A debate: Should Western patriots support Ayaan Hirsi Ali?

Jeff in England writes:

This is an essential interview of Hirsi Ali to listen to. Please post it up for VFR readers’ watching.

I know your criticisms of Hirsi Ali and there is validity to them. But, as this interview proves, she is extremely important in exposing the horrors of Islam to the mainstream as well as promoting Western democracy. Despite some differences with you Larry, she is ESSENTIAL to ally with to fight against the Muslim invasion and Islam in general.

- end of initial entry -

Ben W. writes:

1. For a conservative, proposing an alliance with Hirsi Ali is just as fallacious as replacing classical Darwinism with neo-Darwinism.

2. Hirsi Ali has not introduced any new analytic perspectives of Islam. She is not a deep critic of Islam to be used as a major source of knowledge.

3. Fighting “the Muslim invasion” on her terms does not solve the issue of liberalism in Western civilization that is the major undercurrent for multiculturalism. On the contrary I find that she contributes to the liberal view of Western civilization and American society.

4. In the interview with Avi Lewis, she failed to address any of his anti-American presuppositions. She came across as a lightweight. Not impressive at all!

She let him off the hook and resorted to defending herself rather than engaging him at all points. In a war, her defensiveness and quite frankly feminine diffidence is useless. She utterly failed to counter Avi Lewis’s aggressiveness. She’s not a warrior to be allied with.

KPA writes from Canada:

Funnily enough, I was thinking about emailing you about the Hirsi Ali interview, but thought I might be a little too harsh and critical.

But, after reading Jeff’s comment, I decided to do so anyway.

Ali is, or was, in Canada, essentially promoting her book, so I’ve had a chance to see this interview.

I see nothing really wrong with it as such, although I didn’t like her use of “extremist Christians,” and her equation of anti-Semitism with racism is flawed (and perhaps dangerous).

But what struck me most was that her liking America seems to me the same reason why she liked the Netherlands, primarily because it gave her freedom to do “what she wanted.” In my most skeptical, I will have to conclude that she has always been shopping around for a country that will accommodate these wants of freedoms that she harbors.

But, on a more practical level, she exposes Islam’s dangers to the West, but then what? What does she propose to do with herself after she has made this contribution?

A recent argument she made regarding her role was not to help the West further, but to help her fellow Muslim women to acquire that freedom which she believes she has.

This will surely include: allowing more Muslim women from restrictive countries to migrate to those more “open”; meddling with the current systems in those Western countries to accommodate her feminist ideals with which to help these women; and despite their complaints, a possible increase in Sharia-believing Muslim women in Western countries.

One final note, during her interview, they showed clips of her film Submission, after which the filmmaker Van Gogh was assassinated. I have read many entries on this association, and what it boils down to was that Ali wrote the script, found Van Gogh, told him it was extremely dangerous (she was ready with body guards) and had it made.

The film itself is really terrible, and unnecessary. Even on a human level, to insult the Muslims with such blatant images is bad enough. But, on another level, it is her feminist ideology which convinced her that such a film was worth making. I believe she convinced an innocent man to take this extreme risk in order to “liberate” her fellow Muslim women. The Dutch society was already seeing the problems of Islam and women without this violent film.

This, I believe, is the type of dangerous activity she will be involved in, in order to further her agenda, which is not really to help the West, but to help her fellow Muslim women.

Karen writes from England:

Hirsi Ali is an opportunist who lied her way into the Netherlands and exploited lax asylum rules. Her “freedoms” which she highly prizes, were all gained by deception. Her criticisms of Islam are unoriginal and have been said by others more effectively and convincingly. Her aims, both explicit and implicit, are to destroy Christianity and promote liberalism and further Moslem immigration. She can never be of any use in a war against liberalism or against Islam. Conservatives should never ally themselves with Moslems or liberals like Hirsi just because they share a common dislike of Islam. Nothing will be achieved by compromise. At heart Ali is a destroyer of Western civilisation and can never be its guardian.

Ben W. writes:

Karen writes: “Hirsi Ali is an opportunist who lied her way into the Netherlands and exploited lax asylum rules. Her ‘freedoms’ which she highly prizes, were all gained by deception.”

Interesting that Karen brings in the aspect of morality to bear against a single-minded focus on freedom (Ali). One simply cannot avoid ethics. This particular dimension is missing from the neocon obsession with universal freedom and generic liberty. As if “freedom” can be implemented through the mechanism of democracy in a historical and moral void…

LA replies:

Exactamente.

