BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

  
 
All Acting Regiment
15:41 / 17.10.07
So, I know next to nothing about Ayaan Hirsi Ali, although I had heard the name. My introduction to her comes courtesy of a report on Asad AbuKhalil's blog, the Angry Arab News Service, where we find the following:

The "Scholarship" of Hirsi Ali.

"So I had already decided I didn’t want to run for elections, and wanted instead to go back to being a scholar. Cynthia Schneider, who was then the U.S. ambassador to the Netherlands, said she’d be delighted to take me around in the United States and introduce me—to the Brookings Institution, the Johns Hopkins Institute, Georgetown University, the RAND Corporation. I balked at paying a visit to the American Enterprise Institute, though.

Reason: Why the initial aversion?

Hirsi Ali: Because I thought they would be religious, and I had become an atheist. And I don’t consider myself a conservative. I consider myself a classical liberal. Anyway, the Brookings Institution did not react. Johns Hopkins said they didn’t have enough money. The RAND Corporation wants its people to spend their days and nights in libraries figuring out statistics, and I’m very bad at statistics. But at AEI they were enthusiastic. It turns out that I have complete freedom of thought, freedom of expression. No one here imposed their religion on me, and I don’t impose my atheism on them.

Reason: Do you see eye to eye with high-profile AEI hawks such as former Bush speechwriter David Frum and former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton?

Hirsi Ali: Most of the time I do. For instance, I completely and utterly agree with John Bolton that talking to Iran is a sheer waste of time."

And later:

"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."

At which Asad says:

Can you imagine the uproar if somebody, anybody, in the West spoke about "defeating" Judaism, for example?

Now, I'd like to use this space to talk about Hirsi Ali, and perhaps other people who insist on making that kind of statement, but I need to do some more reading. Therefore, I've opened this and anyone who wants to contribute should feel free to do so while I research.
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
11:17 / 20.10.07
Okay, the obvious political yuckiness aside, how does Ms. Ali propose to stop the spread of Islam? An impractical ban on effigy burning is mentioned, but beyond that? Miltary action perhaps, but where and what, and how to stop the radicalisation that happens alongside Western intervention? Stopping Islamic student groups and not similar groups for other faiths would mean making Islam an exception, further increasing radicalisation. Essentially, there's nothing that can be done that won't make the problem she percieves worse.
I'm getting a distinct hint of Ann Coulter here- as in 'invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity'. Much like Coulter Ali seems to be able to make grandiose declarations about the horrible threat that's apparently hanging over us all but provides nothing that can be done.
 
 
Dutch
12:48 / 20.10.07
Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been a very prominent figure in Dutch politics and Dutch political discourse for the last five to seven years.

Background:

Born in Somalia, she came to the Netherlands escaping a forced marriage-arrangement to a cousin in Canada, and was naturalized as Dutch citizen in 1997. At first, she joined the formerly socialist leaning Party of Labour (PvdA), until jumping ship and joining the more economically liberal VVD ("Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie" translates as People's Party for Freedom and Democracy). This shift of allegiance within the political spectrum was probably due to the shift in Hirsi Ali's personal philosophy and religious views, even though some have deemed it nothing more than opportunistic. She stood a greater chance of being elected with the VVD, due to being higher upon the electable officials list.

When she was still in the process of becoming a naturalized citizen, she still clung to the teachings of Islam to an extent, even though she had defied her family's wish of arranged marriage and was questioning scripture and doctrine. In the foreword to "Atheist Manifesto - the Unreasonableness of Religion" (free translation) by Herman Philipse, Hirsi Ali uses her own story to tell a tale of "liberation" from Islam and religious dogma. She tells of how many women around her were forcibly circumcized, degraded, oppressed and arranged to marry. In her view, the systematic degrading and abuse of women is a very established tenant of Islamic doctrine and law, .

Her own experiences escaping what she now sees as the oppressive teachings of Islam have shaped her current political viewpoints to a large degree. Her subsequent commitment to expose and combat (the excesses) of Islam have led to her to often sound very harsh, unforgiving and even xenophobic or racist.

