Well, Ayaan Hirsi spoke at Yale two days ago, and the Apocalypse didn’t happen. Here’s an account of what she said from the Yale Daily News:
The talk was attended by over 300 individuals, with lines to enter the auditorium stretching more than a block. While the MSA [Muslim Students’ Association] did not organize any formal demonstration during the actual event, the organization did maintain a booth outside of the lecture hall with educational leaflets about Islam.
During her speech, Hirsi Ali reiterated her views on the religion in which she was raised, focusing on her childhood and adolescence in a Muslim community in Somalia. She said she believes her experiences are relevant to the current state of Islam, which she described as violent, intolerant and in need of reform.
Growing up, Hirsi Ali said religious teachers taught her the duties of being a Muslim, such as worshipping Allah, telling the truth, looking after those in need and being obedient and modest. She said in her community, those who neglected their religious duties were never ostracized or attacked, but rather were “left alone” or “nudged gently” at most.
When she was 15, Hirsi Ali said she encountered a different kind of religious teacher — whom she referred to as a “Preacher Teacher” — who encouraged youths to enforce the religious duty of Islam and wage jihad against those who did not obey. Witnessing this process of “indoctrination,” she said, makes her statements relevant to Islam today.
Hirsi Ali added that this “indoctrination” is at the source of radical Islam and leads to intolerance and violence. Therefore, she said, in order to fight the symptoms of radical Islam, the “core creed” of Islam — the Qur’an and hadith — must be reformed. Hirsi Ali called on Muslims to listen to their consciences and stand up to Allah, rather than bending to his will.
Hirsi Ali repeated many times that the western world acts with “restraint” when dealing with conflicts of Islamic terrorism and radical groups.
“The clash is there, but what we follow up with is restraint. And restraint is what we’ve been showing for the last 30 years,” Hirsi Ali said to the audience.
Although she said she did not blame U.S. President Barack Obama for his reservations in handling situations such as the current rise of ISIS, she also spoke in favor of perceiving her former religion as “one Islam” whose core creed involves complete submission to Allah, the Islamic god that she previously deemed “fire-breathing.”
The MSA’s campus-wide letter last week announced the group’s worries over Hirsi Ali’s talk and brought attention to her history of anti-Islamic statements.
Hirsi Ali directly addressed the MSA during her speech, asking why the organization took the time and resources to “silence the reformers and dissidents of Islam,” including herself, rather than fighting against the violence, intolerance and indoctrination Hirsi Ali associates with Islam.
Good question!
“MSA students of Yale, you live at a time when Muslims are at a crossroads,” she said. “The Muslim world is on fire and those fanning the fire are using more creed. With every atrocity [they underscore] your commitment to Allah … Will you submit passively or actively, or will you finally stand up to Allah?”
Hirsi Ali also responded to the MSA’s critique of her lack of academic credentials by saying that even scholars with substantial credentials who have criticized Islam have been “bullied into silence.”
Unfortunately, those who opposed her, and said that urgent counter-speech (favorable to Islam) was needed, were too afraid to say anything.
The MSA declined to comment, pointing instead to previous statements made in the email to students, which articulated concern and disappointment over Hirsi Ali’s invitation, but ultimately conveyed hope that the discussion would be constructive and respectful.
Still, individual Muslim students interviewed expressed a variety of reactions to Hirsi Ali’s talk, but declined to attribute their names out of fear of retribution. Some said Hirsi Ali’s presence made them feel uncomfortable being on campus, and others felt that Hirsi Ali’s talk invalidated their experiences as Muslims.
Irony of the year: “Fear of retribution?” What are they talking about? The person who has real fear of retribution is the person whose talk they were opposing. I doubt that the members of the Muslim Students’ Association at Yale need bodyguards. And have they asked themselves why, if Islam is so peaceful, that Hiri Ali needs bodyguards?
As for “invaliding their experiences as Muslims,” that’s just postmodern doublespeak. Their experiences are theirs, and hers are hers. What they mean is that she got to talk and they didn’t. Well, as far as I know the members of the MSA can write or say anything they want about their experiences—that is, they would if they weren’t so afraid of retribution! I guess their experiences will have to remain “invalidated.”
At least one Yale student wasn’t afraid, though:
Other audience members interviewed have been impressed with Hirsi Ali and the contents of her lecture.