Jeff in England writes:

Enjoying your “conservative” ghetto, VFR readers? The Western world (and the rest of the world) is at war with Islamofascism (and Islam itself) and all you can do is go on about how Hirsi Ali is not conservative enough for you. Oh dear! Of course you also would have said we shouldn’t ally with the Soviet Union against Hitler. And we would have gone down to defeat accordingly.

What more do you want? You have a famous black beautiful courageous Muslim dissident immigrant telling the world about the horrors of Islam and Muslims. A woman the mainstream might actually listen to with respect. But you (VFR readers) are so stuck in your own agenda that you’d rather bring her down than ally with her in the fight against Islam.

Wake up you fools! Grow up! This is real life. Where alliances are made with all sorts of people to get things done. And you can do a lot worse than allying with Hirsi Ali.

And on a personal note, Hirsi Ali has “lived more life” than all of you put together. So she is not your perfect pinup conservative? How awful for you having to put up with a person like her literally risking her life to fight Muslims. Here she is trying to help all of us defeat this “virus” (Islam) and all you (VFR readers) can do is write to VFR dissecting her conservatism. Very “intelligent.” No wonder we are in the state we are in!

LA replies:

Finally, Jeff has uncovered the real reason for the decline of the West—VFR’s criticisms of Hirsi Ali!

LA continiues:

BTW, when I agreed with Ben, I did not mean to endorse the implication that Ali’s misstatements in getting into Netherlands were of the importance that Ben’s comment might have appeared to give them. I was agreeing with Ben’s general statement about how how empty the rhetoric of freedom has become today, divorced from any moral substance. For the record, while Ali can certainly be criticized for the way she got into Netherlands, I don’t think we ought to see that, by itself, as a decisive or major factor in evaluating her work and character, though it may be part of a pattern..

Ben W. replies to Jeff:

“The Western world (and the rest of the world) is at war with Islamofascism (and Islam itself) and all you can do is go on about how Hirsi Ali is not conservative enough for you.”

The Western world as represented by George W. Bush and Gordon Brown are at war with Islam itself?

“Oh dear! Of course you also would have said we shouldn’t ally with the Soviet Union against Hitler. And we would have gone down to defeat accordingly.”

Allying ourselves with the Soviet Union (thank you Alger Hiss) and thereafter ceding territories to Stalin was a huge mistake. I doubt that the war would have been lost without the Soviets. We didn’t count on their help versus Japan.

“You have a famous black beautiful courageous Muslim dissident immigrant telling the world about the horrors of Islam and Muslims.”

Aha, the Glamour view of ideology and politics. Hirsi Ali as the conservative counterpart to Angelina Jolie.

“A woman the mainstream might actually listen to with respect.”

And so Avi Lewis and Hirsi Ali, all smiles and good wishes, shook hands after the interview in mutual appreciation thus solidifying Avi Lewis further in his worldview.

“Wake up you fools!”

Hummh…like Lenin in his time referring to European and American liberal fellow travellers as “useful idiots.”

“Where alliances are made with all sorts of people to get things done.”

In sports, when one team plays another, does it make alliances with it? Or does it go all out to win on its terms?

“And you can do a lot worse than allying with Hirsi Ali.”

Why do I suspect that when Hirsi Ali has run through the conservative gamut of adorers and money, she will pull an Ariana Huffington?

“And on a personal note, Hirsi Ali has “lived more life” than all of you put together.”

Nah, I’ve never seen her with an iPod…

How awful for you having to put up with a person like her literally risking her life to fight Muslims.

“Where is she fighting Muslims? In the US? Sort of like Solzhenitsyn who fought the fight from gulags and prisons?”

LA replies:

I disagree with Ben about WWII. The Soviet Union’s role was crucial. It was on the Eastern Front that the Nazi power was broken. To me the problem was not the alliance with the USSR; that was necessary. The problem was the way America went all-out in embracing the USSR. Churchill had a more realistic view. When he said, “If Hitler invaded Hell, I’d find a kind word to say about the Devil in the House of Commons,” he meant that as a matter of necessity the West had to ally with Stalin, while still recognizing the evil of the Communist system. FDR and the Americans did not understand that distinction.

LA continues:

I don’t think Jeff appreciates the main reason many conservatives are wary of Ali. It is her anti-Christianity. She is an immigrant or refugee (or rather a fraudulent asylee) in the West, attacking the West’s religion. Indeed, she frequently joins her criticism of Islam with criticism of the “theocracy” of the West, meaning Christianity. So it would appear that her primary agenda is not to protect the West from Islam, her primary agenda is to liberate women by freeing them from religion, from all religion, including Christianity.

