Cross-posted from The Geller Report.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and H.R. McMaster participated in a Hoover Institution panel discussion live-streamed June 4, 2019, whose ostensible purpose was to characterize, “the identities of freedom’s adversaries, their goals and strategies, and what can be done to defeat these threats across government, the private sector, academia, and civil society.”
The just over 8-minute embedded video clip, and accompanying transcript below it, capture critical exchanges during the question and answer period. Watch/read how two audience queries, one on Islam, and the other on designating the traditionalist Islamic Muslim Brotherhood as a jihad terror organization, are “handled” by moderator Niall Ferguson, his wife Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and McMaster. Particularly alarming was the treatment afforded a very sympathetic Afghan Muslim woman exile whose poignant, and accurate observations about Islam are dismissed with a toxic brew of derisive laughter, and crude apologetics. These interactions are a sad testament to what passes for “informed, courageous center-right policymaking center discourse” on the liberty-crushing totalitarianism of Islam.
The expatriate Afghan Muslim woman questioner, was reverential of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, but did not abide being “silenced” by Stanford Professors when telling the truth about Islam’s violent imperialism. It was shocking that Ayaan tacitly agreed with such silencing, telling her interlocutor—and by extension, all of us — to “stop talking about Islam.” Exceeding this moral turpitude, H.R. McMaster opposed designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, in response to another query, for “mere” advocacy of Sharia totalitarianism, without overt calls to violence. McMaster justified such a policy — acceptance of Sharia — because of what he deemed the lack of any “solution to the problem of Islamist groups that want to restrict human freedom.” Worse still, McMaster claimed more broadly — and counterfactually — “a way to think about this is to really make sure we understand that [jihad] terrorists are a perverted interpretation of Islam to justify their criminal acts.” He concluded by insisting, “What this [global jihad] is is a fight between all civilized people of all religions against those who have perverted Islam.”
In brief, witness The Hoover Institute’s contemporary trahsion des clercs on Islam, courtesy of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, H.R. McMaster, and Niall Ferguson.
[Note: “FSI” referred to by the Afghan interlocutor, questioner #1, would appear to be The “Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies”]
PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT:
Audience questioner 1, a woman: “…I have lived 35 years in fear of Islam and political correctness and all of these things because I experienced the revival of Islam and what Islam can do, and is doing with these societies…I have tried to really talk about Islam but I am coming to a crashing point right now — I think that I am hitting my head to the wall because I feel that I am betrayed by the society of intellectuals that were supposed to support me. My new beautiful country of [the U.S.] that should support me, but I feel that everywhere that I go [there] is this political correctness and many other things. [It] is very easy—just come to FSI [Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies] — I can show you what is happening. Right now I am — my question is that I speak up against Islam and I am thinking that Islam is an imperialistic, violent, pedophile ideology — we should tell the truth not going with the lie of ‘peaceful religion,’ and so on. But I am crushed because people say that don’t say they [Muslims, practicing Islam] say they kill — Niall Ferguson interrupts: ‘We need a question’— [audience questioner 1 continues] — My question is that at the same time I get silenced down by the Professors at the FSI and so on, and I am crashing and I want to ask you, honestly, give me advice, what should I do” Should I stop going there [FSI] and stop…?”
On stage panel laughter.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, still laughing, initially: “I will be very short and say maybe at this stage it is better to stop talking about Islam and start talking about freedom… Again, we are talking here today about how we can use online and cyber and all that…And it has now become technologically possible to connect a lot of people and see the ideas of Afghani women — women from Afghanistan and I know a number of them attracted to the ideas of freedom and equality [Note: 99% of Afghans want strict application of the liberty-crushing Sharia in Afghanistan], and raising their children, especially their sons, to be different and embrace these ideas. And I think that’s where to go. Let’s stop talking—or let’s talk less about what it is that has driven us out of the ideology of radical Islam [Note: the Afghan Muslim woman questioner was explicit in discussing ‘Islam,’ not ‘radical Islam’] and talk about what has driven us to the principles of freedom.”
Audience questioner 2, a man: “…Why have we failed to declare [the] Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization even though [the] Saudis did.?”
Niall Ferguson: “H.R., is the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist, organization? Should we identify it as such?”
