I have to say the woman just amazes me. I believe she is absolutely correct, that restricting the parameters of acceptable debate regarding Islam only undercuts the position of Muslim reformers and retards their efforts.
She correlates (non-violent) confrontation with furthering the process of dialogue. It may seem oxymoronic on the surface, particularly in an age of a super-imposed cultural sensitivity towards the "other."
But in fact it makes perfect sense. It's no different than two people trying to work out their differences. How will we ever get to the root of the problem while constantly walking on eggshells. Candor is a must.
A highly intelligent, articulate, brave and even beautiful lady, but I cannot believe she really believes Islam can be ever be reformed. Ali Sina, also brilliant, knows better (http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina50116p2.htm ) and has a different and more intellectually honest approach: Muslims should be talked out of their religion from hell and there simply should be no Islam, period. Ayaan Hirsi Ali and others (like Robert Spencer it seems) probably also know this but figure that, since one cannot hope (as Ali Sina does) that enough Muslims will ever leave Islam, at least one can try (with better chances) to get it morphed into something fairly benign – not truely Islam but something positive instead of something blood thirsty. While it seems obvious to me, after reading a fair amount of the Quran & hadiths, that this 7th century con of Muhammad can’t be substantially changed and still be called the Islam of Muhammad, I still wonder if the reform approach could actually be the most practical. I doubt it and wish that Ayaan would have simply argued against the validity of Islam and denounced it as a monstrous fraud. Could I be wrong?
I have to say the woman just amazes me. I believe she is absolutely correct, that restricting the parameters of acceptable debate regarding Islam only undercuts the position of Muslim reformers and retards their efforts.
She correlates (non-violent) confrontation with furthering the process of dialogue. It may seem oxymoronic on the surface, particularly in an age of a super-imposed cultural sensitivity towards the "other."
But in fact it makes perfect sense. It's no different than two people trying to work out their differences. How will we ever get to the root of the problem while constantly walking on eggshells. Candor is a must.
More interviews with her (and other brave souls) here:
http://somebodyhelpme.info/righteous/righteous.html#hirsi_ali
A highly intelligent, articulate, brave and even beautiful lady, but I cannot believe she really believes Islam can be ever be reformed. Ali Sina, also brilliant, knows better (http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina50116p2.htm ) and has a different and more intellectually honest approach: Muslims should be talked out of their religion from hell and there simply should be no Islam, period. Ayaan Hirsi Ali and others (like Robert Spencer it seems) probably also know this but figure that, since one cannot hope (as Ali Sina does) that enough Muslims will ever leave Islam, at least one can try (with better chances) to get it morphed into something fairly benign – not truely Islam but something positive instead of something blood thirsty. While it seems obvious to me, after reading a fair amount of the Quran & hadiths, that this 7th century con of Muhammad can’t be substantially changed and still be called the Islam of Muhammad, I still wonder if the reform approach could actually be the most practical. I doubt it and wish that Ayaan would have simply argued against the validity of Islam and denounced it as a monstrous fraud. Could I be wrong?