What you can't accuse her of, in my humble opinion, is that she is in some way anti-feminist. One of the first ways in which she has gained a notoriety as a critic os Islam was through her collaboration with afore mentioned Theo van Gogh in creating the movie called "Submission", which tackled the oppression of women and women's rights within Islam. The movie, which shows a female body covered in Koran-scripture while speaking/praying to Allah on woman's physical abuse, was seen as a direct attack on gender inequality and systematic abuse within Islamic teaching.*

Before and since the movie, Ayaan Hirsi Ali has to my knowledge always argued for the liberation of women from the oppression that follows with certain islamic teachings.

She has received numerous death-threats because of this movie from fundamentalist muslims, including a letter that was attached to the knife that was stuck through the chest of afore mentioned Theo van Gogh (noted filmmaker, gadfly and harsh outspoken critic of islam).

In my view, her complete denouncement of Islam in general (although it depends on what interviews one reads, sometimes in the dutch press she is somewhat less damning) is a perhaps unhelpful form of criticism. It is unhelpful in some ways because it serves the purposes of polarization and trenchwarfare-oriented debate (people dug in on both sides throwing generalization-grenades at each other).

Once you denounce the entirity of a religious movement, you are sure to alienate many who would otherwise be inclined to reasonable debate. It is one thing to tackle the very serious excesses of fundamentalist belief, but another to provocate for the sake of provocation (knowing that it serves only the purpose of infuriating). While I don't think Ayaan Hirsi Ali does solely the latter, I wonder if the harsh tone she often uses doesn't do more than widen the gap between the religious and the secular, making debate less of an option.

I am however still an admirer of her continuing battle against the excesses that arise from strict fundamentalist teachings that cause the lives of millions of women, children and othergendered to be devastated.


* The next Submission was to tackle the inacceptance and damnation of Othersexuality through Islamist teaching and practice. (othersexuality here being used as an invented term of description, sorry if it sounds too heteronormative, no offense meant)
 
 
*
17:48 / 20.10.07
What you can't accuse her of, in my humble opinion, is that she is in some way anti-feminist. One of the first ways in which she has gained a notoriety as a critic os Islam was through her collaboration with afore mentioned Theo van Gogh in creating the movie called "Submission", which tackled the oppression of women and women's rights within Islam. The movie, which shows a female body covered in Koran-scripture while speaking/praying to Allah on woman's physical abuse, was seen as a direct attack on gender inequality and systematic abuse within Islamic teaching.*

Before and since the movie, Ayaan Hirsi Ali has to my knowledge always argued for the liberation of women from the oppression that follows with certain islamic teachings.

Actually, some Muslim feminists may consider this antifeminist; I'd have to look up the criticism. Essentially, it seems to be pushing a viewpoint that women of Muslim societies cannot be equal until they are Westernized. I think that to say that oppression inevitably follows from certain religious teachings is terribly risky. Every religion has some teaching or principle that, misused, results in someone's oppression. Even non-deist paradigms include some belief that, taken to an extreme or imposed on others without their consent or followed to a radical conclusion, become oppressive.
 
 
Dutch
03:11 / 21.10.07
[quote]

Actually, some Muslim feminists may consider this antifeminist; I'd have to look up the criticism.

[/quote]

Please do...

BTW: this is not meant as a challenge, I am genuinely interested.

I do not get the impression from Hirsi Ali that she is determined to "westernise" muslim women, merely that she intends to promote the idea of the fallibility (sp?) of (fundamentalist) religious teaching. Also, her (Dutch) mode of political conduct has been in my view intent on liberation from oppresive ideology and mistreatment because of ideology...

I hope I'm not coming across as a total dickhead for defending hirsi ali's ideas, as some of her speeches and proze has been pretty condemning of Islam in general. I just hope that she isn't put in the same category of horribleness as Ann Coulter by Barbelith because of some of the mistakes in translation made from Dutch (which is, I believe, her second/third language) to English.