Judith Liebmann GRD ’69 praised Hirsi Ali for her bravery in speaking about these problems, as effectively as her previous traumatic experiences.
“She is an amazingly gentle particular person … with a courageousness that’s incomprehensible to me,” Liebmann explained, adding that she had been disturbed by the fact that students voiced opposition to Hirsi Ali’s speak.
Wow. One wonders if some of the attendees liked the talk and agreed with her, and the fear they’re talking about is fear that their own Yale community will shun them if the admit it.
****
Off-topic, but the USAF has just changed their policy to make the “so help me God” part of the oath optional (all all the other services do, and as the AF itself did until some idiot changed it).
Here’s the announcement:
http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/497535/af-to-change-instructions-for-oaths.aspx
The same thought occurred to me, too.
b&
I imagine in some communities even admitting that one *attended* might be difficult.
RE: The USAF oath.
This was a no-brainer, since they were being sued and the mandatory oath was in direct violation of Article VI, paragraph 3 of the US Constitution (and the Establishment Clause also). It would have been quite an embarrassment for the Air Force to lose such a case. I personally feel that the god stuff should not even be optional, as choosing the “no god” option can still be detrimental to your career due to the christianification of the US Air Force over the past decade or so. But, oh well…it’s a move in the right direction.
I agree. I figured USAF leadership would simply enact a policy change before it ever got to court. However, I thought the announcement would still be of interest, even if it was entirely expected.
“Wow. One wonders if some of the attendees liked the talk and agreed with her, and the fear they’re talking about is fear that their own Yale community will shun them if the admit it.”
Yes, that’s exactly what they mean. There are plenty of Muslims who will agree with at least part of what someone like Hirsi Ali says. There are very few who will admit that publicly. Anything other than the party line will render them persona non grata in the community. It won’t get them death threats (not at a place like Yale) but I think Jerry was to quick to dismiss this fear of retribution. Hirsi Ali is not the only one being censored. Any Muslim who might agree with anything she has to say is being pre-emptively censored.
Unbelievable. Well, actually… totally believable. Standard issue, really.
I found that mention of invalidating their experiences weird too. How can anyone do that?
The feeling afraid was also weird since it seems holding opposing and sometimes hostile opinions to Hirsi Ali is the majority thing to do.
I suppose it’s the same thought process that leads whackadoodles to say gay marriage has some sort of effect on heterosexual marriage. The basis is, of course, narcissism/ego-centrism (which, also of course, goes hand in hand with religion).
I think “invalidating their experiences” here roughly translates into “said upsetting things about a group that I belong to and for which I have pleasant thoughts and feelings.”
It’s their opaque, faux-academic way of saying “I’m one of those people you’re talking about, and we aren’t all like that!”
This is what always stuns me-in the scenes of crowds watching/carrying out stonings, executions, etc., or in the wide & casual acceptance of cruelty and brutality to women–how can so many people lack consciences? Did they all miss out on mirror neurons, or what?
Primal fear and institutionalized dehumanization.
People in a mob behave like sheep
Alas, I’ve felt the same way about people in some American assemblies. People get pretty scary in mob-mind.
“called on Muslims to listen to their consciences”
Well that’s hate speech right there!
I think you are being somewhat optimistic about human nature. I would guess that our instincts towards tribalism and obedience to authority are probably as strong or stronger than our instincts towards general altruism. Consider Pinker’s Better Angels: it’s really great that (in most countries) violence per capita is orders of magnitude lower today than what it was just a couple hundred year ago. But that also means that historically speaking, the average rates of violence in human societies over the past several thousand years has been orders of magnitude higher than what you’re used to. The much higher rates are the norm: we are experiencing a historical exception.
Exactly. In (more or less) all “western” countries (Europe, N America), executions were public entertainment for a very long time.
Luckily, they got more humane over the years and then eventually went inside of prisons or ceased altogether.
But remember that this was just a couple of generations ago in many places (USA for instance) and that lynchings are a near-current (or actually current in a small number of cases) event in the US.
Organiszed terrorism was the societal norm in the US just a couple of generations ago (at least in the deep South).
Not that this excuses the brutality of Islamic nations one little bit. I’m just reminding that human nature goes there very easily (especially under the influence of religion: The Deep South was (and is) probably the most religious part of the US.)