H.R. McMaster: “OK. I’ll go back to Ayaan’s point that sometimes we try too hard to disconnect the dots with these groups because these groups are overlapping and mutually reinforcing. But I think also we have to be cognizant of the fact that not all of these organizations are the same, all these groups are the same, especially within the Muslim Brotherhood, which has different chapters that have different philosophies. Some of them are actually active and useful participants in political processes. [Note: McMaster blithely ignores serious scholar Emmanuel Sivan’s timeless warning from 1995: ‘Westerners debating the question of Islam and democracy would do well to listen to these voices, representing as they do the hegemonic discourse in the Islamist movement. When Islamists talk to each other rather than for external consumption, the talk is clearly and unambiguously anti-democratic. And so would be their behavior should they seize power.’] If you for example were to make a blanket designation against all Muslim Brotherhood organizations and encourage other countries to do that, you just have to recognize that what you are going to do is drive those organizations underground in a way that set conditions for post-Mubarak Egypt. So I think there have [sic] to be a distinction made between those who advocate for violence against innocents and those who advocate to be able to determine with Sharia law the nature of the government at the exclusion of other parties. So I think that’s the way to think about it. And so there’s not going to be a solution to the problem of Islamist groups that want to restrict human freedom, but I don’t think a blank designation of the Muslim Brotherhood does it for you.”
Niall Ferguson: “Ayaan?”
Ayaan Hirsi Ali: “I just want to add one — yeah — so I agree with H.R. — everything he said is absolutely true, but I think we could go one step further and designate them an adversary. Just like we are designating, just like we are confronting China, what China is doing. I think it doesn’t hurt to say ‘hey Muslim Brotherhood, with all your branches and chapters, we know what you’re up to, and here’s the answer.’ And that is, it’s not exactly a terrorist organization, but having them come to the White House, and having them come to our institutions of education, institutions of information, I think in that sense, that’s a mistake.”
H.R. McMaster: Quickly. If I could just make a point that maybe refers to the [two] questions. I think a way to think about this is to really make sure that we understand terrorists are using a perverted interpretation of Islam to justify their criminal acts. And today is Eid al-Fitr [Note: the end of the Muslim celebration of Ramadan, ironically, a month associated by traditional, mainstream Islam with jihad war campaigns; see “Egyptian Clerics, Articles: Ramadan Is The Month Of Jihad And Victories”], [so] we ought to say ‘Eid Mubarak’ to everybody. Who are the greatest victims of these terrorist organizations? Other Muslims. So what we have to do is not play into the terrorists hands who try to [advance] the conspiracy theory that it’s really the Zionist-Crusader conspiracy against them. “What this [global jihad] is, is a fight between all civilized people of all religions against those who have perverted Islam.”
Niall Ferguson: “Well said.”
Angemon says
“want”, not “wasn’t”
CRUSADER says
When will Hoover invite Spencer to speak there?
Islam_Is Islam says
Tragically, NEVER. What this article sadly reveals about the deadly position of intellectual likes of Hirsi Ali (who I’ve admired in the past) etc… I’ve recently noticed about Dennis Prager and PragerU spokespeople like Candace Owens–don’t talk about Islam; rather focus on the freedom inherent in the reformation of Islam. The gentler, kinder reformation of Islam is an historically proven impossibility. As Mr. Spencer frequently says, “The blind leading the blind”.
More importantly the willful neglect of Hirsi Ali especially when compared to the dynamic heroism of Wafa Sultan and Mona Walter and others gets my ire way up. I wish the Islamic-apologists the likes of Hirsi Ali, her husband, and McMasters would shut up.
Lydia Church says
Speaking of corrections…
“a way to think about this is to really make sure we understand that [jihad] terrorists are a TRUE interpretation of PURE Islam to justify their criminal acts.” He concluded by insisting, “What this [global jihad] is is a fight between all civilized people of all religions against those who have CORRECTLY INTERPRETED TRUE Islam and seek their demise.”
“Perverted” should read: interpreted correctly, true interpretation… etc.
somehistory says
This reads like a cover-up. islam hasn’t “been perverted”….islam is perverted. islam is perversion. Perversion of all aspects of human life. Nothing good in islam to be perverted” by terrorists.
