Must read: Reason magazine interviews Ayaan Hirsi Ali; Update: Huge lapses in Hirsi Ali’s security?

posted at 11:24 am on October 11, 2007 by Allahpundit

A must read under any circumstances but especially this morning, with the Dutch parliament set to join the cabinet in pulling the trap door on her and news on the wires of Islamic scholars appealing to the Vatican for dialogue — before it’s too late. (Says one Catholic bishop of their letter, “One partner cannot dictate the terms on which dialogue must be conducted. This document seems to be on the verge of doing that.”) I’m not going to quote the best part as an incentive for you to read it all but here are two in a string of memorable passages. If you’ve never read or heard Hirsi Ali before, this piece is obligatory as an example of her almost singular effect:

Hirsi Ali: …We have to get serious about this. The Egyptian dictatorship would not allow many radical imams to preach in Cairo, but they’re free to preach in giant mosques in London. Why do we allow it?

Reason: You’re in favor of civil liberties, but applied selectively?

Hirsi Ali: No. Asking whether radical preachers ought to be allowed to operate is not hostile to the idea of civil liberties; it’s an attempt to save civil liberties. A nation like this one is based on civil liberties, and we shouldn’t allow any serious threat to them. So Muslim schools in the West, some of which are institutions of fascism that teach innocent kids that Jews are pigs and monkeys—I would say in order to preserve civil liberties, don’t allow such schools.

And:

Hirsi Ali: …Look, in a democracy, it’s like this: I suggest, “Let’s close Muslim schools.” You say, “No, we can’t do it.” The problem that I’m pointing out to you gets bigger and bigger. Then you say, “OK, let’s somehow discourage them,” and still the problem keeps on growing, and in another few years it gets so bad that I belatedly get what I wanted in the first place.

I respect that it needs to happen this way, but there’s a price for the fact that you and I didn’t share these insights earlier, and the longer we wait, the higher the price. In itself the whole process is not a bad thing. People and communities and societies learn through experience. The drawback is, in this case, that “let’s learn from experience” means other people’s lives will be taken.

As I say, neither one of those is the takeaway passage. That comes at the end, but there’s plenty more about assimilation of Muslims in Europe and America, her surprise at being received warmly at AEI, and, yes, the glories of atheism. As for her momentarily fluid security situation, follow the link to the Expatica article above and see what Christopher Hitchens has up his sleeve. I wonder if the donors he’s lined up will be willing to identify themselves. Probably not.

Update: The perfect postscript.

Update: The showdown over Islamic expansion in Europe may come in, of all places, Switzerland.

If Ulrich Schlüer has his way the Wangen minaret will be toppled. An MP from the rightwing Swiss People’s party (SVP), the country’s strongest, Mr Schlüer has launched a crusade to keep his country culturally Christian.

“Unlike other religions,” he argues, “Islam is not only a religion. It’s an ideology aiming to create a different legal system. That’s sharia. That’s a big problem and in a proper democracy it has to be tackled. If the politicians don’t, the people will.”

Switzerland’s direct democracy rules require referendums if there is enough public support. Mr Schlüer has launched a petition demanding a new clause in the Swiss constitution stating: “The building of minarets in Switzerland is forbidden.” He already has 40,000 signatures. If, as expected, he reaches 100,000 by this time next year a referendum is automatically triggered.

Update: A reader at News Vigiles sends this screencap of a Swiss TV program asking whether minarets should be banned.

minarets.png

Update: You cannot be serious.

Hirsi Ali must have sensed that the mechanics of the debate were not working in her favor and her lawyer released a series of confidential documents right before the debate, much to the annoyance of the government. They make for good reading as they lend support to the fact that Dutch authorities were less than motivated to provide effective security to her. In fact from the moment she arrived in Washington DC last year a series of incident took place were Hirsi Ali felt unsafe, notably when her security detail chose to follow her in a separate taxi often leaving her with cabdrivers of Somali and Ethiopian descent one of whom Hirsi Ali claimed recognized her. Dutch authorities according to these documents were also no longer prepared to pick up the cost for securing her new apartment in Washington. Yet, the most astounding piece to come out of these documents is the fact that during one of these security-evaluation meetings Hirsi Ali was advised to seek psychiatric counseling. Hirsi Ali declined this offer – something which the government apparently was willing to fund – by replying that in case her mental condition would require ‘counseling’ she would just as well contact a good friend.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

It is indeed must-read. All of it. Another of the numerous quotable passages:

Reason: But do you feel at all uncomfortable with that heavy emphasis on religion in American public life?