No, actually I’m quite pessimistic about human nature. I agree with you in reserving judgment on Pinker’s conclusions for a few (or more) generations before I’d be really convinced. (If I were still around, that is.)
I guess my comment was more of a rhetorical one. I’m quite cynical about our chances of figuring out how to live globally with our tribal heritage.
“others felt that Hirsi Ali’s talk invalidated their experiences as Muslims.”
I find this statement telling and I sort of see their point. Here is someone who’s experiences and life story indicts key tenets of Islam. How does a thinking person of good conscience go back to the faith when faced with stories of the impact of it on real people?
Simple: It’s God’s will!
How does a thinking person of good conscience go back to the faith when faced with stories of the impact of it on real people?
They just rightfully asses that what she experienced is not a reflection on how they practice their faith.
Moderate muslims don’t drop Islam when presented with violent muslim extremism for the same reason a moderate Baptist isn’t going to drop Christianity when presented with the Westboro Baptist Church’s practices. They just say: those guys aren’t reflective of my faith community. And I think they are pretty well justified in saying that. Sects in a religion show wildly different practices. They vary greatly in behavior. Why should a member of one sect in a religon feel that the behavior of some other sect in the same religion reflects on them? We would strongly reject that sort of logic if it was applied to nationality: should I have given up my citizenship because of Timothy McVeigh’s act? No, that makes little to no sense, even if we share citizenship. Likewise, the fact that some other muslim mutilated Hirsi Ali in childhood is not going to be seen by moderate muslims as a good reason to renounce their faith.
This accomplishment can only be made by ignoring that the basis for belief of the sects-they-deny is equal to their own.
sub
Yesterday I read an account of the life of an American raised as a Muslim: The Terrorist’s Son: A Story of Choice. It has an interesting ending that I won’t spoil.
He also does a TED talk.
Thanks, this is great.
No reasonable person could possibly find that speech offensive. It is instead inspirational, with clear lines drawn between good and evil.
Sorry! I meant to send a report on the talk sooner. It looks like Dr. Coyne beat me to it. I pretty much agree with this summary. There was no protesting and the audience was largely supportive. I really enjoyed the talk, though I was slightly unclear on her message at times. If people are interested, I have a bunch of notes that I could synthesize into a more complete description of the talk, though it would repeat some of what’s mentioned above. The long and short of it is that she spoke freely and without violence, which made me happy.
I would be interested in your impressions, Frank.
+1, thanks!
One comment in the Yale newspaper that Dr. Coyne links to, says….(and does anyone know if this is correct?):
“The father of Abrar Omeish, the student behind this protest is Esam Omeish, a respected Virginian physician origionally from Libya, who was forced to resign from the Virginia Commission on Immigration after a secret recording of him telling a muslim audience “you have known that the Jihad was is the way to liberate your land.”
Omeish was also the Vice President of the Dar Al-Hijrah mosque where he hired Imam Anwar Al Awlaki “a senior al-Queda recruiter and motivator linked to various terrorists, including three 9/11 highjackers. the accused Fort Hood Shooter, ad the accused Christmas Day 2009 bomber.”
Wow, pretty intriguing. If true, I wonder if Yale knew about this background before admitting the student?
This type of scenario is much more common than people realize. Respected members of the community, seemingly integrated into Western society, professionally successful, non-violent and yet they rub elbows with extremists and/or hold extremists views.
The reality is that extremist ideology is not alien to mainstream Islam. We need to stop confusing non-violence with moderation.
By coincidence, I just happened across a short essay that Hitchens wrote for Slate on the reaction of some intellectuals to Ayaan Hirsi Ali book, where he made some of the same points. Interested readers can find it on the Slate web site, under the title “She’s No Fundamentalist” (March 5, 2007).
The Muslim Students Association National hosted “Israeli Apartheid Week” (what some are referring to ‘Hitler Youth Week’) at campuses around the world this past March.
At UC San Diego, American arch conservative David Horowitz spoke against this MSA program, and was confronted by a member of the MSA in the Q&A.
Now, this is just one member of the MSA, and she may not be representative, but what she says is described as “chilling”:
Churchill’s Speech on Islam, 1899
HERE IS HIS SPEECH:
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”