Sounds like Ali is agreeing with mcmasters…who showed his true thoughts on islam when he was in the government.
gravenimage says
I have the greatest respect for the brave Ayaan Hirsi Ali–but she does appear to naively believe that Islam can be reformed.
CRUSADER says
As does Irshad Manji, based on her discussion with her dog….
“Don’t Label Me”
https://www.newsweek.com/2019/03/08/irshad-manji-interview-dont-label-me-diversity-black-lives-matters-1335894.html
gravenimage says
CRUSADER, Ayaan Hirsi Ali has risked her life to warn the West about the threat of Islam. Her partner in creating the film Submission was stabbed to death on an Amsterdam street with a warning to her pinned to his chest.
I differ with her on a few points, but no one can deny that she is a heroic Anti-Jihadist.
CRUSADER says
Indeed.
Head and Shoulders above anything Irshad Manji has achieved.
gravenimage says
+1
witnesstojihad says
Well said.
Lydia Church says
Right, nothing good in there to pervert even if one wanted to.
Kilfincelt says
Ok, we can talk about freedom, but that doesn’t mean anything to many of the Islamic faith. We need to talk about Islam and its totalitarian nature. We need to be able to criticize it without being called Islamophobic. We need to stop using the word Islamophobia because it is a fake phobia. We need to understand that radical Islam and Islam are one and the same which means that H.R. McMaster’s little speech was a piece of nonsense. He needs an education into what Islam really is.
Note: I was surprised and disgusted at Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s cop out considering what she went through when she was subject to Sharia.
CRUSADER says
Good that the lady asking the question wants to do something with her life.
She says she was in fear of Islam and Political Correctness.
She says that her new country, America, is beautiful.
She wants to speak up against the imperialistic, pedophile, ideology of Islam.
She wants an honest answer in what to do….
Ayaan Hirsi Ali praised Afghani women in being different;
talk about principals of freedom and less about what / why left Islam….
Interesting.
H R PuffnStuff McMistress really is lost in his head. Good that Trump dismissed him.
If Muslim Brotherhood groups (which do less of the driving of terror) were to be outlawed,
and designated as adversaries, then if the more benign groups which overlap were to go
underground, then so be it. We want them to go away from promoting Shari’ah.
If there are benign things being done, such as setting up physical education for inner city
kids and underprivileged youth, or organizing charitable giving to actual poor equally, not
just to Muslims, then those organizations would naturally float to the surface and not have
to be designated as party to a terror group….
lebel says
“not all of these organizations are the same, all these groups are the same, especially within the Muslim Brotherhood, which has different chapters that have different philosophies. Some of them are actually active and useful participants in political processes. ”
I think that makes good sense. Ennahda cannot be compared to Hamas who in turn cannot be compared to the FIS. Ennahda ran, won, then lost and accepted defeat.
Saying they’re all the same is the jihadwatch way of collective responsibility.
mortimer says
lebel, you know very well that your goal and theirs is to hoodwink people and impose Sharia law. The difference in their methods of imposing Sharia is a sideshow of which you are a distracting part. The main plan is to impose Sharia which is tragically similar and dysfunctional wherever Sharia is imposed.
A Sharia society always turns into a one-party fascist state where the ‘extreme’ Sharia parties are held in check by draconian policing oppression. That is what you want, lebel, and if you don’t want that, you’re only fooling yourself … as usual.
Stay here, lebel, eventually you will leave Islam through reading the stories and comments.
lebel says
“lebel, you know very well that your goal and theirs is to hoodwink people and impose Sharia law”
Yes, I can now admit it. Obama was doing the same thing.
gravenimage says
lebel desperately hopes that his sneering will be taken as an actual denial.
gravenimage says
lebel wrote:
“not all of these organizations are the same, all these groups are the same, especially within the Muslim Brotherhood, which has different chapters that have different philosophies. Some of them are actually active and useful participants in political processes. ”
I think that makes good sense. Ennahda cannot be compared to Hamas who in turn cannot be compared to the FIS. Ennahda ran, won, then lost and accepted defeat.
………………………..
Well, this is just absurd. Ennahda recognized that they could not unilaterally take over Tunisia under the circumstances of their last loss does not make them ‘moderates’. Moreover, they are *not* out of power as lebel pretends–they were able to form a coalition government. Further, they have been accused of infiltrating security forces and the judiciary. Worse yet, they are suspected of being behind the 2013 assassinations of Chokri Belaid and Mohamed Brahmi, two progressive political leaders of the leftist Popular Front electoral alliance.