Hirsi Ali: Yes. And the good thing is—and that’s what I’ve tried to tell all my European friends—I’m allowed to say so.

I think that it’s a great mistake for this country to reject a very good atheist. I mean, when you have two candidates, and one is an atheist and the other is a religious person and the atheist would make the better public official, it’s a great loss not to elect him. Anyway, atheists here can forward their agenda and fight back safely without risking violence.

I accept that there are multitudes seeking God, seeking meaning, and so on, but if they reject atheism, I would rather they became modern-day Catholics or Jews than that they became Muslims. Because my Catholic and Jewish colleagues are fine. The concept of God in Jewish orthodoxy is one where you’re having constant quarrels with God. Where I come from, in Islam, the only concept of God is you submit to Him and you obey His commands, no quarreling allowed. Quarreling or even asking questions means you raise yourself to the same level as Him, and in Islam that’s the worst sin you can commit. Jews should be proselytizing about a God that you can quarrel with. 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. Those are lovely concepts of God. They can’t compare to the fire-breathing Allah who inspires jihadism and totalitarianism.

Michelle on October 11, 2007 at 11:32 AM

Jihad Watch has an interview with Ali where she makes a disturbing reference about Catholicism:

Question: Do you see any positive sides to Islam?

That’s like asking if I see positive sides to Nazism, communism, Catholicism. Of course Islam preaches generosity and kindness and taking care of the poor and elderly and so on – but these values aren’t limited to Islam. If you weigh what is provided in terms of kindness and humanity against the evil that can come from a society built on radical Islam, you will see that liberals must stand up to this like they’ve stood up to other ideologies.

I’m not trying to take her down. But what did she mean?

JiangxiDad on October 11, 2007 at 11:36 AM

The interviewer was really tough on her, but she knocked most of them out of the park.

I got the sense libertarians are really hung up because she seems to be wanting to oppress one particular religion, and that is against the libertarian sense of leaving people alone to believe whatever goofy thing they want to.

And while I do agree with that, they have to realize we live in the real world, and live-and-let-live is not in the Muslim lexicon

albo on October 11, 2007 at 11:36 AM

Reason: You’re in favor of civil liberties, but applied selectively?

Hirsi Ali: No. Asking whether radical preachers ought to be allowed to operate is not hostile to the idea of civil liberties; it’s an attempt to save civil liberties. A nation like this one is based on civil liberties, and we shouldn’t allow any serious threat to them. So Muslim schools in the West, some of which are institutions of fascism that teach innocent kids that Jews are pigs and monkeys—I would say in order to preserve civil liberties, don’t allow such schools.

Indeed. There’s no point in extending the niceties of a civil society to forces that oppose the very concept of a civil society.

Mike Honcho on October 11, 2007 at 11:37 AM

An extraordinarily intelligent, perceptive and thoughtful woman, who has rejected the vile “religion” that butchered her in her youth, and has been the eloquent voice of reason in a cauldron of increasingly incindiary bile.

No wonder the Europeans reject her.

Goodbye Europe. It was fun while it lasted.

thejackal on October 11, 2007 at 11:39 AM

Wish ‘W’ could read. Maybe someone could translate to Spanish and send a copy to the White House?

Griz on October 11, 2007 at 11:48 AM

Hey Allah, why no post on the Armenian genocide resolution? It’s the single most brilliant way for the dems to throw a huge stick in the wheels of the Iraq war without taking any flak for it.

Darth Executor on October 11, 2007 at 11:52 AM

We are NOT at war with Islam. ISLAM IS AT WAR WITH US.

One of these days we will start fighting back and THEN we will be at war with Islam. Until we start fighting back, we can’t be at war. But yes, Islam is at war with the West.

