'...there's a read-only lock on the Koran.'

Excellent sound bite for the MSM, folks.

Posted by: Vee at August 5, 2008 9:03 AM

Ayaan Hirsi Ali delivers truth once again. Easily one of the most refreshing intellectual in the modern world.

Posted by: Kris_Krafft at August 5, 2008 9:08 AM

Expensive to maintain she may be. But I love her. "When you see a gent, paying all kinds of rent..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqkOGt0-Ouk&feature=related

Posted by: Hugh at August 5, 2008 9:22 AM

She's been in Australia? For some reason I'd missed that.

Yippee! Hurrah! We love her!

She's been here before.

Last year she came to the Sydney Writers' Festival and spoke to booked-out sessions. The Muslims threw mud and threw tantrums: but Aussies didn't care, they bought their tickets and packed the house.

She was interviewed on our main national TV station, right after the 7.00 pm news. Wow!

Now she's baaack. Great. I hope Mr Rudd or someone in his cabinet is paying attention, since he was talking dangerous nonsense about 'interfaith dialogue' with Indonesia, only a month or so ago. And if *he* didn't listen, I hope some of our other pollies did.

What I want to see now ? Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and quite a few other persons, such as Geert Wilders for starters, or a certain Mr Robert Spencer, or that redoubtable little Jewish grandmother, Bat Yeor, invited *onto the floor of the Australian Parliament in session* to have a go at getting our collective MPs' heads screwed on straight about Islam.

(PS - I do hope the people who invited her have also thrown in a couple of days on one of our secluded tropical islands, incognita, where she can lie in the sun and take five. I'll bet she looks perfectly gorgeous in a bikini. Maybe some handsome Surf Lifesaver will make her an offer she can't refuse; and then, too, maybe Duntroon Military College could consider offering her a job lecturing on Islam and Politics for our budding Army Officer Corps...enlistments would go through the roof).

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at August 5, 2008 9:33 AM

Ya gotta love this babe.She says it cold and she says it straight.

Almost matched by that courageous peppery Syrian babe living in California (from the former 'palestinean' territories) who took on a cleric type and the moderator on Al Jazeera.

Posted by: dgene at August 5, 2008 9:40 AM

Hirsi Ali: "The ideas of Mohammed are incompatible with the ideas that liberal secular democracies are based on"

Hello. The lady is great.

Now if we could get some of our VIP's in Washington to agree with her, we could make some real headway here in the USA. (I'll bet that a few of our VIP's secretly agree with her but it would be bad for businss for them to say it in public.)

Posted by: Spot on at August 5, 2008 9:54 AM

Bahhhh... why should we listen to her? After all, what could she know about Islam? Rather, let's look toward the likes of Keith Olbermann for our views.
[/sarcasm]

Posted by: The Cool Ghoul at August 5, 2008 11:03 AM

And I also want to emphasise that it's not Muslims as in individuals, because they're varied, they're very diverse. Some Muslims are a problem, some Muslims are not, some Muslims are apathetic, but Islam as a system of ideas is incompatible with liberal democracy as a system of ideas.

I disagree. Muslims as individuals are the ones who promote and practice violence. It wouldn't matter what the Koran said if those teachings weren't being put into practice today by individuals. Every bombing, every murder we see is carried out by individuals. They are not automatons. Without these individuals, Islam would remain a set of ideas. Words on paper are not a threat. Murderers are.
The problem is, as diverse as Muslims are, they still hold to ISLAM. It's what binds them. We should not be expected to tell the difference between the many categories Ayaan Hirsi Ali listed above. No one who wants to live in secular societies should have any connection to Islam. Even the most tolerant Muslim practices an intolerant faith. The most secular Muslim can produce the most fundamentalist son or daughter.

Posted by: PMK at August 5, 2008 11:34 AM

Here is a great interview she did with CNN a few days ago on British Muslims HERE

Posted by: markedmanner at August 5, 2008 11:53 AM

PMK: It's tough to find someone tougher on Islam than Hirsi Ali but you managed to do so above. My compliments. But perhaps you'll agree that Ali is saying very publicly about as much as she can at the moment. I'm sure you, like so many others, myself included, have deep admiration and respect for her.

