Ayaan Hirsi Ali...stirs debate on religious freedom

Post Reply New Topic

Excerpts from a column by Robin Acton of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Link Here

Ah yes, Hirsi Ali... The Provocateur. I never liked her.

You have the right to say whatever the Hell you want about anybodies religion in public (or lack thereof)

Looking back on the history of some of the individual positions that she took in Holland (backing bans on anti-gay rights parties, for example) I admit that I probably would disagree with many of her individual positions. However, I must admit she is an very brave individual. She is a "provocateur" in that there are extremists that want so want her dead that now even in the United States she must live under extremely tight security.

It's worth noting that the largely left-of-center Ali was denied entrance to the left-of-center Brookings Institute for her "provocative" activities and perhaps partially of the funding Brookings gets from Arab fund raisers that would object to her presence. Despite some doubtless disagreements on certain ideological grounds, she found a home at the right-of-center American Enterprise Institute.

Brave or fool? I think she's a fool. She says a lot of things, her books are selling, but she reached nothing but spreading hate.

On the point of being against anti-gay parties I'd totally agree with her (but that's another discussion), but I don't like her for making movies against muslims, clearly just to provoke the muslims. As muslim I'd also be angry with her, it's clearly just an attention-seeker. She never actually tried to reach anything to protect the muslima's. She was a member of the Tweede Kamer, she should at least have taken word there on the muslims but no, she didn't. All she did was making the movies, writing the books, giving the interviews, all the way stating how bad the Islam is, but never ever giving solutions. That's the true spirit of a provocateur.

On the latter: also here in holland she had to join the Very Right-Winged VVD because left-winged parties didn't cope with here statements. Why right-winged take her? She sells! Provocation is a perfect thing to win votes/money. Also, right-winged are (overall) against muslims, and so is she, so that works.

You say that if you were a Muslim you would be angry at her too. Personally, if I was a Muslim I would be furious to learn of the facts that she brought up, namely the horrible treatment of women in Islamic world, both in Islamic countries and inside Europe itself, as well as the extreme violent interpretations of the Koran that are spread to disturbingly large portions of the Muslim population. Would such comments about such extremism in Christianity be deemed so unacceptable?

I wasn't aware that it was the job of a member of a political party to simply accept word for word party doctrine. It certainly isn't in the United States. Ironically, in the United States, the Republican party (demonized in Western Europe), at least on a national level, votes less as a bloc then the Democrats. I would guess the reason she joined the right-wing party is the same reason that people change parties in countries all the time, namely, that it was in their interest to do so.

ADDENDUM: Morever, you refer to her participation in "making movies." One of those movies was (non-conservative, except on immigration and issues relating to assimilation) Theo Van Gogh's Submission. Theo Van Gogh was brutally murdered for religious reasons, and of course Ms. Ali (as well as others) were forced into police protection. I assume you think these things were bad. I mean, one can hardly help the women of Islam when one is forced to hide inside a police station.

the islamic faith is worse than christianity in terms of their laws and indoctrinated bigotry and intolerance. the people who commit these horrible acts might be on the fringes but you don't get people killing you for talking out against christianity. marilyn manson hasn't had band members killed by christian fundamentalists who are offended.


the right to kill is not granted to anyone of any religious standing.


she has every right to say what she wants. the islamic faith has every right to try and prove her wrong by not falling into the accusations she puts against them (killing people certainly does not help nor does full scale rioting over a cartoon).

......is the islamic faith really that worthless that they turn to violence so relatively easily? is it the culture of the various societies where these incidents occur?

The great overriding question; is Islam inherently violent, by which is the internal components of the religion so virulent to render internal reform impossible? If this is the case then the entire world could very well face a crisis of unbelievable proportions.

I, however, do not believe at this time that Islam is inherently so wicked that extremists claiming to it are doomed to smite at innocents forever. This is not to say that we can stand around for another 500 years, according to the argument that Islam is a younger religion and that is the reason it is more violent (which is nonsense anyway). This is since we are in an age of such powerful weapons (and let us hope that are weapons do not continue to get yet more powerful and in smaller packages) that wait for a religion(s) to evolve would be to risk momentous catastrophes. Of course, under this theory, of own religion would have evolved (or according to some disappeared), so that...but anyway...