ThackerAgency on October 11, 2007 at 11:58 AM

JiangxiDad on October 11, 2007 at 11:36 AM

My guess is that like Hitchens, she sees all religion as part of the same poisonous tree. Remember, according to athesits, religion is the cause of most, if not all, of the world’s problems. Frankly, I feel the same way about her as I feel about Hitchens: Sure, we happen to agree on who the enemy is at this point in time, and you might be on my side, but I don’t like it. I think the vehement secularism that her and Hitchens advocate is nearly as dangerous to the West in the long run as militant jihadism. Just my opinion. Of course Ayaan Hirsi Ali shouldn’t be allowed to be killed by the jihadi fools, but I won’t deify her like a lot on the right.

WillBarrett on October 11, 2007 at 12:04 PM

For one thing, America doesn’t really have a welfare system. Mohammed Bouyeri had all day long to plot the murder of Theo van Gogh. American Muslims have to get a job. What pushes people who come to America to assimilate is that it’s expected of them. And people are not mollycoddled by the government.

There’s a lot of white guilt in America, but it’s directed toward black Americans and native Indians, not toward Muslims and other immigrants. People come from China, Vietnam, and all kinds of Muslim countries. To the average American, they’re all fellow immigrants.

The white guilt in Germany and Holland and the U.K. is very different. It has to do with colonialism. It has to do with Dutch emigrants having spread apartheid in South Africa. It has to do with the Holocaust. So the mind-set toward immigrants in Europe is far more complex than here. Europeans are more reticent about saying no to immigrants.

And by and large, Muslim immigrants in Europe do not come with the intention to assimilate. They come with the intention to work, earn some money, and go back. That’s how the first wave of immigrants in the Netherlands was perceived: They would just come to work and then they’d go away. The newer generations that have followed are coming not so much to work and more to reap the benefits of the welfare state. Again, assimilation is not really on their minds.

Yet another reason to hold back the tide of liberals pushing to extend “rights” to illegal aliens.

Excellent interview – this is one very smart, insightful, and eloquent woman.

peski on October 11, 2007 at 12:10 PM

I’m not trying to take her down. But what did she mean?

JiangxiDad on October 11, 2007 at 11:36 AM

I don’t want to start a big fight, and I would never compare the Roman Catholic Church to Nazis or Islamofascists, but…

There are a significant number (1%? 10%? more) of priests who are pedophiles and child rapists. Representative of society in general? Perhaps, but the damning truth is that the church itself, at the highest levels, not only ignores but protects and hides this behavior. I will consider the Catholic Church a criminal organization as long as scum-bags like Cardinal Roger Mahoney remain in power. And the fact that Rome and the Pope do nothing and “poo poo” the issue incriminates them as well.

peski on October 11, 2007 at 12:18 PM

Remember, according to athesits, religion is the cause of most, if not all, of the world’s problems

That’s not true. Poor attempt at strawman argument.

I think the vehement secularism that her and Hitchens advocate is nearly as dangerous to the West in the long run as militant jihadism.

How so? Secularists aren’t killing people or committing acts of terrorism in the name of God.

albo on October 11, 2007 at 12:30 PM

My guess is that like Hitchens, she sees all religion as part of the same poisonous tree.
WillBarrett on October 11, 2007 at 12:04 PM

I think most atheists are like me – religion is not necessarily dangerous, just illogical. Unfortunately, most atheists are UNlike me, in that they are soft-headed liberals who equate the offenses of overbearing Christians (pushing “intelligent design” as a not very well hidden way to teach creationism in schools) with the REAL offenses of Sharia and Stalinism.

peski on October 11, 2007 at 12:31 PM

Reason: Should we acknowledge that organized religion has sometimes sparked precisely the kinds of emancipation movements that could lift Islam into modern times? Slavery in the United States ended in part because of opposition by prominent church members and the communities they galvanized. The Polish Catholic Church helped defeat the Jaruzelski puppet regime. 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. 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.

===========================================================

Ayaan Hirsi Ali understands that the death cult of Islam must be crushed or we will live with the consequence of being crushed. This is what the American people must wake up to. Islam is the enemy, it must be crushed in all forms, it must be denounced for the evil that it is. Attempts at appeasement will have the same result as Neville Chamberlain’s naive attempt to appease Hitler.