The Cool Ghoul: Fine sarcasm. You know, it's just possible Olbermann is so dense and yet so full of himself that he might be the very last person in America who will finally get Islam. Yeah, imagine an America in which everyone but Olbermann knows what Islam is really about. Hey, I can dream, can't I?

Posted by: Wellington at August 5, 2008 1:09 PM

Hirsi my Hero stated: "Islam as creed as incapable of change in the sense that … for instance there's a read-only lock on the Koran. Anyone who proposes to change anything in the Koran is considered an apostate, and is immediately killed or threatened with death."

....which makes reform of Islam next to impossible, if not completely impossible.

"Over and over again, when in the name of Islam, human blood is shed, Muslims are very quiet."

....could she be referring to the moderate Muslim? They are a useless bunch. Their silence borders on "aiding and abetting" these terrorist crimes, since even they are familiar with the teachings of Muhammad and the Koran, and they choose to keep their mouths shut.

More "moderates" need to rise up and speak out against Islam as exampled by Hirsi Ali, a very courageous and brave woman. We love you, Hirsi!

Shame on those who know these truths and then say nothing. How do they live with themselves?

Posted by: champ at August 5, 2008 1:11 PM

I disagree. Muslims as individuals are the ones who promote and practice violence. It wouldn't matter what the Koran said if those teachings weren't being put into practice today by individuals. Every bombing, every murder we see is carried out by individuals. They are not automatons. Without these individuals, Islam would remain a set of ideas. Words on paper are not a threat. Murderers are.
The problem is, as diverse as Muslims are, they still hold to ISLAM. It's what binds them. We should not be expected to tell the difference between the many categories Ayaan Hirsi Ali listed above. No one who wants to live in secular societies should have any connection to Islam. Even the most tolerant Muslim practices an intolerant faith. The most secular Muslim can produce the most fundamentalist son or daughter.

PMK,

Your point is true on some levels but needs to be clarified on others. I understand where you are coming from, however. Did all of the jurists act as individuals to come to consensus over the course of islam? Yes. On a certain level though these people give up their individuality (defined as will to choose freely, let's say) to be part of the collective. And that's a debate for another time because it's arguable.

What IS religion? The search for Truth. If you believe that the words on paper are unwritten texts in "heaven" you better believe they have potential to be a threat --- this is self-evident.

Recently to a friend who thought I previously was some sort of (insert foolish word like "bigot" or "islamophobe") I said, "I do differentiate between Islam and muslims which can be different entities altogether."

Now, that is a macro statement. Like economics, does anyone REALLY understand it? No. We understand micro better because we have limited experiences, resources and viewpoints. But we do know that somewhere out there that it explains how it is (for at least some). My point is this --- are there plenty of "muslims" (see, the problem is always self-ID in religion) that don't care about practicing their "religion" at all or only practicing limited amounts of it due to rationalization, living in the west, reason, logic, doubt, etc.? Yes. Can we reliably predict who these individuals are? No. And that's the real problem that my friend didn't hang on to understand or that part which he can't connect.

Yes, it is sad that your last point is right on. We have seen it before, as well, that the most secular or money loving person can create the most extreme son or daughter. The evil spirits can dwell in/on our God instinct. That will never go away. Nothing trumps the Truth and we are constantly in danger of being fooled.

I guess my main point to sum this up is that in differentiating between Islam and "muslims" we can have compassion for their humanity and try to show them the Truth and that ultimately it does not abide in Islam.

Posted by: Palamas at August 5, 2008 1:25 PM

Wellington - thanks for the compliment. :-)

PMK - I agree with you that ultimately, individuals are responsible for their actions. I doubt that Hirsi Ali would disagree with us on that point. But I think the point that she's making is that we should be cognizant that not all muslims are evil in contrast to the evil teachings within Islam. Some muslims are indeed peaceful. Whereas Islam isn't.

