character to atheism than to Christianity or Judaism. Although the "what" of Muslim and atheistic thinking of course are very different, I shall endeavor below to prove that the "how" is very similar.

Hirsi Ali states that the West is at war with Islam, not with "terrorism", "Islamism", "radical Islam", or "Islamo-fascism". Here is a snippet from her November exchange with Reason [1]:
Reason: The Polish Catholic Church helped defeat the [Wojciech] Jaruzelski puppet regime [1990]. Do you think Islam could bring about similar social and political changes?

Hirsi Ali: Only if Islam is defeated. Because right now, the political side of Islam, the power-hungry expansionist side of Islam, has become superior to the Sufis and the Ismailis and the peace-seeking Muslims.

Reason: Don't you mean defeating radical Islam?

Hirsi Ali: No. Islam, period. Once it's defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It's very difficult to even talk about peace now. They're not interested in peace.

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.
Nonetheless Hirsi Ali has no clear idea how a war with Islam might proceed. Again, from the Reason interview:
Hirsi Ali: 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.

Reason: Militarily?

Hirsi Ali: In all forms, and if you don't do that, then you have to live with the consequence of being crushed.
The implication that the West will crush Islam by force borders on the absurd. Western armies, to be sure, could make short work of the military forces of any Muslim country, but what would they do then? Would they order Muslims to abandon their spiritual life in favor of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, the heroes of Hirsi Ali? The West cannot stop Muslims from burning in effigy the editors of a Danish newspaper in their own countries.