Islam must be recognized for the evil, akin to Nazism that it is, or we must prepare to be crushed. Those are the only alternatives. Americans must reject the lie that Islam is a “religion” and we must not allow this death cult to receive the Constitutional protections that were intended for religion.

Maxx on October 11, 2007 at 12:39 PM

Americans must reject the lie that Islam is a “religion” and we must not allow this death cult to receive the Constitutional protections that were intended for religion.

Well said.

peski on October 11, 2007 at 12:42 PM

Miss Ali never fails to blow me away with her clarity. Sometimes it takes someone outside looking in to see the forest for the trees. Those of us who grew up in the complacent, tolerant, west just can’t see the madness for what it is.

Keli on October 11, 2007 at 12:49 PM

Those of us who grew up in the complacent, tolerant, west just can’t see the madness for what it is.

Exactly. The west went through the enlightenment, the age of reason; the islamic world never did. We can’t see through their eyes, through the honor/shame culture, the idea of fate, “as allah wills it.”

Our basic attitudes and cultural ideas are so removed from their world view–we easily forget this and naively think they will react to a situation as a rational westerner would. That’s folly–and dangerous.

albo on October 11, 2007 at 1:01 PM

Wow, that was fantastic! So many great qoutes, I think best one was about how talking to Iran is a waste of time. I wish Dubya would make her an advisor.

Tony737 on October 11, 2007 at 1:15 PM

The Western mind-set—that if we respect them, they’re going to respect us, that if we indulge and appease and condone and so on, the problem will go away—is delusional. The problem is not going to go away. Confront it, or it’s only going to get bigger.

This is all the more reason why we cannot even give one inch regarding our aspiring presidential candidates (think 6’4″ Saviour Freddie) hiring staff that pander to the Islamic extremists.

I was speaking with a Hurricane Katrina survivor/author/musician/ last night and he said the biggest lesson that this disaster has taught him is the fact that our country is so great because of it’s wonderful people. Something so great that he would’ve missed had it not been for the fact that now the survivors are scattered across 40 states (and many more cities) and the common theme from all of them, is they didn’t realize this country had so many wonderful people.

This author is traveling all over the country helping these survivors organize, so as to keep their cultural traditions, as it applies to the black Indians of New Orleans, from completely disappearing.

I have never been more proud to me an American, upon hearing this report of our humanity shown to New Orleans refugees in time of need.

This wonderful spirit of our American humanity also has the downside of underestimating the desire of Islamic extremist’s desire for overruling our freedoms as Hirsi Ali so clearly explains.

The idea, that we should be cowering and slinking with fear when we are accused of being bigots because we want to track, monitor, restrain Islam as it pertains to radicals, is patently absurd.
And, I have no use, whatsoever, of HotAir commentators, et al who try to defend aspiring/politicians et al, that are/have been connected in any way, to individuals who pander to Muslim/Islam, as it pertains to preventing this freedom-squashing caliphate from advancing.

And yes, that applies to you, yes YOU! IF YOU DON’T LIKE WHAT I JUST SAID! Other than showing the stupidity of your such idiotic comments, and as such you are a useful idget (idget = idiot + widget), I would have you banned from this site.

Mcguyver on October 11, 2007 at 1:15 PM

I note she specifically identifies herself as a classical liberal. More proof that she’s sharper than any jihadi durka’s blade.

Why, why, WHY don’t we have anyone running for president with this kind of brevity? Maybe it requires a close friend being brutally murdered by someone driven to madness with religious indoctrination. Maybe it requires another 9/11-level attack. Whatever it is, I hope it happens soon. We’re supposedly a sleeping dragon waiting to be awakened and strike, as Ali mentions, when the problem gets too big.

However, if we sleep too long, there won’t be any more chance to wake up.

MadisonConservative on October 11, 2007 at 1:16 PM

“I wonder if the donors he’s lined up will be willing to identify themselves. Probably not.”

I will! I’ll donate $500(NZ) In fact I’ll flaunt it at every opportunity; on every political forum across the political divide; on every Jihad loving Muslim or Left-wing website I can find! I’ll do this using my real name rather than cower behind a pseudonym. There’s no way I’m going kow tow to a a group of totalitarian rat b*st*rds in any way shape or form.