Posted by: The Cool Ghoul at August 5, 2008 1:54 PM

I would like to further comment on another aspect of this interview that really bothers me, due to its ignorance. It is not stupidity but rather the ignoring of history. Inevitably these people when talking about Islam will bring up other religions and particularly Christianity. It seems ironic to me that even though roughly half of the christian world is an eastern christian (orthodox, oriental, I would group the eastern "catholic" traditions here which have more in common with said groups) they speak of Christianity in terms of Catholic and Protestant and all of its failures and misgivings as a representation for all. I call it ironic because the eastern christians were the ones in contact with islam! Furthermore, the history of the western christians is far more politically driven and containing what they refer to as akin to Islam ("it is fundamental and can't evolve ... you would have thought"). But half of the christians in the world didn't see it like that, nor did they practice it! So it's a false example, and one of that could be corrected, even if it did exist, by putting the foolishness of this question to rest by the following teaching point:

Christianity started and grew through spirit and what its believers experienced in a time of weakness. It grew by testifying to the validity of its beliefs and teachings and being harmonious with the thoughts and ideas of other peoples or showing them how this could be. It did this for centuries witnessing the truth.

Islam started and grew through might and when Muhammad was a political leader. The first year of the islamic calendar as we know, is when he took control of Medina. It started in battles, and grew in battles, expanded in them. There was no convincing. There was "submission," ironically.

People need to know this. Among its tenets for each, the source is the truth. Any temporal movement in Christianity bent on fundamentalism/extremism can't last due to its inception, history and teachings. The fact for islam is the opposite. The very reason why it CANNOT be going "just going through a phase" is precisely because its source was extreme and controlling from the beginning. As long as its texts are literal, traditions are considered to be true, and jurisprudence is accepted its supposed truths (those of the early days, the "source" days, those of Muhammad) will always be true for he who is seeking the "truth" in islam.

I wish it were not so, but I do not foresee anyone giving up his culture/religion/history, what he considers to be true, all too easily. For this reason, historical inquiry and examination of texts (changed quranic copies, etc.) will not occur, due to the cognitive dissonance iminently feared.

Posted by: Palamas at August 5, 2008 1:55 PM

Now where's Morgaan to impugn Hirsi Ali's character with baseless claims?

Posted by: Mo Foe at August 5, 2008 2:05 PM

Wellington,
My admiration of Hirsi Ali is immaterial. She is a brave woman who has put her life at risk. The headline gave me hope. Then I read the story. Her qualifying statements took that hope away. Her bravery doesn't obviate the fact that she is trying to have it both ways. Words don't kill people. People kill people.

Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions, but the history of Islam makes me not take anything at face value. Her words sound good as long as they are said with no qualification:

Islam as a system of ideas is incompatible with liberal democracy as a system of ideas.

Those words were preceded by several qualifying clauses and a "but". If she really means them then it leads to only one end: Islam cannot exist in Western society. That means Muslims must either renounce Islam or remove themselves from the West, eliminating any question of who is good, who is bad and who is apathetic. I doubt that is a policy she would ever accept. Her words make it possible for her to condemn any such ban as being unfair to "Muslims as in individuals".

But the problem IS Muslims as in individuals. Without the acts of individuals, Islam and the meaning of the Koran would be an intellectual realm of discussion. INDIVIDUALS are killing people. Individual Muslims (the ones who are not a problem or who are apathetic?) are looking the other way. We are being asked to look at everyone as an individual. For right now, all Muslims must accept responsibility. We don't have the means or the ability to distinguish the good from the bad. More than that, we shouldn't have to. The "good" Muslims should have done that long ago.

Posted by: PMK at August 5, 2008 2:18 PM

Mo Foe - collecting false data takes time - please be patient.

Posted by: champ at August 5, 2008 2:28 PM

Palamas: I agree with you that Islam is not just going through a stage. It is possessed of a theological obduracy that goes back to Mohammed. It has no capacity for evolution or flexibility while still staying true to its core doctrines. Individual Muslims may think Islam can come into the modern world but it can't. It never will.

Interesting too that non-Muslims like Bernard Lewis and Daniel Pipes also think Islam can evolve, but thinking something so doesn't make it so. I suppose Ibn Warraq's well known comment about there being moderate Muslims but no moderate Islam is the best and most succinct way of putting it. So, if Ibn Warraq is correct, and I think he is, then the world is stuck with Islam and the only way after that is to discredit it as Nazism and Marxism have been discredited. Just as there isn't a kinder, gentler, fuzzy and warm Nazism or Marxism, so there will never be that kind of Islam either.