The implication that Ennahda had just graciously stepped down upon losing is *quite* false.
As for Hamas, they was in a position to violently take over Gaza from Fatah, before they ever went though the motions of holding elections.
FIS (Front Islamique du Salut or The Islamic Salvation Front) is another “Islamist” party in Algeria. It largely fell apart after the civil war there, but it has been succeeded by other “Islamist” parties–including the Hamas Party.
Hamas also showed up for an official visit in 2012 to Tunisia, where they began screaming “Kill the Jews!” upon arrival at the airport. Tunisian Jews noted that Ennahda would not condemn this.
How are they all supposed to be so different, again?
More:
Saying they’re all the same is the jihadwatch way of collective responsibility.
………………………..
What rot. All of these parties have the goal of Islamic rule–they just face somewhat differing conditions on the ground.
Bindon Blood says
There are no “moderate” Muslims, the term is an oxymoron. Muslims can only be what Allah and Muhammad say they are or must be. In Islam one is either a believer or a disbeliever or an apostate and an ex-Muslim. There is absolutely no avenue in Islam for being “moderate”. In or out are the options. Surely we all know that by now.
CRUSADER says
There still is hope for lebel if he were to repent and come to Christ
as a Christian, much as Mark Gabriel had done, from being a former
Moslem imam converting to a Christian pastor….
+ + +
Demsci says
Are the ones you mentioned also all different parts of MB, lebel? McMaster and you may analyse and point out the many differences between “branches”.
But we can point out that all of them have the same endgoal; Shariah and Islamic supremacism. Or can YOU distinguish between ENDGAMES of branches? We want to safeguard democratic societal system and values, tenets, laws. Is any one branch in agreement with that and willing to declare it? And for democracy for all eternity, not just as a means to an end?
But even that would be untrustworthy, because the true defenders of democracy and freedom will never be able to distinquish with certainty between “branches” of MB or of Islam as a whole for that matter. So that is the explanation of our seeing Muslims as all the same most of the time I guess.
We can however discern often well enough the fanatical and lukewarm Muslims and the more and the less dangerous Muslims I guess. We can observe long truces, armistices.
lebel says
“But we can point out that all of them have the same endgoal; Shariah and Islamic supremacism. Or can YOU distinguish between ENDGAMES of branches? We want to safeguard democratic societal system and values, tenets, laws. Is any one branch in agreement with that and willing to declare it? And for democracy for all eternity, not just as a means to an end?”
One branch calls any participation in democracy an act of apostacy which as you know is the supreme sin. That branch (jihadis) do not think that any of those participating in democracy are doing some sweet taqqiya and instead do their best to kill them or excommunicate them.
Another branch views democracy as a tool to get an Islamic State (FIS in Algeria).
Another branch respects the rules of democracy and is prepared to play by them When they lose the elections they accept it and they form coalitions with other parties whether islamist or not (Ennahda).
Not sure about eternity though, that means that we have found the best system for all time and could not conceivably come up with a better one. That’s about as dogmatic as you can get.
**translation for GI**
Taqqiya, Jihad, Sneering, hopes jihadwatchers don’t know, lies, rinse and repeat
gravenimage says
These are just differing tactics, as lebel well knows.
Angemon says
“Saying they’re all the same is the jihadwatch way of collective responsibility.”
Says the guy who thinks all muslims are terrorists…
mortimer says
Many thanks to Dr Bostom for this interesting report. This panel seems to be confused and so does Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Why would anyone invite HER, unless they are going to discuss the threat of totalitarian and censorial Islam? Islam is the greatest threat today to free speech and neo-Marxist Progressives are the second greatest threat. Where are the warriors for free speech among American intellectuals? They are missing.
Today, most of them are saying (as this group is saying here) how do we silence someone else whom we dislike? While silencing the Muslim Brotherhood may not stop their progress much, why are these thinkers unwilling to analyze the threat posed by the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideas on blasphemy laws? Has this group accepted that blasphemy laws are here to stay?
