Ayaan Hirsi Ali has returned to the Netherlands

After Ali had been in America for a year working at the American Enterprise Institute, the Dutch government wouldn’t pay for her personal security detail any more, and the American government refused to take up the slack. So she had no choice but to go back to the Netherlands. This Muslim crusader against Muslim tyranny will never be safe in the West because of the Muslims we’ve allowed into the West. Does this make her realize that the Muslim plantation in the West is itself deadly? Remember that she has never criticized Muslim immigration in any way, indeed she called for the outlawing of the Belgium Vlaams Belang party because of its opposition to Muslim immigration. Ali’s main emphasis has not been on protecting the West from Islamic extremism, but on using the West as a laboratory in which to promote feminism among Muslim women. Also, one wonders if the Bush administration declined to provide for Ali’s security out of a desire to appeal to America’s, uh, moderate Muslim community.

UPDATE: Posted at Hirsi Ali’s website is an English-language Dutch News report giving more details on her depature from the U.S. She was given permanent U.S. residency on September 25, and it seems that is what triggered the Dutch government’s decision not to continue providing her with security for her while she resides in the U.S. It is odd that instead of posting her own announcement on this important event, she simply posts a news story; but, if I remember correctly, she has never written anything of her own at that site, it consists mainly of news articles about her.

Also, the story indicates that this is not over, that there are negotiations going on in the Dutch parliament over whether Netherlands should continue to protect one its citizens abroad, just as Great Britain protected Salman Rushdie. However I don’t know that Rushdie resided long-term in America and he certainly did not become a U.S.legal permanent resident.

- end of initial entry -

Alex K. writes:

Because we’ve let in so many Islamists, and regular Muslims for them to hide amongst, we can’t let in anti-Islamists even if we want to.

But will her neocon fan club recognize that when they react to this?

Leonard K. writes:

Alex K. writes: “Because we’ve let in so many Islamists, and regular Muslims for them to hide amongst, we can’t let in anti-Islamists even if we want to…”

“Islamists”, “regular Muslims”, “anti-Islamists”… Am I reading this on VFR, or on danielpipes.org ?

“Regular Muslims” are those that pray 5 times a day and go to Mecca at least once in their life time. They also contribute to jihad, physically if possible, or at least financially. So, who are the mythical “Islamists”?

BTW, even the Yahoo Spell Check doesn’t know the word “islamist”. It suggests to change it to “psalmist” or “alarmist”!

Alex replies:

Touchy! Obviously, if one understands that we shouldn’t have Muslim immigration at all then Hirsi Ali’s saga is a non-issue. I was describing what happens when you try to do immigration neocon-style (welcome everyone but just try to weed out the jihadis through Mark-Steyn-style Western self-confidence or whatever)—it still doesn’t work because the anti-jihadists like Ali can’t be protected from the jihadists. Yes, all Muslim immigration is bad for the West but if the Usual Suspects understood that they’d be more jaundiced about Ali in the first place because her championing of Western Enlightenment confidence as the remedy to Islam was worthless without immigration restriction.

(Or at least the Ali we’ve seen up until this Reason interview…hopefully she’ll turn some neocons along with her now!)

And if the suggestion is that all Muslims contribute in some active way to Jihad, well, that’s just wrong.

p.s. my Microsoft word spellcheck doesnt recognize “jihadi” either. Or “neocon.”

LA replies:

What Microsoft Word spellcheck recognizes is not a significant index of anything. The dictionrary it uses is very far from comprehensive, and must be supplemented by the user.

I also thought Leonard was being a bit too quick on the trigger with Alex. If we’re talking about the neocons’ views of things, we need to use the language they use.

Andrew E. writes:

Alex writes:

“And if the suggestion is that all Muslims contribute in some active way to Jihad, well, that’s just wrong.”

We need to keep in the front of our minds that the jihad, in its present incarnation, is primarily demographic (ie. non-violent). How many Muslims in the West support policies that increase or seek to increase the presence and power of Islam? How many Muslims are willing to engage in a serious, objective discussion of Islamic theology? How many Muslims stand in the way of or side with those who stand in the way of the enactment of immigration restrictions for Muslims? I think once the jihad is properly defined and these questions are answered, we’d find that there are very few Muslims left who do not support the jihad in some manner.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 01, 2007 03:48 PM | Send