As a disclaimer I would like to add there are legitimate Muslim moderates. There beliefs tend to be run across the board. There was a meeting of more secular Muslims in Orlando not to long ago which got almost no attention from the press. Ms. Ali was there, which admittedly seems somewhat strange she's a atheist not a Muslim (although there are atheists Jews). Still, I have heard others who actually believe in the Muslim faith and also believe in pluralism, so I cannot completely condemn Islam, anymore then I can completely any other group of people of faith (or non-faith). It's worth noting, of course, that there was a time when Christians leaders were far less enlightened then they were today in regards to religious pluralism. I hope someday we can make the same statement some time in the future about Islam.

i'm not denying muslim moderates. i lived next door to muslim moderates in new orleans. they were great guys and really cool and open.


actually....can't even make a fair assessment because they feel their religion is under attack by our invasions of iraq and afghanistan and our deals with the sauds.

but at the same time....iran had the freedom to choose whatever government they wanted....and they chose the current oppressive theocratic government they now have. is that reflective of the psyche of the muslim faith and society? that they need to be controlled by a religiously appointed dictator who has the final say on everything?

Minor thing. It's difficult to figure out what the heck is actually going on in Iran but I thought I should mention this. The Iranian opposition boycotted the elections the Ahmadinejad won because there own parties (preferred) parties had been denied refusal to run. This meant that much of the opposition simply didn't vote for the still extreme, but more moderate option (the party of that candidate has been critical Ahmadinejad of leadership, and much more mildly for obvious reasons, of his nuclear ambitions). I am not saying for certain who would have won for sure since the elections may very well be rigged. Ahmadinejad did seem pretty popular for a time (although again, it hard to tell for certain), but his popularity has dropped recently due to economic problems imposed by sanctions.

For the record, what the moderates did was probably pretty stupid. This isn't the first time this is happened either. Before the rise of the Nazis, there were those who refused to vote for the Social Democrats or more moderate parties in opposing the Nazis in Weimar Germany in the argument Wiemar Republic was a tyrannical state. This is the sort of protest that, while they may feel like they are achieving a positive purpose, in fact in the long term is likely to prove damaging to one's own cause.

what i find interesting is how little anyone hears anymore of the student protests that were taking place in iran a few years ago....what happened to those students and the protest?


actually...that may be the same as the boycott of the elections...

not voting is ALWAYS a bad form of protest.

I will never say Islam is a good religion, I won't say that on any religion (except maybe on Buddism) but why attack them while stating no solutions? That's really bad.
On the christianity thing: for some people, certainly. Overall, no. However, religion is all most muslims in arabic countries have. They have no money, not much food, nothing, except their religion. How would you feel if even that is attacked by some rich individuals in the very rich western world?
Most christians are rich, so they won't really care. They have more than only their religion. They've got good education (anyway way more than muslims) and learned that violence is not the way a debate should be won. I am convinced the muslim-fundamentalism is as much a wrong of the Koran as a wrong of the western world.

Here in Holland it is not forbidden to talk different from your own party. It's accepted. What she did however, is ONLY attacking muslims. I never ever read/heard her speak on any other issue than Islam (except for her own appearing to have liedwhen she entered the country and was therefore actually an illegal person), so I don't think it's strange she had to join right-winged. For she was ONLY defending right-winged statements. And that's not smart in a left-winged party.

Of course it's not good Van Gogh was killed for his statements on Islam, nor that Ali had to live under Police protection. 'She couldn't have helped muslim women'? Rubbish. She should have stated how according to her muslim-women could be protected. She didn't. Why couldn't she do that, while still actually being able to attack Islam? Because she's nothing but a provocateur.

First off, I disagree that she has offered "no solutions." She attended and endorsed a meeting of secular Muslims (some of whom were religious and not atheists like herself) who signed the "St. Petersburg Declaration"





I don't really agree. If you take the countries of the Muslim, and compare them to the country's of Sub-Saharan Africa you will find the median income is far higher in the Muslim world.



Christianity is stronger is Latin America and Africa then in Europe and North America, neither of which are as rich and educated as Europe and North America.



Yes, I understand Holland is suppose to be "tolerant", although if it was attacking American christians...I watched a little of "Submission" and admit that it isn't exactly my cup of tea, but honestly why is bringing issues like this up not allowed or controversy not allowed? Was she expelled from the party (in the US, we don't do that).



Considering her circumstances I think it's understandable that she would lie to get into a more "enlightened" society.



False. She positions on feminist and gay rights issues were as previously noted. She did became very much concerned about repression inside Islam, but it would not be the first time a politician became concerned with one particular issue.



I would assume it would be rather obvious. One would protect them by simply enforcing basic civil liberties laws such as right to free speech, ect... for them and making sure that Muslim women in the country are not abused, being forced into marriage, ect... In other words, do not allow a desire for "tolerance" of another group to overcome concerns for individual rights.

