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.

"Pluralistic" Aga Khan Dedicates Ismaili Centre to Islamic Art

Canadian citizenship is for the giving and the taking. Conrad Black is a recent (ex) Canadian who gave away his citizenship to become a British Lord. Then he wanted it back when he faced jail time in the United States. He is still in a U.S. jail.

The Ismaili philanthropist Aga Khan, who is the current Imam of the Ismaili Muslims, recently received an honorary Canadian citizenship. Partly, it is to honor his activities around the world, where he says he advocates for pluralism, tolerance and equality. "You sound like a Canadian" declared Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper while bestowing the citizenship.

The other reason for the honorary citizenship is to commemorate his "gift" to Canada in the form of a multi-million dollar Ismaili Centre in Toronto. There is nothing pluralistic, tolerant or equal about this center. It is simply and clearly an Ismaili Centre. Aga Khan stresses that the centre will be dedicated to Islamic art.

Imagine a situation where a Canadian philanthropist were to be given an honorary citizenship in a non-Western country. Say it is a Muslim country, since despite their insistence that they are the most moderate of the moderate Muslims, Ismailis are still Muslims (note the dedication to Islamic art for the center in Toronto). True to his Canadian nature, this Canadian philanthropist would genuinely build a pluralistic centre, praising the wonderful multicultural country he comes from. Forget about him promoting a center so culturally specific that it would be "dedicated to Christian art." The only religion this Canadian would promote is Multiculturalism. And this would suit his hosts fine, since no Muslim country would allow any kind of dedication to Christianity anyway.

Harper's liberalism bypasses all these realities to yet again let another intolerant (naturally it's exclusive) group set up shop in Canada, benefiting from the generous Multicultural Policy, and weakening whatever is left of the true, traditional Canadian culture. The Aga Khan looks like a nice guy, and at some point he must wonder at this strange cultureless country, where anything and anyone is welcome.

I Take it All Back - On "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day"

Ezra Levant exposed the Muslim bully 
tactics when he published this cartoon 
by Kurt Westergaard in his magazine the 
Western Standard. Levant later went through 
three years of Human Rights Commissions 
abuses (including financial loss), before he won the case - 
or more like, the case was dropped by 
the Muslim complainant.

A couple of days ago, I posted some negative comments about the "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day." My point was: Why should we engage in adolescent-style behavior by antagonizing Muslims, when we could work on some serious strategic issues.

Then, it hit me yesterday that if every Facebook, every blog, every pundit published a drawing each, what could Muslims do? Stage World War III? We are in fact reducing their behavior to absurdity. It's not even, "Come and get us," although that could happen later. What we are saying is, "This is our land, our civilization, our culture, so just shut up."

I imagined, in this moment of lucidity, that for every mosque that comes up, we could send a peel of church bells on a daily, regular basis, so that Muslims will feel so accosted that they cannot build, let alone pray, in those edifices. Reactionary aggression can sometimes be a good thing. Bullies, which is what I think Muslims are, often break down when they realize their target isn't just going to take it sitting down anymore.

Arab Mannerisms

(Cross-posted at Camera Lucida)




Here is a short video of Rima Fakih, the now reigning Miss USA, being interviewed on Regis and Kelley. In this segment, Fakih is defending her pole dancing photos. This is a very preliminary analysis, and I'm doing it purely in an intuitive way. But, there is something unfamiliar about Fakih's mannerism. She doesn't have black or Hispanic behavior. She acts mildly aggressive (assertive?) with a lot of hand movements. Even her smile puts on harsh elements at times. Normal talk seems to be an exercise in emphatic discussion. Her charm also entails an element of aggression. Maybe she's just nervous about the pole dancing exposure. It will be interesting to see how she performs on her Miss USA duties, after all this "controversy" has died down.

Still, here is yet another mannerism we have to learn and adapt to.

Swedish Cartoonist's Home is Set on Fire

Yet another Scandinavian cartoonist is under attack by Muslims. Lars Vilks’ cartoons depict Mohammad as a dog - the most reviled creature (after pigs?) in Islamic culture. First he was attacked during a speech he made at Uppsala University. Then, there was an arson attack on his home a couple of days ago.

Lars Hedegaard, President of the International Free Press Society says (via Diana West's blog):

How was possible for these murderers to gain access to Vilks' house only a few days after a mob assaulted him at Uppsala University? What are the Swedish police and political class up to? As far as I know not a single Swedish politician has had a word to say about the attack in Uppsala. Is the truth that Swedish power-holders prefer to see Vilks killed in order to send a message to other critics of the Swedish multicultural idyll?

Now is the time to demonstrate practical solidarity. We can all do that by purchasing the drawing [below] his would-be murderers are so angry about.

As Mr. Hedegaard articulates, it is atrocious that no Swedish politician mentioned this incident. Yet, he and other counter-jihad writers*, including James Cohen at the International Free Press Society, suggest a public drawing spree of cartoons in defiance of Muslims' blasphemy beliefs. Then selling these cartoons, or wearing them (on t-shirts) in public.

No one suggests that more important than performing short-lived rebellious acts (against Muslims?!), is the strategy to remove Muslims from Western society, so we don't have to periodically live through these kinds of incidents.

I understand what I am suggesting is beyond the "practical solidarity" about which Mr. Hedegaard writes, but surely bringing it up is a step in the right direction? Simply attacking Muslims on our turf, is a never-ending exercise. Muslims will never tire of this tactic, which is in fact part of their long-term strategy to wear us out, so that we slowly accommodate their demands, and make our countries more hospitable for them.

* The diligent counter-jihad blog Gates of Vienna proposes a similar solution. I suspect the take on the incident is similar throughout the blogosphere.Yes, it is [1,2, etc.].

Conversations with a "Moderate Muslim"

Allan Greg hosts half hour interviews with notable members of the public. Recently, he interviewed Globe and Mail writer Sheema Khan about her life in Canada. Greg was infinitely respectful towards Khan, who calls herself  "A Canadian Hockey Mom," while permanently wearing her hijab. She talked about her children's integration in Canadian culture, and her unabashed support for her adoptive country.

Things got interesting near the end of the interview when Khan carefully said that one of the ways for Muslims to live peacefully in Canada is to carve their own Muslim place in the country. Greg didn't even blink an eye, let alone ask her to expand on this statement. She is simply saying that the best possible life in Canada for Muslims like her is if they live apart as Muslims. So much for moderate Muslims, and there goes the "integration" she talks so eloquently about.

What Exactly do "Moderate Muslims" Believe?

Here is a quote from "The Battle for Islam" by Andrew McCarthy at The Corner. It is also discussed at the View from the Right.

The most frustrating thing about "moderate Islam" is that no one seems to be able to say what it entails. The so called "radicals" tell us exactly what they believe and (accurately) cite chapter and verse in the scriptures. The moderates never persuasively refute the radicals — they just say the radicals are too "extreme." This doesn't come close to making the case that the radicals have Islam wrong. If your goal is to persuade other Muslims — and everyone seems to agree that only Islam can settle its internal divisions — that's the case that has to be made.