All About Ayaan

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the most famous Muslim-turned-atheist, is doing the rounds to promote her new book Nomad. Initially, she had planned to write a philosophical discourse which she had decided to title Shortcuts to Enlightenment. But she abandoned this project to continue with her roster of memoirs and autobiographies, and wrote the memoir Nomad instead. I've written before that this approach is probably more financially lucrative, and anything she says will be attributed to her opinions or her "personal story" and therefore cannot be refuted by scholars or historians. Welcome, therefore, to the Ayaan Hirsi Ali franchise, replete with adultery, and family and political betrayals - she did abandoned Holland in the midst of the country's grips with the murder of its citizen Theo Van Gogh. What happens to an ex-Muslim atheist who's out of the limelight? Well, she gets forgotten and ignored. And since Ali has never been one to stay out of the limelight, she seems always to have a dramatic comeback.

What is interesting about this new book, whose pages are filled with steamy family portraits and provocative chapters like "School and Sexuality," is its subtitle: From Islam to America: A Personal Journey Through the Clash of Civilizations. As usual with Ali, everything is about her. Wafa Sultan, another former Muslim, and much less egotistical, is the one who alluded to the phrase "clash of civilizations." But Sultan, in her wisdom and understanding, claims that there is no clash of civilization, but a clash between the backward Islam and the civilized Christian West. Here is her elaborate explanation: 

The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions or a clash of civilizations...It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality.

Ali, in her supreme self-centeredness, cannot see through this description. After all, in her eyes, the clash is not between these two opposites, as Sultan explains, but between her (Ali) and the rest of the world. In fact, she has now decided that she, in her lofty conclusions, will clash with the very element that has made the West a formidable foe to Islam; she will fight Christianity.

That was what came across in her interview (or promotional stop) at the Colbert Report. Here is the video of the interaction. At one point, Colbert, the liberal, refuses to accept Ali demonizing Islam. But, perhaps he is less of a liberal than he makes out (TV shows are notoriously left-leaning, and he has to "play the game" to keep the ratings up). What Colbert does, unprecedented in other shows and interviews I've watched, is to invite Ali to Christianity, after having made her admit that she's an atheist. Partly, I think it is his way of telling her to put her money where her mouth is, since she is telling Christians to proselytize to Muslims, and get them to convert to the "better religion" Christianity.

At this point, Ali goes all out in mocking Christianity, which she has no intention whatsoever of joining. She makes fun of the Eucharist, brushes aside the notion of hell in Christian theology, and denounces Jesus Christ, saying she prefers the Enlightenment philosophers to him. Colbert did keep pushing her (in the guise of talk-show humor) until she reached this vocal and hostile condemnation.

Another revealing moment in the show was when Colbert asked her if she is now a Westerner. Her answer was, "I'm becoming one." After close to two decades in the West, including holding important political positions in a Western democracy (the Netherlands), what is there to work out? A forthright, "Yes I am a Westerner" would have been a welcome answer.

What makes Ali undermine Christianity so confidently ? Well, on the front cover of her new book, there is an endorsement by none other than the high priest of atheism, Richard Dawkins himself, who wrote, "This woman is a major hero of our times." And riding on the boldness that other atheists like Christopher Hitchens display, Ali has no qualms about publicly disclosing her religious (non) affiliations.

I wonder how Ali will be received in America? I get the feeling she will just circulate around the neo-cons and right liberal elites, writing her articles and possibly throwing out a book or two for the liberal vultures who love seedy stories about Third World "victims." I suspect she will get quite wealthy in the process. America, though, is not the "progressive" Europe. Religion in America hasn't been abandoned, and Christianity still informs the lives of the majority of Americans.

Ali also has her AHA foundation to promote and upkeep. Perhaps that's why she was hesitant to proclaim her uncontested Western affiliation; her foundation's primary concern is the defense of Muslim women abused by the Islamic culture and religion.

Finally, this is neither here nor there (perhaps - although I do hold a strong attachment to physical appearances), but Ali looks like she's lost quite a bit of weight. Her sordid personal life; living in a country that is not as liberal or religious-free as Europe; and resorting to the lowest denominator to promote her thoughts (writing a memoir rather than the philosophical discourse she had originally planned), must be taking their toll.

Christine Williams: Model Immigrant

Christine Williams hosts the popular current affairs show On the Line. She could be the female Michael Coren, since she doesn't shy away from unpopular topics, and is one of the few television hosts in Canada who is leans more to the right. I don't use "leans more to the right" lightly, because she is a moderate on many issues. Like Coren, she takes special care to cover all the grounds, and often defends many of the non-right issues in Canada in a, well, right angle.