It is perhaps of interest to note that the Dutch popular discourse surrounding (the perceived threat of) Islam is pursued in much harsher words than those spoken by Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
 
 
*
06:43 / 21.10.07
You probably have already read A hatred of Islam will not aid reform by Hanifa Deen. She says in part:

Unfortunately, Hirsi Ali's continual trashing of Islam alienates many Australian Muslim women activists who also see themselves as agents of change but who are not prepared to turn their backs on what gives meaning to their lives. They will not join in what they see as "Muslim bashing". The bitterness they hear in Hirsi Ali's voice overwhelms them and they observe how her unrelenting message — that Islam is brutal and uncompassionate — is avidly received. In the end, they circle their wagons in defence of Islam, their capacity to be self-critical lessens and they are diverted from the main game of questioning misogynistic traditions. The Muslim women I know don't want to be pitied — they want to be understood — yet unintentionally Hirsi Ali's denunciations have the effect of silencing them.

Dr. Asma Barlas asserts that the actions of Amina Wadud "go much deeper" than those of Hirsi Ali:

I think there was more an element of sensationalism in the film and I think Amina Wadud goes much deeper than that, since she fundamentally believes that it is her right as a believing Muslim to stand before a prayer congregation. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is saying that the Quran itself authorizes men to abuse their wives sexually. In my opinion, you cannot be an advocate for Muslim women when you think the Quran is oppressive. Amina Wadud, on the contrary, thinks that the Quran is libratory and she sees her action as an act of liberation.

This blog, in linking to Deen's op-ed piece, notes that the many voices of Muslim feminists are not being heard because Hirsi Ali's message is more attractive to people who hate and fear Islam. This article about the Danish cartoon controversy points out how in that particular case, the voices of Muslim people—although seemingly actively solicited—were actually ignored in favor of Hirsi Ali. Amal says from her perspective:

There are plenty of Muslim, Islamic, and atheist feminists out there who are against all of the things Ali is against: female genital mutilation, honor killing, forced marriages, unequal treatment, fundamentalist religion and terrorism. But they will never be hailed as "brave" the way Ali is because they don't bash Islam.

So it seems to me the effect she is having is not to widen the discussion to include Muslim women so much as concentrate the debate on her negative portrayal of Islam as a monolith. In effect she is silencing Muslim women, including Amina Wadud, Fatema Mernissi, Shirin Ebadi, and many others, whose more nuanced perspectives are less photogenic than Hirsi Ali's polarizing message. To silence a community of women is counter to the expressed aims of feminism.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
11:19 / 21.10.07
I do not get the impression from Hirsi Ali that she is determined to "westernise" muslim women, merely that she intends to promote the idea of the fallibility (sp?) of (fundamentalist) religious teaching.

The problem here is that she's specifically aligning herself with US conservative thought and US millitary action. This being the position she's speaking from, one wonders what other processes apart from 'westernization' she hopes to acheive.

As with Dawkins, I think what we're seeing here is a very great and urgent awareness of power and the inequalities of power, which perception is valuable, but flawed because in this case it only extends as far as Islam. In other words, her writing seems highly aware of the dangerous things that can come of Islam and its current power structure, whilst being entirely unaware of the dangerous things that could come of US intervention and the kind of power structure that would enforce.
 
 
Lurid Archive
18:38 / 23.10.07
...In effect she is silencing Muslim women...

I find this a little difficult, unless I'm misunderstanding something. Is Ayaan Hirsi Ali doing anything more than expressing an opinion? If not then, despite the fact that you or I may not find her broader views very appealing, it seems a stretch to say that she is silencing Muslim women. Certainly, declaring the acceptable limits of discourse of a self-identifying feminist seems familiar, but not in a good way.
 
 
*
03:40 / 24.10.07
It's not that she's expressing an opinion that is silencing. It's that she's expressing an opinion that is so attractive to the people in power (by virtue of it being a tool they can use to attack something they want to attack) that she takes up all the airwaves, in effect. Muslim feminists who do not attack Islam as inherently oppressive cannot be seen or heard in mainstream channels... except in relation to Ayaan Hirsi Ali/her position.