Thus the analogy between Ali and Stalin (which has already been greatly overused—Ali is a writer and speaker, not the head of a country) breaks down. Stalin had the same agenda as Roosevelt and Churchill: to defeat Nazi Germany. Therefore there was a reasonable and necessary and pressing basis for Britain and the US to make an alliance with Stalin for that limited purpose (though the U.S. went way beyond such a narrowly tailored, cautious approach to the USSR, as I mentioned above). Ali, by contast, does NOT share a common agenda with the true Western opponents of Islamization. She does NOT oppose further Muslim immigration; instead she has sought to outlaw immigration restrictionist political parties. She does NOT oppose the spread of sharia; instead she says she has no problema with sharia being advanced in the West, so long as it’s done by non-violent means. So, in what sense is Ali—who does not oppose the spread of Islam but does oppose Christianity—an ally? Inquiring minds would like to know.

Jeff replies:

I’ve already previously said that I agree in full or in part with some of your points about Hirsi Ali. I don’t have her specific comments in front of me about immigration restriction or Sharia though I suspect (despite what she may have said) she is sympathetic to the former and no lover of the latter.

But my main point is: Hirsi Ali is the most powerful Muslim spokesperson in the world against both so called Islamofascism and Islam itself. Therefore, for that reason alone she is my ally and should be yours. This war is a ferocious one. Immigration restriction is still a long way away, let alone the fantasy of removal of Muslims from the West. If Hirsi Ali can educate the mainstream about the horrors of Islam and Muslim culture then she is worth her weight in gold. I agree I would like her to completely oppose immigration restriction. Ditto Sharia (I will have to read her comments again). But the likes of Ali Sina (a former Muslim who supports complete immigration restriction of Muslims) are for the most part not listened to by the mainstream and Hirsi Ali is. So if we don’t ally with the likes of Hirsi Ali, imperfect as she may be, we are left on the fringe, out of the picture. Is this what VFR readers want?

LA replies:

Again, the comparison between the U.S./USSR World War II alliance and VFR/Ali “alliance” strikes me as strange. Nothing practical immediately hinges on what anyone at VFR says about Ali. I personally have been criticizing her consistently for a couple of years. Maybe I’m thick-headed, but I haven’t seen anything about her I’ve liked. If someone could point me to a strong position she has taken on the Islam problem that perhaps I have missed, I’d like to see it.

If Jeff thinks that my and other people’s views about Ali are incorrect, fine, he can make that argument. But I have trouble relating to the notion that what is at stake here is an “alliance” and whether VFR is “on the fringe” or not … especially as VFR is already on the fringe.

Also, I think that what Jeff means is not whether I am “allied” with Ali but whether I write positively and supportively about her. I would do so, if I had seen things by her that told me she was helping defend the West against Islam.

LA writes to Jeff:

Maybe I’ve been unfair. Can you show me an article of hers that you think would get through my thick skull and show me her value that my prejudices have blinded me to?

Jeff replies:

Here’s the thing: I don’t think you’re being prejudiced. I am grateful for your excellent criticism of certain of Ali’s views. I certainly agree with some of it.

Admittedly her stated views can sound contradictory and/or vague. Has she directly said she is opposed to immigration restriction? I’m still not sure. The article I forwarded to you indicated she is in favour of some immigration restriction. It is hard to believe that she supports Sharia and certainly she has described it in desparaging terms in the past. But her secularism is clear and I oppose her on it. Ditto some aspects of her liberalism.

But here’s the thing: She is still a great ally in this battle against the Islamic menace and we must regard her as such. That’s the way wars go….you ally with people you disagree with to defeat other people you disagree with even more.

She is hardly the devil in disguise. Even if she is an atheistic liberal, she still is very pro-western. She even defends Christian extremism from the accusation that it is morally equivalent to Islamic extremism. She is not anti-Judaic-Christian in the way she is anti-Islam. She obviously communicates the horrors of Islam to the mainstream with great skill and credibility. When she tells the world how bad Islam is, the world listens. I think VFR readers should regard her as a key ally in the war against the Islamic menace. They will rarely get a better one, even with her flaws. Simple as that.

LA replies:

Well, Jeff wouldn’t heed my suggestion that we move the discussion away from the unreal question of whether VFR should “ally” with Ali to a more more practicable question, namely: are there statements by Ali that VFR should acknowledge and support?

Also, apart from conveying the horrors of islam, what does she say we ought to do about Isalm?

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 17, 2007 08:56 AM | Send