For example, she has clearly stated that she believes the problem with Islam is that it has adherents who prefer to enact its more violent messages. Hence her insistence that it is the radical elements of Islam that are the problem, and not Islam itself. She has actually described jihadists as psychopaths and not as what they really are: the vanguard of Muslim society who are fulfilling their religion's commands through violent means.

She discusses multiculturalism extensively on her show. Her view is that since Canada is now inevitably a multi-ethnic society, there is no choice but to deal with it through multiculturalism, or more precisely, through generalized respect for all cultures. This implies that she is sympathetic to some multicultural policies. She still supports, and believes in, assimilation. But, she has outdated or incorrect data about the assimilation of nonwhite immigrants. Children of immigrants from non-European countries repeatedly say that they feel less assimilated than their immigrant parents. Immigrants of different cultures are having a difficult time relating with each other let alone with the culture at large. More and more immigrant and ethnic ghettos are cropping up in major Canadian cities. These are the kinds of facts that Williams should have at the tips of her fingers. Otherwise, she is simply be building a "wishful thinking" scenario, and deluding her public in the process.

Williams is interviewed here [two-part video], providing many insights into what formed her character. She came to Canada from Trinidad as a four-year-old, and spent difficult years growing up. Her parents often shuffled her back and forth between Canada and Trinidad as they adjusted to their adoptive country. Eventually, through rebellions and then conversion to Christianity, she became one of the model immigrants in Canadian society.

But, there are a few strange elements in her life too. The most outstanding is that her parents' lifestyle in Canada was initially dramatically inferior to that in Trinidad. By her account, they seemed to have been respected members of Trinidadian society, and perhaps even relatively wealthy. It took them many years to adjust to Canada, but they persisted until they achieved some success.

Another piece of information she provides in her interview is that despite having been in Canada since she was four, she never dissociated herself totally from Trinidad. She went back and forth to Trinidad regularly, sent by her parents as a child, and later on as an adult of her own free will. It was at one of those trips as an adult that she met her Trinidadian husband, who joined her in Canada. Twenty years later, they have two children in their teens. Are these the kinds of children of immigrants that I discussed above who feel less Canadian than their immigrant parents? Quite possibly.

I always wonder about people like Williams and her parents. The parents caused their daughters (Williams has a sister) a lot of anguish while growing up due to their stubborn insistence to "make it" in Canada. Williams herself is either delusional about the realities of non-Western immigrants in Canada, or she is being disingenuous, and ignoring important data about immigrants and assimilation (or lack thereof).

Ultimately, Williams comes off as a semi-advocate of multicultural policies, of the "lets all assimilate, but respect each others cultures" variety. I think this is is her way of reconciling her Trinidadian background with her Canadian reality. So, perhaps unconsciously, she wants it both ways. She is certainly holding two contradictory views: supporting a multi-ethnic, and by extension a multicultural, Canada; and promoting immigrant assimilation through Canadian "values" and "culture."

Harboring multicultural sentiments can be pernicious, such as respecting Muslims, and only reining in on the violent (jihad) and stealth (sharia) activities they exhibit. These, according to Williams, are only practiced by a radical handful. The rest, like all other nonwhite immigrants in Canada, and just like her and her family, simply wish to assimilate and become "Canadian." But the reality shows otherwise.

I wonder if people like Williams, successful, and by all appearances assimilated immigrants, have ever thought of going back to their countries of origin? There seems to be a subtle disconnect within even the well-intentioned non-Western immigrants like her, who get pulled into contradictory statements as they try to work out their place in Canadian society. Surely Williams would have a much easier time in Trinidad. After all, she followed her roots by marrying a Trinidadian man. And by all accounts, her children are less likely to feel Canadian, and more likely to accept their "differences" than she is (or can). She can be at least honest (although she is certainly very genuine, and her problem is lack of systematic thought on the subject) and say: "I am different, and I am leaning on multiculturalism, ethnic diversity and the wonderful smorgasbord that is Canada to allow me to live comfortably in Canada."

If this is how I assess Williams, then what about all those who adamantly do not wish to assimilate, and who fight to change Canadian society to fit their needs by unequivocally supporting the policies of multiculturalism? These are the ones that really need to go back, to their familiar societies, which do not require any radical changes in order for them to feel "at home."

What a concept! I haven't heard anyone argue about solving the multicultural disaster this way. So, it is time for concerned citizens like Christine Williams, and Salim Manur who wrote about the pernicious effects of multiculturalism here, to reassess themselves and their solutions.