Hirsi Ali’s anti-Christian agenda
Carl Simpson writes:
After reviewing the atheist reader’s diatribe over your refusal to endorse this so-called manifesto against Islamism, along with his repeated insistence on holding up Hirsi Ali as some great defender of the West, I remembered this little snippet at VFR from two months ago.My reply:
Thanks for this, and for reminding me of that earlier item about Hirsi Ali. I agree with you overall, but I can’t go along with the idea that Ali “is an enemy every bit as much as the Muslims are.” During World War II, Britain and America did the right and necessary thing by allying with the USSR against Nazi Germany, though they went badly wrong in uncritically embracing and lauding the USSR instead of remaining cautious and vigilant toward it. As Churchill put it with admirable balance, “If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.” If Churchill would make a favorable reference to the Devil, we can at least refrain from regarding Hirsi Ali as the moral equivalent of a jihadist.A reader writes from England:
To hear people like Carl Simpson describing Hirsi Ali as an enemy is to remind myself of the enormous problem we have in dealing with the Muslim situation here in the West. And of the problems within the various groups of people (such as myself, such as Lawrence Auster) who are trying to develop serious strategies and tactics to decrease the Muslim situation. Obviously, no one who is “secular” is good enough for Simpson to ally himself with. For God’s sake, Ali is risking her life every day fighting the spread of Islam in the West while Simpson writes blogs dismissing her as too secular. If Nazi type groups declare they are Christian believers (and some do) would they be preferable allies for Simpson? Gimme strength Lord, gimme strength. And more discerning allies in this fight! Surely we can come up with better thinking than this (Carl Simpson). BEST, JEFFCarl Simpson replies to my reply:
I can understand you point about Islam being a greater threat than a single individual like Hirsi Ali. That much is true. The problem is with the type of leftist totalitarianism she advocates. If Hirsi Ali were to gain substantial political power in Holland, or the EU, she would unhesitatingly use the full power of the state apparatus to destroy whatever pockets remain of Christianity and the traditional West—even if she were to likewise attempt to use it against the rising tide of Islam. This is why I said she’s just as much an enemy as the Muslims are. The atheistic, leftist, totalitarian ideology Ali subscribes to has undermined and corrupted the very foundations of the West. It is every bit as deadly as Islam itself (arguably deadlier) and leaves us utterly defenseless against Islam at the end of the day. “Klin Klinom” as another reader said.I asked Mr. Simpson what his evidence was that Ali is a totalitarian leftist, and he replied:
Does not her support for the effective banning of a political party—solely for their religious based positions on issues like gay marriage—constitute a type of totalitarianism? I wonder what her position is on laws such as the one Sweden used to intimidate the pastor of a small church, Ake Green? Granted this is one of degree, and your point about Ali’s not being the moral equivalent of an armed jihadi stands. As we’ve seen in the whole Cartoon affair, the left has used such laws to stop publication of the Cartoons in Sweden.In an earlier e-mail, Mr. Simpson had written:
I can also say that Ali’s degree of destructiveness is less than that of a jihadi. However, like the jihadi, she is still an enemy within the gates. Any expression for support for her should be very limited and highly qualified, like: “I agree with Hirsi Ali’s position on restricting Muslim immigration, but sharply oppose her advocacy of ending freedom of religious expression.”LA here: While I haven’t sorted all this out yet, I just want to point out that there is a tendency for people in politics to care too much about allies, so that creating and maintaining alliances becomes the overriding objective rather than standing for the things that one stands for. Why do people make such a big deal about Hirsi Ali? Because she is a Muslim opposing Islam and paying for it with a death sentence over her head. But as a result of our focus on her, there is a loss of perspective on our side. Bolstering up Ali becomes the main thing, rather than bolstering up ourselves. Why should we be depending on this Somali woman to legitimize and advance our side? Why do people make a bigger cause celebre out of Ali than out of Geert Wilders, the Dutch politician who is also under a death threat? It’s because we still don’t believe in our own civilizational legitimacy as white Western people; we feel we only acquire such legitimacy if a nonwhite, non-Western person takes our side. It’s a variation on the liberal syndrome of always needing to have a black conspicuously at your side to show that you’re a good person, that you’re morally approved. So I’m not opposed to having a Hirsi Ali take our side and oppose Islam. Fine, the more on our side, the better. But the battle is OUR battle; our primary task is to defend and preserve our civilization and peoplehood, not to defend and raise up an individual leftist Muslim apostate. If we make her the main thing, then we end up making all kinds of compromises to accommodate her and her leftism, somewhat as Britain and the U.S. during World War II went too far in accommodating Stalin, rushing to please him at every turn, even when it wasn’t necessary.
Another reader wrote a little earlier this afternoon:
As for myself, I see no point in getting involved with internal warfare among Muslims, however they interpret themselves within Islam. And that’s what Ali is involved in. She wants to rally Europe, because she hopes it will aid in her internal battles within Islam.Yes. A question I may pose to the person who got so angry with me, if we ever converse again, is this: What does our salvation from the Muslim threat depend on? Does it depend on what Muslim apostates do? Or does it depend on what we do?
Also, a little earlier I wrote to Carl Simpson:
Ok, maybe I’m being difficult, but I’m not convinced on the basis of that one position she took against that Christian party that she is a leftist totalitarian per se, though she may be. I just need more information than that one story.He replied:
No, you’re not being difficult. I’ve been doing a bit of research on Ayaan Hirsi Ali myself. First of all, it’s very difficult to find out anything about her except for her stand against the Muslims. What little I am finding is leading me to think she’s more of a liberal than a totalitarian. I’ll let you know what I find out. The issue of her obvious animus towards Christianity stands, as you mentioned yourself.Carl Simpson writes again:
You wrote: “If we make her the main thing, then we end up making all kinds of compromises to accommodate her and her leftism [or liberalism?], somewhat as Britain and the U.S. during World War II went too far in accommodating Stalin, rushing to please him at every turn, even when it wasn’t necessary.”
Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 04, 2006 01:56 PM | Send