Censorship is the greatest threat to democracy, because without the news and facts about Islamic tyranny, the public cannot make a helpful democratic choice to stop those who would slowly crush us with Sharia laws.
James says
It does seem to me that non-perverted Islam is where people lgnore what the holy scriptures of Islam say, or limit themselves to the early life of Mohammed, where he only converted a couple hundred people. After that he became a jihadi and killed a lot of people. So, probably non-perverted Islam means ignoring almost everything in Islamic scriptures and relying on common sense ethics and ignoring most of what is said by Islamic teachers. I suspect that is not what the people here meant, however.
tjhawk says
Even in the very early days, mo was a foaming at the mouth, raving lunatic with a messiah complex. He probably also had giant sexual issues from being a boytoy to a considerably older woman. This thing was perverted from the start.
CRUSADER says
Islam was the Devil’s twist of faith, to gain followers.
Simple as that. Just have to gaze at the Queer’an to see that!
CRUSADER says
This on Ayaan Hirsi Ali found at Victor Davis Hanson site:
http://victorhanson.com/wordpress/the-buckley-program-stands-up-for-free-speech/
by Bruce S. Thornton // FrontPage Magazine (2014)
The William F. Buckley Program at Yale University lately showed bravery unusual for an academic institution. It has refused to be bullied by the Muslim Students Association and its demand that the Buckley Program rescind an invitation to Ayaan Hirsi Ali to speak on campus September 15.
Hirsi Ali is the vocal Somalian critic of Islamic doctrine whose life has been endangered for condemning the theologically sanctioned oppression of women in Islamic culture. Unlike Brandeis University, which recently rescinded an honorary degree to be given to Hirsi Ali after complaints from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Buckley Program rejected both the MSA’s initial demand, and a follow up one that Hirsi Ali share the stage with one of her critics.
The Buckley Program is a rare instance of an academic organization staying true to the ideals of free speech, academic freedom, and the “free play of the mind on all subjects,” as Matthew Arnold defined liberal education. Most of our best universities have sacrificed these ideals on the altar of political correctness and identity politics. Anything that displeases or discomforts campus special interest groups––mainly those predicated on being the alleged victims of American oppression–– must be proscribed as “slurs” or “hateful,” even if what’s said is factually true. No matter that these groups are ideologically driven and use their power to silence critics and limit speech to their own self-serving and duplicitous views, the modus operandi of every illiberal totalitarian regime in history. The spineless university caves in to their demands, incoherently camouflaging their craven betrayal of the First Amendment and academic freedom as “tolerance” and “respect for diversity.”
In the case of Islam, however, this betrayal is particularly dangerous. For we are confronting across the world a jihadist movement that grounds its violence in traditional Islamic theology, jurisprudence, and history. Ignoring those motives and their sanction by Islamic doctrine compromises our strategy and tactics in defeating the jihadists, for we cripple ourselves in the war of ideas. Worse yet, Islamic triumphalism and chauvinism–– embodied in the Koranic verse that calls Muslims “the best of nations raised up for the benefit of men” because they “enjoin the right and forbid the wrong and believe in Allah”–– is confirmed and strengthened by the way our elite institutions like universities and the federal government quickly capitulate to special interest groups who demand that we endorse only their sanitized and often false picture of Islam. Such surrender confirms the jihadist estimation of the West as the “weak horse,” as bin Laden said, a civilization with “foundations of straw” whose wealth and military power are undermined by a collective failure of nerve and loss of morale.
This process of exploiting the moral degeneration of the West has been going on now for 25 years. It begins, as does the rise of modern jihadism, with the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Iranian Islamic revolution. The key event took place in February 1989, when Khomeini issued a fatwa, based on Koran 9.61, against Indian novelist Salman Rushdie for his novel The Satanic Verses, which was deemed “against Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran,” as Khomeini said. Across the world enraged Muslims rioted and bombed bookstores, leaving over 20 people dead. More significant in the long run was the despicable reaction of many in the West to this outrage against freedom of speech and the rule of law, perpetrated by the most important and revered political and religious leader of a major Islamic nation.
