I was catching up on some podcasts today, including this interesting interview on Radio Times with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-born critic of Islam now affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute.
Ali makes some interesting points but shows a remarkably blind eye to other cultures, her anger at Islam being so great. Her basic argument is that Islam contains within it the seeds of its own fanaticism — an argument that applies not just to Islam but to all religions.
Her argument offers a subtle conflation of culture and religion, attributing cultures practices from nations in which Islam is practiced to Islam itself and not acknowledging — except when questioned — that the practices are not necessarily Islamic in nature (I am thinking of female genital mutilation, which she admits is not contained in the Koran).
In general, her arguments are rather half-baked for someone so prominent, built on a mix of inuendo and rumor and lacking statistical backing. She talks about honor killings as if they are common, alludes to a few, and uses them to show that the progress being made by Muslim women in the United States is a mirage.
The inconsistencies are maddening, the biggest one being her contention that Christian groups should seek to convert Muslims — especially Muslim women — because Christianity is far more supportive of women’s rights. Forget that Ali is an avowed atheist. Her view of Christianity not only exhibits a dangerously ahistorical view of religion, but a naivete about the kind of Christian fundamentalism that has left doctors and nurses dead in the United States. The recent incidents of Christian terrorism in the United States have been well documented, as has Jewish extremism and violence in the Middle East and Muslim fanaticism.
The Christian Right is far from sympathetic to the plight of women and it is no more accepting of reason or even of other religions than fundamentalist Muslims.
All of this leads Ali to traffic in the false assumption that only Muslims can be terrorists, that only Muslims can be extremists and that only Islam poses a threat to the values of the Enlightenment.
The enemy, however, is not Islam but a kind of certainty that shuts the mind to differences and disagreement and that transforms these disagreements into existential threats that require response. Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, atheists and the other major and minor world faiths are not going to agree on everything or even many things. But that does not become a problem until someone attempts to erase the disagreement by force.
Targeting Islam, as she does, without making these distinctions is foolish, dangerous and makes her little better than the people she condemns.
- Send me an e-mail.
- Read poetry at The Subterranean.
- Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.
Hank Kalet 
Hirsi Ali writes for a Non-Muslim audience–who knows next to nothing about Islam—and she offers nothing constructive, only an ego-trip to those who want to feel superior. There are real women activists, who are also Muslim, who are making a difference…..without resorting to Islam-bashing(—which is why they are making a difference)
I am sorry and disappointed to hear this about Ayaan Hirsi Ali. When she appeared on 60 Minutes a few years ago, I was rather impressed with her. I am especially disappointed that she has become a part of the American right wing. The American Enterprise Institute is just one of a plethora of phoney baloney corporate funded right wing, pro-corporate, quasi-libertarian \”think tanks\” that dependably argue for corporate interests and rights above all else. AEI and the rest of the right wing think tanks were founded and are funded by the giant corporations and the billionaires who want to cut taxes and gut the social programs that help so many ordinary Americans.
I am from Holland and all I can say about her is that she got attention in ower country in a time when there was a lot off political unrest because the people felt that they where not heard by the politicians.There was a lot to do about the assimilation/integration of first generation guestworkers and their children and asylum seekers.And all off the sudden there was Ayaan, switching from one political party to another, because she could get more attention that way. She let herself be used for political gain by other party members and to further her own ambitions. She always came across to me as an opportunist that was continuously polarizing ower society. There was always this one sided story and whenever a person kept asking questions about what actually makes a society work and what roll a politician should play in ower society,- she never had an answer to those questions.I mean there never was a real correlation with the believes of the islamic people in ower countryand the issues that ower country was facing. The underlying reason for the issues where partly ower own falt as a society. We have let thousends off people(mainly turkisch and Maroccan)in ower country as guest workers because we needed them for the lower level jobs. Ofcourse they started family,s here and we never made an effort to integrate them better in ower society. So they kept on speaking there own language wich led to discomfourt in naborhoods wich where dominated by those guestworkers.Long story short, the politicians where deaf to those who try,d to address the problem. In that lightanother politician gained attention by giving those people a voice, addressing those problems in an honest effort to make it an issue open for debate and not treating the subject as taboo because it might offend some people.That guy was sadly killed by a nutcase.After that all political party's try'd to get the same magic going for them in an effort to minimize the distance and disconnect to the voters. Everything was open for discussion.And to make there point stronger the conservatives pushed Ayaan into the spotlight. And because all of Holland never showed much interst in the Islam, her story and generalisation of the Islam was an easy sell.But like I said before, it was mostly polarizing and anti-islam retoric. A politician must also contribute to solutions and give both sides equal opportunity to talk. Now it seems she can find a soapbox in any coutry to speak out on behalf of the Islam. Especially on behalf of neo-conservatives.Some people call her extraordinary.I never saw that in her. Islam bashing and to portait a surten group of individuals as if they where second rate citizens in a time of political unrest and with no basis is rather ordinary and easy. But thats why she never got a platform from the other party she was assosiated with first. Because, let's be honest. Does she have anything other to contribute.It's ordinary self promotion. She made a niche market for herself.She got protection from the dutch government, because off some thread. I have no problem with that, but I think that thread in Holland is long gone.She is feeling really self-important here. We already paid for five years or something and then she go's to America.A new breeding ground for her gospel. Pay it on your own dime if you think you really need it!And to American journalists, please try to be a little more objective, dig a little deeper.She wasn,t all that impressive in Holland. It's rather ridiculous to see her everywhere. We do have a lot more intelligent people here who can actually bring people more together.