Therefore, it is incumbent upon the non-Muslim world to demonstrate to as many Muslims as possible that their belief system should be assigned to the trash heap of history, along with other totalitarian ideologies. This will take some doing------and time------and money-------and lives.

Posted by: Wellington at August 5, 2008 2:32 PM

Therefore, it is incumbent upon the non-Muslim world to demonstrate to as many Muslims as possible that their belief system should be assigned to the trash heap of history, along with other totalitarian ideologies. This will take some doing------and time------and money-------and lives.
Posted by: Wellington

Adapt or perish is a Darwinian truth. The trouble with Muslims is they painted their Islam into a corner from which they cannot escape. As the ‘uncreated’ word, their Koran does not allow for any evolution of ideas, and certainly no room for self-criticism, without dire punishments raining on both heretics and apostates, ie., those who dare challenge the word of Mohammad’s (Allah). Without this ability of internal reflection, and ultimately internal reform, their ossified religion cannot adapt to modern times, neither secular ideas of freedom nor humanitarian ideas of a personal faith where man answers only to the deity. Therefore, they are trapped by their own religious trappings to never adapt, nor positive change, so they must do what Darwinian evolution prescribes for them, that they must in the end perish. In time, with much pain, that is their ultimate destiny.

This is also why I personally do not fear Islam, nor its rabid militant practitioners, because the truth is against them. They know it, we know it, and it is their conclusive weakness, why they lash out at the world with violence, because they know deep down inside theirs is a dead end destiny. Courageous people within Islam, like Hiris Ali, are more clear minded and see Islam’s glaring weakness. Glad she’s on the side of calling it like it is, and she is my hero too.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at August 5, 2008 3:42 PM

Mofoe: I was reading this section just to see what Morgaan's comment would be this time. I read yours instead and laughed my head off.

Posted by: former liberal WF at August 5, 2008 4:41 PM

PMK: I understand where you're coming from. Ideologies, like machines, don't in and of themselves kill or harm people. People do. Still, imagine if 90% of our politicians and elites were speaking the way Hirsi Ali does. I'd take that for now. She's still way ahead of the curve compared to most public figures

Posted by: Wellington at August 5, 2008 6:05 PM

former liberal WF:

Thanks!

Like I said in the last Hirsi Ali thread, she is a hero of mine and, I'm sure, a lot of us around here, so to read such disparaging remarks as Morgaan made was disheartening.

Not only does Hirsi Ali's spending habits have ZERO to do with her opinions about Islam and value to the "cause", but Morgaan couldn't even back her accusations up with one tiny shred of evidence, and this from a person who regularly post essays about the Serbs.

Morgaan's enmity towards Hirsi Ali seems to be a personal thing at this point.

Posted by: Mo Foe at August 5, 2008 6:41 PM

She is a courageous and brilliant woman, and I applaud her.

"Muslims as individuals are the ones who promote and practice violence. It wouldn't matter what the Koran said if those teachings weren't being put into practice today by individuals." (from above)

What's that quote from Brad Thor's latest book?
Every Muslim is a sleeper cell, some just don't know it yet. Something like that.

Posted by: gymgal at August 5, 2008 6:44 PM

Hirsi Ali was out here with the Centre for Independent Studies, on a panel with others discussing the Enlightenment. She didn't speak for very long stressing the need for freedom of speech and just to see her exchange with Irfan Yusuf was worth the price of the ticket!!!

Posted by: jewcat at August 5, 2008 6:54 PM

Wellington,
You're right. Hirsi Ali is saying things people in the West who should know better (like Daniel Pipes) will not. We had better be sure we don't seize on her words as an indication that things will change. We have to guard against false-confidence. Her hemming and hawing detract from the truth of her statement.

"Therefore, it is incumbent upon the non-Muslim world to demonstrate to as many Muslims as possible that their belief system should be assigned to the trash heap of history, along with other totalitarian ideologies. This will take some doing------and time------and money-------and lives."