Anthony Neville

FierceGuppy on October 11, 2007 at 1:57 PM

I do agree. A must-read. But it’s only going to scare the he11 out of you.

Griz on October 11, 2007 at 2:01 PM

There’s a lot of white guilt in America, but it’s directed toward black Americans and native Indians, not toward Muslims and other immigrants. People come from China, Vietnam, and all kinds of Muslim countries. To the average American, they’re all fellow immigrants.

The white guilt in Germany and Holland and the U.K. is very different. It has to do with colonialism. It has to do with Dutch emigrants having spread apartheid in South Africa. It has to do with the Holocaust. So the mind-set toward immigrants in Europe is far more complex than here. Europeans are more reticent about saying no to immigrants.

And by and large, Muslim immigrants in Europe do not come with the intention to assimilate. They come with the intention to work, earn some money, and go back. That’s how the first wave of immigrants in the Netherlands was perceived: They would just come to work and then they’d go away. The newer generations that have followed are coming not so much to work and more to reap the benefits of the welfare state. Again, assimilation is not really on their minds.

That’s a pristine observation.

Spirit of 1776 on October 11, 2007 at 2:12 PM

Regarding religion, a pertinent quote from the Reason interview:

[Hirsi Ali:] I accept that there are multitudes seeking God, seeking meaning, and so on, but if they reject atheism, I would rather they became modern-day Catholics or Jews than that they became Muslims. Because my Catholic and Jewish colleagues are fine. The concept of God in Jewish orthodoxy is one where you’re having constant quarrels with God. Where I come from, in Islam, the only concept of God is you submit to Him and you obey His commands, no quarreling allowed. Quarreling or even asking questions means you raise yourself to the same level as Him, and in Islam that’s the worst sin you can commit. Jews should be proselytizing about a God that you can quarrel with. 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. Those are lovely concepts of God. They can’t compare to the fire-breathing Allah who inspires jihadism and totalitarianism.

I greatly admire this woman.

OT: Is anyone else having trouble accessing the site in Firefox?

baldilocks on October 11, 2007 at 2:22 PM

I can’t write down how much I admire and respect this lady, and how happy I am that she exists at this time, and here, with us.

And people are not mollycoddled by the government.

The sentence and the word mollycoddled, should make it into our everyday language and vocabulary.

The trouble is the West.

The problem is not going to go away. Confront it, or it’s going to get bigger.

Very insightful and the most powerful. All else flows from there.

Entelechy on October 11, 2007 at 3:05 PM

OT: Is anyone else having trouble accessing the site in Firefox?

baldilocks on October 11, 2007 at 2:22 PM

Nope.

Mcguyver on October 11, 2007 at 3:06 PM

I think that it’s a great mistake for this country to reject a very good atheist.

What is a good atheist? Were Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Lenin good atheists? Or were they bad ones?

You know… I’m just askin’…

ulyses on October 11, 2007 at 3:12 PM

Does Ramzi Yousef now face the same threat/s as our great lady?

Entelechy on October 11, 2007 at 3:13 PM

Update: These brilliant, 3rd cousin to Einstein, Dutchies are driving me crazy….

Yet, the most astounding piece to come out of these documents is the fact that during one of these security-evaluation meetings Hirsi Ali was advised to seek psychiatric counseling. Hirsi Ali declined this offer – something which the government apparently was willing to fund – by replying that in case her mental condition would require ‘counseling’ she would just as well contact a good friend.

.STUPID!

Mcguyver on October 11, 2007 at 3:15 PM

JiangxiDad on October 11, 2007 at 11:36 AM

I interpret that as her discussing political & religious ideologies, and their original squashing of liberties.

Now I don’t think she meant all of these “isms” were identical or of the same violent nature, based on other comments I’ve seen by her on her religious friends.

I wonder if the donors he’s lined up will be willing to identify themselves. Probably not.

I would, AP…I’d run the dang site to keep her in the money, remember????

In fact from the moment she arrived in Washington DC last year a series of incident took place were Hirsi Ali felt unsafe, notably when her security detail chose to follow her in a separate taxi often leaving her with cabdrivers of Somali and Ethiopian descent one of whom Hirsi Ali claimed recognized her.