Abandoning their principles, bookstores refused to stock the novel, and publishers delayed or canceled editions. Muslims in Western countries publicly burned copies of Rushdie’s novel and encouraged his murder with impunity. Eminent British historian Hugh Trevor-Roper suggested Rushdie deserved such treatment. Thirteen British Muslim barristers filed a formal complaint against the author. In their initial reactions, Western government officials were hesitant and timorous. The U.S. embassy in Pakistan eagerly assured Muslims that “the U.S. government in no way supports or associates itself with any activity that is in any sense offensive or insulting to Islam.”
Khomeini’s fatwa and the subsequent violent reaction created what Daniel Pipes calls the “Rushdie rules,” a speech code that privileges Islam over revered Western traditions of free speech that still are operative in the case of all other religions. Muslims now will determine what counts as an “insult” or a “slur,” and their displeasure, threats, and violence will police those definitions and punish offenders. Even reporting simple facts of history or Islamic doctrine can be deemed an offense and bring down retribution on violators. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, for example, earned the wrath of Muslims in part for her contribution to Theo van Gogh’s film Submission, which projected Koranic verses regarding women on the bodies of abused women. Van Gogh, of course, was brutally murdered in the streets of Amsterdam. And this is the most important dimension of the “Rushdie rules”: violence will follow any violation of whatever some Muslims deem to be “insulting” to Islam, even facts. In effect, Western law has been trumped by the shari’a ban on blaspheming Islam, a crime punishable by death.
The result is the sorry spectacle of groveling and apology we see almost daily from our government, the entertainment industry, and worse yet, universities. Trivial slights and offenses that civilized nations leave to the market place of ideas to sort out are elevated into “slurs” and “hate speech” if some Muslim organization deems them so. A reflexive self-censorship has arisen in American society, one based on fear of violent retribution or bad publicity harmful to profits and careers.
Thus the government officially proscribes words like “jihad” or “Muslim terrorist” from its documents and training materials in order to avoid offending Muslims. Similarly the Muslim terrorist, a fixture in recent history since the PLO started highjacking airliners in the 60s, has nearly disappeared from television and movies, replaced by Russians, white supremacists, and brainwashed Americans. And when a Muslim terrorist does appear, his motivations and violence are rationalized as the understandable response to the grievous offenses against his faith and people committed by the U.S. and Israel. Islam is airbrushed from the plot, as in the recent series Tyrant, a dramatization of a fictional Arab Muslim state that somehow manages to ignore Islam as a political force. More seriously, universities disinvite speakers at the faintest hint of protest from Muslim organizations, even as they accept Gulf-state petrodollars to create “Middle East Studies” programs that frequently function as apologists and enablers of terrorist violence.
“Free men have free tongues,” as the Athenian tragedian Sophocles said. One of the pillars of political freedom is free speech. When the ability to speak freely in the public square is extended beyond an elite to a large variety of people with clashing views and ideals, speech necessarily becomes rough and uncivil. Feelings get hurt, passions are aroused, and language becomes coarse and abusive. That’s the price we pay for letting a lot of people speak their minds, and for creating a process in which truth and good ideas can emerge from all this rambunctious, divisive conversation. But when we carve out a special niche for one group, provide it with its own rules, and protect it even from statements of uncomfortable facts, then we compromise that foundational right to have our say without any retribution other than a counterargument.
So three cheers for the Buckley Program. It has stood up against intimidation and defended one of our most important and precious freedoms.
Demsci says
When Ayaan says: Let’s stop talking about Islam and start talking about freedom” I take it she means that we not only speak about what we do NOT want, but also about what it is that we want instead of that. Seeking for and formulating it’s opposite ideology of freedom and democracy with all of its values, tenets, laws, practices. I too want to some “juxtaposition” of 2 ideologies rather than just fight against the one very bad ideology of Islam. To give people and countries a binary choice if that is at all possible.
gravenimage says
I agree, Demsci–we should not just note what we oppose, but also the civilized values we embrace and *defend*.
Demsci says
What HR McMaster is saying about “the terrorists (core enemies) have a perverted interpretation of Islam and the global fight is between civilized people and these perverters of Islam” is so wrong, so STILL political correct IMO.
But if there is a global fight between whom exactly is it? Between “Civilized people of all religions (including of course atheists) against all Muslims? That looks like a “bridge too far”, politically.