Statements like Hirsi Ali's don't do that. She doesn't suggest that Islam is invalid, only that it doesn't work in liberal secular democracies.
Her audience can take that in one of two ways. The Muslim can say that liberal democracy doesn't work and that it has to go. Remember Erdogan. He says you can't be Muslim and secular at the same time. Ergo, no Muslim can be secular. Turkey can't be secular.
We say that Islam doesn't work and Islam has to go. We are not going to give up secular democracy.
The Muslim who doesn't really care about jihad cannot be given a pass. He has to pick a side. Either he is with us or he is with them. There is no fence straddling allowed. No non-aligned movements here.
If we are not willing to fight them the way they fight us (and the way we fought Germany and Japan) - without mercy - then we will lose. We are fighting for our very survival.
Do we care about the survival of Western civilization or is our goal to be peace at any price?

Posted by: PMK at August 5, 2008 8:21 PM

Palamas:
How many people must die while we try to show Muslims that Truth (and their entire future) does not reside in Islam? While we respect their humanity they don't return the favor.

The matter of the individual vs the group is precisely the issue. It's what drives them.

"On a certain level though these people give up their individuality (defined as will to choose freely, let's say) to be part of the collective."

We all do. We're part of a family, an extended family, a state, a nation, etc. We live our lives on two planes - the individual and the collective. The difference is: we don't forfeit our identity to become part of a group. We're not borg.
They would eliminate the individual, that which makes each of us unique. They would restrict our freedom to learn, to explore, to grow. They want all of us to be just like them.

The Cool Ghoul:
Muslims who sit back and do nothing in the face of Islamist terror are not peaceful. Islam isn't peaceful. They adhere to Islam.
There has been too much rationalizing about such as the Iranians: the people are really for us, they just have to live with Ahmadinejad. The same is said about some Palestinians. Well, either they are with us or they are against us. The Muslim who says and does nothing in the face of Islamist violence is not on our side.
All that is necessary for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing.

Posted by: PMK at August 5, 2008 8:47 PM

PMK: You wrote, "The Muslim who doesn't really care about jihad cannot be given a pass. He has to pick a side. Either he is with us or he is with them." Agreed. And what this ultimately means for such a Muslim is that to redeem his humanity and also be with the forces of truth and freedom, he must give up Islam. This is what we're coming to----------us v. them. No middle ground possible.

Wonder when the bulk of the non-Muslim world, and in particular the West, which I most care about because it has explored the limits of freedom as no other civilization ever has, will grasp this. Don't know. Things should be settled, though, by the end of this century. Too bad I won't be there to witness it, though I'm predicting the non-Islamic guys will win. No way the bulk of mankind will put up with the chains Islam envelops the human spirit with. But, oh, what all this is going to cost------just as it did with Nazism and Marxism.

Posted by: Wellington at August 5, 2008 9:30 PM

The woman has guts. Perhaps she could come & live in Australia - I'm sure Keysar would appreciate having her around! :)
I do get frustrated with the attempt to always equate Christian history with Islamic history - and that both were violent. Hmm, I look around the world today and what do I see.

Posted by: ozgal at August 6, 2008 3:09 AM

This is what we're coming to----------us v. them. No middle ground possible.

But Hirsi Ali strives for that middle ground.

Posted by: PMK at August 6, 2008 7:31 AM

Globalist: When you write that human rights, Western ideals and democracy are "ONLY a result of Christian belief and theology," you err grievously. Quite frankly, and I don't mean to be unkind, but your ignorance is almost unfathomable. It was non-Christian, pre-Christian ancient Greece which invented democracy and which also placed an extraordinary emphasis on the importance of individual human freedom.

Yes, the Judeo-Christian world added significantly to this development via the theological route (and yet it also impeded it at times), but to deny the contribution of the classical world (Rome should receive some credit here as well) to modern Western ideals is simply stunning. Please reconsider. Accuracy is crucial in effective argument.

Posted by: Wellington at August 6, 2008 10:40 PM

Western Civilization is a marvelous synthesis of Classical and Judeo-Christian influences, complementary and interwoven, the product of centuries of hybridization between the two. These gave rise to the High Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the Reformation and Counter-(Catholic)Reformation, the rise of the modern nation-state, the great Age of Exploration, the Enlightenment, the Industrial (and, coincidentally, political) Revolution, and the triumphs of Western science and technology, coupled with literary and artistic achievements of stellar glory and global influence, unparalled economic growth and abundance, equality and the rule of law, popular government and universal sufferage.