I can tell you quite confidently that DC has seen a monumental shift in the ethnic makeup of their cabbies in the past decade: What used to be 90% Nigerian (DC) appears to be 70% Somali/Ethiopian (rough guess).

Don’t like the switch in religious demographics? Drive or take a cab in Fairfax…they’re still Ghanian, from what I’ve heard.

Miss_Anthrope on October 11, 2007 at 3:31 PM

She refuses to differentiate between Muslim terrorists and peaceful Muslims.

[...] there’s really only one Islam, defined as submission to the will of God.

(1) God tells you to live a virtuous life
(2) God tells you to (contrary to his revelation in the Qur’an) kill innocents and commit suicide in the process

Both types are our enemy? I call bull****. When God is “telling you” to do things that are explicitly contrary to his wishes as specified in the Qur’an, you are living a perverted and false version of Islam.

[...] the likelihood of Muslims turning radical [in America] seems lower than in Europe.

For one thing, America doesn’t really have a welfare system. Mohammed Bouyeri had all day long to plot the murder of Theo van Gogh. American Muslims have to get a job. What pushes people who come to America to assimilate is that it’s expected of them. And people are not mollycoddled by the government.

So if Muslims can live in America and assimilate because of our lack of a comprehensive welfare system, why isn’t she calling for an abolishment of welfare systems in Europe to help curb radicalism? If free speech can coexist with Islam, why is she advocating such drastic approaches such as outlawing religious schools?

Mark Jaquith on October 11, 2007 at 4:45 PM

albo on October 11, 2007 at 12:30 PM

Sorry, it’s not a strawman argument at all. I’ve know quite a few atheists (my good friend is one), and that argument has been presented to me by them in some form or another on many occasions.

To put it in a terribly simple way, secularism has led to a moral relativism in the West (due in part to the Enlightenment to which some of you people worship at the altar–see Alasdair MacIntyre, Charles Taylor, et al for more on this). I think this moral weakness has also left us weak against the jihadis, and I worry about the future.

And I know you atheists will bitch and moan, but the simple fact of the matter is Stalin and Mao and Marx were all vehemently anti-religious (SEE: secular–it’s a little more complicated with Hitler). They didn’t just come out nowhere, they were shaped by atheist, secular, and humanist ideaologies of the nineteenth century.

WillBarrett on October 11, 2007 at 6:46 PM

I see nothing controversial or contradictory about having tolerance for everyone, except for those who dont accept the idea of freedom and tolerance. Arguments that this “exception” can not be made, I find absurd. If you support tolerance and freedom then the exact one thing you must not tolerate is anyone who doesn’t. Liberalism in the US specifically doesn’t understand this which sometimes leads for example to things like the ACLU taking a position which seems 180 degrees wrong.

And I know you atheists will bitch and moan, but the simple fact of the matter is Stalin and Mao and Marx were all vehemently anti-religious (SEE: secular–it’s a little more complicated with Hitler). They didn’t just come out nowhere, they were shaped by atheist, secular, and humanist ideaologies of the nineteenth century.

WillBarrett on October 11, 2007 at 6:46 PM

Most dictators are atheistic for the pragmatic reason that they are against any political or cultural movement which they are not in control of. Before most humans had any grasp of science or philosophy monarchs simply claimed “divine right” of rule. When people were even less sohpisticated rulers got away with claiming they were god themselves (ie Egyptian Pharoh). Since either of those 2 would cause any modern humans to laugh in the dictator’s face, claiming to be atheist is the only way to disavow all modern religions that would interfere with thier political agenda.

Coorelation does not equal causation. You are mistaken if you think secular beliefs logically lead to Marxism, socialism ect. They are a pragmatic alliance because there is little else to say about God when you have a philosophy that seeks domination on earth but you have no credible religous claim to go along with it.

effect not cause

Resolute on October 11, 2007 at 9:14 PM

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.

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.

I’m sorry. I sympathize with Ms. Ali’s horrible experiences with Islamism as a child, but starting an all-out war with the Muslim World is just insane.

There’s plenty of brave Muslim women in the world who protest their conditions under Islamic patriarchy without advocating a start to WWIV, why don’t we hear from them?

AJB on October 12, 2007 at 5:25 PM