In fact, if you look hard enough, you will find plenty of Muslim women practicing feminism from a standpoint within Islam. But you will not hear their viewpoints except in channels that are favorable to progressive Islam. People who don't have insider experience of Islam often don't know about these. Neutral channels or channels unfavorable to Islam—those that people who don't know about Islam use to shape their opinions of the religion—tend to present Ayaan Hirsi Ali's opinion without balancing it with a practicing Muslim feminist's views. So these women are free to speak, but they cannot reach this subset of the people who need to hear them. It's silencing by talking loudly over someone.

Note that I'm not saying that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is doing this deliberately. I don't believe so. Having considered this argument, though, it seems to me that it is one of the effects she's having on the broader conversation about Islam in the world.
 
 
*
03:52 / 24.10.07
Also, I have not to this point said that her views are unacceptable or the way she expresses them. I believe my point is that the way she has become positioned as the voice of oppressed women in Islamic societies is harmful. I believe that responsibility lies with the people who provide a platform for her to equally provide a platform for Muslim feminists, and responsibility lies with those who are interested in what she's saying to seek and learn about alternative views coming from Muslim feminists. Hirsi Ali also has responsibility to be self-reflective about her own motivations and to engage in discourse with Muslim feminists, but the argument I have advanced is not about whether or not she has done that. We can presume that she has—it doesn't change the argument.
 
 
Dutch
23:04 / 11.11.07
I'm still reading up on the articles you offered zippid (hadn't read it before you mentioned it). I'm still trying to formulate my response on the issue of islamist feminists silenced because of the promotion of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's viewpoints. It may take a while, because I feel a little like a fish out of water surrounded by high voltage fences on this matter.

In the mean time, I'd like to post this link, where Ayaan Hirsi Ali, does come across as someone who does not seem very much intent on bashing the whole of Islam imho.

I am wondering though if her characterization of Islam as "submission to the will of Allah" is correct though.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
15:11 / 13.11.07
Even if it were, technically, by adopting Capitalism, the US acedes to the 'invisble hand of the market', which is no less religious a position.
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
16:47 / 13.11.07
I am wondering though if her characterization of Islam as "submission to the will of Allah" is correct though.

Yep it is, the word Islam literally means submission to God's will, the word Muslim means 'One who submits to God', hence the title of Hirsi Ali and Theo Van Gogh's film. To Western ears it admittedly sounds horrible: 'submitting' to something is something to be done grudingly- I 'submit' to the will of my boss even though s/he's exploiting me, and if I was a braver person I could tell him/her to take their job and shove it. The other possible meaning- 'Surrender' is something we associate with cowardice and defeat. Either way, the literal translations of the word 'Islam' connote that those who submit are somehow weak willed.
However...
When we look at what this submission actually entails, it's not that different to following any other religion- say prayers a certain way, dress a certain way, don't eat certain foods, don't do certain things etc. No different from 'submission' to Jehovah or Jesus or Jupiter, and little different, at the end of the day, to how a secular person behaves.

AAR: Whether an invisible hand exists by which an individual's self-interest tends to promote the good of his/her community isn't so much a matter of faith (as in religious faith) as one opinion in an ongoing argument with the other equally faith based (y'know, the one where the chosen people, the proletariat, overcome the heathen bourgeoise because of an invisible force that controls all of history and everyone is happy forever, and it'll happen any day now, honest, just have faith) which has the potential to be resolved. You can point out times and places where the invisible hand is absent, whereas the claims of religion are by their very nature non-falsifiable.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
16:59 / 13.11.07
Good points both, Phex, I hadn't thought of that. On the first one, yeah, the 'submission' meaning is little different to labelling yourself a 'X-ist', 'Z-ian' or a 'follower' of X-ism, which almost everyone does.
 
  
Add Your Reply