Print This Post

another troubling question

December 7th, 2007 | Islamism

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, under constant threat of death by Islamists because she is an infidel and under attack in the Western press from disapproving so-called “liberals” and “progressives,” writing in today’s New York Times, stands firm in her commitment to exposing the atrocities committed worldwide in the name of Islam:

IN the last few weeks, in three widely publicized episodes, we have seen Islamic justice enacted in ways that should make Muslim moderates rise up in horror. …

A 20-year-old woman from Qatif, Saudi Arabia, reported that she had been abducted by several men and repeatedly raped. But judges found the victim herself to be guilty. … We also saw Islamic justice in action in Sudan, when a 54-year-old British teacher named Gillian Gibbons was sentenced to 15 days in jail before the government pardoned her this week; she could have faced 40 lashes. … Then there’s Taslima Nasreen, the 45-year-old Bangladeshi writer who bravely defends women’s rights in the Muslim world. Forced to flee Bangladesh, she has been living in India. But Muslim groups there want her expelled, and one has offered 500,000 rupees for her head. …

It is often said that Islam has been “hijacked” by a small extremist group of radical fundamentalists. The vast majority of Muslims are said to be moderates.

But where are the moderates? Where are the Muslim voices raised over the terrible injustice of incidents like these? How many Muslims are willing to stand up and say, in the case of the girl from Qatif, that this manner of justice is appalling, brutal and bigoted — and that no matter who said it was the right thing to do, and how long ago it was said, this should no longer be done? [e.a.]

These questions have to be asked by someone in the “Judeo-Christian” West, where we—including even the Catholic Church—have compartmentalized our religious passions and submitted to the rule of non-denominational law.

Implicitly, we in the “Judeo-Christian” West have agreed—for the sake of the greater good of our societies—to evolve and to put the brutal practices of our ancestors behind us. (We trip up, and often, but these failings serve as useful reminders to us to try harder, and to keep trying.)

Apparently, Muslims have not decided to do this (i.e., evolve); nor is there a public movement to reform Islam. Being an atheist and uninterested in religion, I’m no expert. But as I understand it, doctrinally it is not possible to criticize Islam and to be a practicing Muslim. Doubt doesn’t exist: it’s an all-or-nothing deal—you totally submit to Allah or you’re an infidel.

Under such circumstances, I’m not surprised that Hirsi Ali would choose atheism over conversion to another religion. (Spengler, of the Asia Times, takes her to task for her atheism; that pisses me off. Like all other critics who are wrapped tight in the cloak of their belief, he seems unable to comprehend that atheists are not anarchists and thus responsible for the decline of Western civilization. We follow rules of moral and ethical behavior: the Golden Rule, for one. We just don’t believe that these rules—which are a matter of common sense—were commanded by “God.”

Anyway, back to Hirsi Ali, because I do have a point to make. In the most delicious and subtle thrust of today’s Times op-ed, she calls out her Western (and semi-Westernized) opponents:

I wish there were more Islamic moderates. For example, I would welcome some guidance from that famous Muslim theologian of moderation, Tariq Ramadan.

Ramadan, of course, was the subject of an essay by Ian Buruma and is the subject of heated argument by Western “intellectuals.” Buruma and Timothy Garton Ash are Hirsi Ali’s fiercest critics, having attacked her as an “Enlightenment fundamentalist,” suggesting that she, who exposes the brutality committed worldwide in the name of Islam, is no better than the brutes who rule over their people through intimidation and violence.

Is anyone surprised that Ayaan Hirsi Ali