We can safely say that vast stretches of humans and countries feel rather neutral, being disinterested and ignorant in the question. And we may discern; the disinterested groups of people of the other religions and the vast swathes of seemingly disinterested Muslims, which we don’t have to fight. But on whom we realistically should not count, as HR McMaster wants us to do.
There remains this question whether or not there are more than one “versions, interpretations” of Islam. In HR McMaster’s thinking there is some “True Islam” in contrast to “perverted Islam”. That is his big implicit lie. But what if the version of the terrorists is considered the “True Islam”? Seeing a single Islam? In politics this too seems to go a bridge too far.
So what I was considering was to let us think about Islam as having divers versions, not necessarily true or perverted ones, merely making Islam that much more untrue, unclear, unstable. While we know that Islam has no real authority to establish and clarify “one True Islam”, while rejection all other “versions”.
When among the versions of Islam is a highly anti-democratic AND violent one, and there most certainly is, probably the most accurate one,
then we can start to say to Muslims; your choice to cling to Islam is problematic because we cannot really distinguish Muslims on interpretations. And we hold you accountable for choosing that religion and we discriminate against you in the case of immigration into our countries.
Something like this could be in policies of Democratic parties and countries. I think the freedom of religion now in place in Western societies is too absolute and when Democracy and freedom are under threat, yes, discrimination on ground of religion (Islam!) should be possible, especially in regard to immigration.
In the 16th and 17th century the Catholics in England were definitely discriminated against in political power just because of their choice of religion. And Communists used to be discriminated against based on ideology. And a Nazi party is still forbidden in Germany.
CRUSADER says
”
In the 16th and 17th century the Catholics in England were definitely discriminated against in political power just because of their choice of religion. And Communists used to be discriminated against based on ideology. And a Nazi party is still forbidden in Germany.
”
====
Nazi party needs to be forbidden, regardless.
Similar era, Protestants in France were discriminated against —
as in St Bart’s Day massacre….
Christians discriminated against and tortured by Communists in Rumania, 1944 onward…
Story of pastor Richard Wurmbrand’s survival and organizing of
Voice of the Martyrs is really remarkable!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Wurmbrand
https://www.persecution.com
Demsci says
Right, Crusader.
Even in the Zoroastrian Persian empire of the early 5th century Christians were persecuted because they were perceived to be more loyal to their co-religionists in the Byzantine empire than to their own country.
I guess most of such persecutions/ discriminations are far too violent and wrong,
But I am sorry to say it; the loyalty of Muslims to Western Democracies should be up for debate in a very careful respectful way.
Not with the aim of persecution in any way, but, for instance, in respectful rejection of immigrants based on their religion, Islam, because it itself is in some ways anti-democratic and it is doubtful that in case of conflict, the Islamic Immigrants will refuse loyalty to enemy co-religionists.
el Cid 2 says
Demsci – thank you. In WW2 the expansionist NAZI party was discriminated against.
Not all Germans were evil people – but we eventually could not separate war-like Germans from peaceful ones.
Islam is an evil ideology. Not all Muslims are evil but we will be forced to submit if we do not make a stand.
Demsci says
Thinkers/ Strategists like HR McMaster keep wanting to defend democracy, western values while holding onto absolute religious freedom.
Often they, like Obama, lie about that there somehow is a “true, beneficial Islam”. There isn’t but whether there is a “true, detrimental Islam” or there are divers interpretations of Islam, defenders of Democracy and freedom simply cannot discern with trustworthyness which of the Muslims permanently belong to which interpretations. So yes, all Muslims are tainted.
and anyway it’s becoming more and more clear that all interpretations of Islam have an anti-democratic endgame in mind. Absolute religious freedom, and absolute equal treatment on ground of religion, is therefore not wise in democratic nations and for immigration into to them.
gravenimage says
No one here is free to slaughter unbelievers in the name of their faith.
Demsci says
OK, GI, maybe you mean that freedom of religion is not absolute now and prohibits certain expressions of faith.
But I meant to touch upon the aspect of freedom of religion that mandates absolute equal treatment and forbids all discrimination or different treatment of persons in any way solely due to religion.
Hence it is impossible for instance to select immigrants based on religion. And thus to reject ONLY Muslims but not followers of other faiths (so now in order to stop Muslims from mass immigration it is necessary to stop or limit severely ALL Immigration). Yet that is precisely what so many Westerners long for, due to bad integration of Muslims and bad behavior by Muslims when they constitute large minorities.
gravenimage says
If people–Muslims, that is–adhere to a creed that teaches the subjugation and murder of all unbelievers–as they do–this may well be grounds for keeping them out.