I suppose according to your argument BTW, pointing out injustices in the prison system in the United States is not enough because it condemns the guards and the administrators. I must offer solutions as well, otherwise I am some kind of bad person. I suppose the same is true for a person pointing out oppression in Burma, China, or Zimbabwe.

Oh yeah, that's quite a solution isn't it. Get some muslims to subscribe that letter and voila, the problem has ended!
You know it doesn't work like that.

everyone's richer than Africans-South of the Saharah. Don't compare anything to them. Not that we should ignore them, certainly not, but it isn't true the whole world is rich because if compared to them.

And then, yet again a comparisson with another extreme, the western world.
It is true south-america isn't that rich, but they have other things than religion, and that was the actual point. In africa news from the outsie barely reaches them. In arabic countries it seems almost forbidden to have fun and so. They only have their religion to rely on.

The government here would never laugh at american christianity; they're christians themselves! We are even so tolerant (well, the christians aren't, they tried to illegalize it) that we have something called persiflage. We laugh at that. However, american christians quite often appear to be like the persiflage. And that's quite a laugh indeed.

Her 'bad circumstances' like kicked (or something, I don't remember) from her family?...that were lies too. It was all a lie, not just her name.

I do agree with her on the gay and feminist issue, but certainly not on the Muslim-issue...at least not as she does it.
You know, the one time she gave an interview after moving to america, it was on muslims again. She seems to be obsessed with it, I think because of the attention she receives.
Believe me, she's more one-issue than any other politician I know (far more than Bush on Iraq)

Let your intolerance not stop oneothers tolerance...that are solutions every arse can come up with. HOW are you gonna do that? Everyone knows there are problems, with the governments, with the people there, but no true solutions were giving, only some very short-sighted. 'Forbid half of the islam' things like that are said by right-winged people. It's insane, it would never even end a small part of muslimfundamentalism.

And your last argument: what's that about? You may say that and you're one speaking the truth. Ali however kept saying all the time: 'Islam is bad', knowing muslims would get angry. That's provoking. You may say islam is bad, but don't push it.

Sorry, I kinda jumped around here in my response.

If this is true, I would like some evidence to back it up. I don't speak Dutch but I can always run it through a translator to get the gist of any articles not in English.

Assuming you are correct that she was lying about her background in Somalia (if she was, I would like to know), that does not mean her statements about the oppression of both women and people generally that she has discussed is incorrect as it is backed by other sources.



Forgive me, what did the Christians try to make it illegal. There is a English reference for "persiflage" as "a light, quizzing mockery, or scoffing, specially on serious subjects, out of a cool, callous contempt for them." Is the Dutch example somewhat related or entirely dissimilar?



I know lots of people that are "one-issue." People focus on abortion, gay-rights, the animal-rights, ect... During the cold war there were groups dedicated to human rights behind the iron curtain. During the World War II and before, Jewish groups in the United States campaigned on behalf of oppressed Jews in Germany and Eastern Europe.



Character attacks. Pointing out oppression is not intolerance. Did you know that North Korea has horribly inhumane labor camps and it's leadership has starved it's own population? I have no solution to this evil, but pointing it out is not intolerance. China is ethnically cleansing Tibet yet I have no clue how to solve the issue.

Intolerence would be simply saying all Muslims are bad by default and proposing as some conservatives, as well as independents, and even (more blue collar, from my own experience) democrats I really don't like without access to the media, and aren't thinking the issue through that we should just "nuke" the Mecca or some absurd nonsense like that.



Pug, let me ask you this? You say that "forbid(ing) half of Islam" is what is being suggested by "right-wing people." I am suggesting something different entirely, that what we need is a moderate interpretation of the Koran that does not allow for executions of converts, violence in the name of religion, compete unification of church and state, ect...I would suggest that it is misguided to think that is a smart policy for Europeans to treat Muslims "special" on the grounds their religion is so extreme as it cannot adapt to pluralism. I also think it is rather inconsistent for a country in which it is normal to argue for the banning of parties on the grounds that they oppose same-sex marriage on the ground it is intolerant.



Don't push it.. In the United States a crucifix was submerged in urine at the Brooklyn Museum. Religious Christians, as well as some secularists, were outraged, however there was no riots, and no one died unlike the insanity of the cartoon riots. This is hardly the only the only example of such an offense in the United States, which I would hardly argue for restricting. Books are regularing argued that various Christian groups are too deeply involved in politics and sometimes their religious beliefs themselves are extremely dangerous. Yet, a this example of criticism is unacceptable? Why?