Posted by: John C at August 7, 2008 4:55 AM

Would any of us sacrifice any of this precious legacy, our birthright, for theocratic, cleric-ridden, regressive Islam? For the universal, all-encompassing imposition of shari'a? For a tyrannical, oppressive, misogynist, totalitarian world caliphate? For a return to a non-existent Islamic Golden Age?

No! Most empatically not.

Posted by: John C at August 7, 2008 5:04 AM

So they want to wage jihad, do they? Then let them; but they should know that their hour is short, and our will and resources great. What they failed to do in 1386 years, they won't accomplish in the next 14 or the next 140 years.

Posted by: John C at August 7, 2008 5:12 AM

No! Most emphatically not.

Posted by: John C at August 7, 2008 5:16 AM

John C: I agree with all four of your immediate posts above.

Posted by: Wellington at August 7, 2008 12:57 PM

That's a prized compliment, Wellington.

Posted by: John C at August 7, 2008 2:34 PM

Globalist: Huh? Pre-Christian heathens didn't create much? First of all, since the term "heathen" has an almost exclusively pejorative meaning I would certainly advise not using it to describe the ancient Greeks and Romans (or even the ancinet Egyptians and Mesopotamians). But far more important is your almost willful blindness in not acknowledging that ancient Greece is arguably the single most original civilization in all of history. The Greeks were the first to separate philosophy from religion (beginning with the Milesian School) and also invented democracy from Solon onwards through Cleisthenes and into the fifth century B.C. The Greeks also invented tragedy and comedy and produced one of the very greatest visual artistic heritages of all times. Then there is their outstanding literary output from Homer onwards. Oh, yeah, they also invented history. Real history. This started with Thucydides, Herodotus to some extent, though, pointed the way.

Then there's the wonder of ancient Rome. From the Early Republic onwards Rome showed an organizational genius almost unmatched at any time in the history of mankind. It also produced a significant artistic legacy, though not as great as that of ancient Greece, but its legal system is one of the most enlightened and complex systems of law ever devised. In fact, it is used as the basis for more countries' legal system than any other on earth.

And for you to attribute the transmission of much of the heritage of the ancient world to Arabs is also off the mark. Much of this heritage found its way into Irish, English, Frankish and other monasteries long before some of the classical world's texts made their way into medieval Europe via Islamic Spain. Also, as the Ottomans increasingly encircled Constantinople, many Byzantine scholars fled to Italy with ancient Greek works, heretofore unknown or practically unknown in the West. And I didn't mention a thing about how the Renaissance and Enlightenment were so indebted to Arab translators, thinkers and preservers. I too think that is almost entirely hogwash, so please don't attribute something to me I did not maintain.

Yes, the Renaissance and Enlightenment were very impressive indeed, but not more so than that of the Classical world, which both Renaissance and Enlightenment artists, philosophers and others held in the highest esteem. In fact, the Renaissance in many ways, particularly the Early Renaissance, attempted to emulate the Classical world, sometimes almost slavishly so.

You make other weird claims too. For instance, Christian theologians did not develop the concept of the separation of church and state. Some later Christian thinkers wrote about this effectively but such separation grew up over centuries beginning in England and then elsewhere, often times precisely in opposition to those who wanted to maintian a theocentric origin for government. Hobbes, whom you mentioned, is an example here and doing away with the divine right of kings in England's Glorious Revolution did not stem from a religious impulse but a secular one. No group of men were more responsible for this separational development than were the Founding Fathers of America, many of whom like Jefferson and Franklin were not Christian in the sense that they believed that Jesus was divine.

Well, I could write much, much more but I think I have written enough, at least for now. Really, I have to wonder what you know about Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic Greece as well as the major periods of Roman history from the founding of the Republic around 509 B.C. onwards. You seem to be determined to ignore the enormous contributions that the Classical world made to Western Civilization and I find that stunning. In fact, it takes one's breath away. And as John C already wrote above, Western Civilization is a combination of the Judeo-Christian world view with that of the Classical world. Surely, you don't dispute this, do you?

Posted by: Wellington at August 8, 2008 3:06 AM