Eric Jones says
McMaster is so misinformed about the MB because he and the rest of our military were barred from being briefed by Robert Spencer and others about the true aims of Islam. McMaster is a Maginot line general. I would not go into combat with him.
In a comment to another article I point out that the MB is a multilayered organization that presents a front to the West of MB businessmen and professional, but keeps the sharia advocates and jihad’s hidden. Ayeen Hirsi Ali should know this. Maybe she has lost some of her survival instincts. I do not mean to be harsh to her.
The panel is largely smug never believing that what they enjoy can be taken from them. Comfortable living can do that to you I guess.
Eric
Graham Ford says
It seems we have already lost. If the enemy cannot be correctly identified, we ‘box the air.’
Madeleine Dunn says
Disheartening. I agree it is overwhelming and depressing. I think we need to win people over to the freedom and democratic life style, but how will that ever last for long in a dominant Islamic society? It will always revert to Sharia and totalitarianism because the word of al..lah is absolute.
vlparker says
Mohammad’s version of islam is a perversion of islam? H. R. McMaster may have physical courage but he is a moral coward.
UNCLE VLADDI says
IN the military, Officer-class people rarely have physical courage.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
Ayaan Hirsi Ali exposed herself in one of her first public statements after Theo Van Gogh was stabbed to death on the street by a devout Moslem.
She said that Islam could be reformed. This is a ridiculous notion. She wants to have it both ways, and working at subintellectual vacuum holes like Harvard and Stanford make a hot petri dish for her mistaken dream, her historical delusion.
Ann says
Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote a book a few years ago about how she thought that Islam could be reformed. I didn’t agree with her premises, but it may be that she has decided that that is the stance and the brand that she wants to be known for now.
underbed cat says
Maybe Ayaan Hirsi Ali, could have responded with, “Yes I understand the fear and confusion to speak out. I have had speeches cancelled at universities that silenced me.
The problem is that very few have know in the past what Islam doctrine means when you live under sharia law. Although many have written extensively in the past, accurate information there is now because of recent years of influence of the MB purged Islam from our own national security descriptions as hate speech, this country is dripping, sharia, we need your voice, but only you can decide if you are safe in your community or you could cover yourself and speak to hide your identity. Sharia laws will make any information deadly. The movement is growing and in the United States you cannot be arrested for speaking out the truth. We have a President that needs to hear and he is aware is protecting freedom of speech. jihadist are not perverted radicals of Islam they are the soldiers of Islam and the more informed the public is the safer our country will be able to protect against the islamization and the spread of misinformation.” but those words are my words. Why Ali decided to answer as she did might her fear as she must see the leftist democrats loading up toward sedition, and have worked to remove a President ,aided by governmental agencies that passed on truth and lived in fantasy Islam much like some of the those on stage. Who could believe it could go this far. I for one hopes she speaks.
UNCLE VLADDI says
i.e: “Oh noes! We have to give in to islam, because otherwise they’ll win anyway!”
and “If we don’t let the criminals operate openly, they’ll just be driven underground!”
In real world, my people call this sort of defeatist talk: “SUBMISSION!”
OLD GUY says
Sounds like the some thing that brought NAZI’s to power. A fear to call it what it is. Islam is the same ideology just in a different wrapper.
James Lincoln says
Four or five years ago I would have listened to this broadcast and thought:
The panel seems like it consists of very smart well spoken people. They must know far more than I do about Islam, Muslims, and the Muslim brotherhood.
Before I started reading Jihad Watch, I would have never thought that what the panel said was less than factual.
I was particularly disappointed with Ayaan Hirsi Ali when she wanted all of us to “discuss freedom” and “stop talking about Islam”.
HR McMaster, a retired United States Army general, was factually wrong in his analysis – and he should have known better. The Muslim brotherhood is IN FACT a terrorist organization, and jihad terrorists are using a CORRECT interpretation of Islam to justify their criminal acts.
Again, without the knowledge that I’ve gained through Jihad Watch, I would’ve bought off on this broadcast.