Well, if there’s anything that this interview of Ayaan Hirsi Ali on Monday’s Daily Show proves, it’s that Jon Stewart is no Bill Maher. As you’ll see from the 20-minute interview (click on the screenshot below to see the video), Stewart basically does everything he can to argue that Islam is no different in principle from any other religion, that all religions did bad stuff in the past before they were “reformed,” and, indeed, that religion isn’t the cause of violence or bad stuff at all.
Have a listen:
Doesn’t Stewart sound like Ben Affleck when the latter defended Islam on Bill Maher’s show?
First of all, Stewart’s claim that all religions are the same, since all of them went through a period like Muslims are experiencing now, is just wrong. Jains didn’t, Jews didn’t, Quakers didn’t, the Amish didn’t, and Unitarian Universalists didn’t. The fact is that some religions inspire more violence than others. Period.
In addition, Christianity, contra Stewart, wasn’t “reformed” during the Reformation: it was changed. People were still killed for apostasy, and there were extremely intolerant forms of Protestantism. The real “reformation” happened when the Enlightenment infused religion with secular values. As Hirsi Ali points out, those values are easily accessible now to Muslims through the power of communication and the Internet.
And though Stewart seems to think that we simply need to sit back and wait a few hundred years till Islam is reformed, we don’t have time for that. We live in a world of nuclear weapons and unparalleled means of destruction, not excluding flying airplanes into buildings.
Stewart also errs, I think, in claiming that Islam gets a bad rap because its message has been taken over by a group of “radicals.” That’s not the sole problem: the problem is also that those radicals have a lot of sympathy from more moderate Muslims, as many surveys show (e.g., this one). Further, Muslims have adopted the canny and effective tactic of being offended—or pretending to be offended—when their faith is criticized, thus enlisting sympathy from Westerners who try to give the “underdog” a break (as if ISIS was an underdog!).
Finally, at 19:00, Stewart makes the unsupported claim that religion has nothing to do with this violence: that people would just find some other excuse to kill and terrorize even in a faithless world. I reject that claim because so much of the violence we see has an explicitly religious basis, such as the enmity between Sunnis and Shiites. Since both groups have the same ethnic and cultural background, and the only reason they have to kill each other is because they differ on who the true heads of Islam should be. Would the Holocaust have happened in a world without faith, a world where you couldn’t hate Jews as “Christ killers” because neither Jews nor Christians existed? I think not. You can think of many other examples.
I’ve focused on Stewart because I was so disappointed in his performance here: not only in his apologetic about religion, but in his failure to lead an informative discussion and to let Hirsi Ali express her thoughts without Stewart relentlessly driving the conversation back into politically correct territory.
Hirsi Ali in fact was there to talk about her new book (see below), which is doing quite well, ranking #33 on Amazon today. It’s apparently a road map to reform Islam; as the Amazon notes say:
Today, she argues, the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims can be divided into a minority of extremists, a majority of observant but peaceable Muslims and a few dissidents who risk their lives by questioning their own religion. But there is only one Islam and, as Hirsi Ali shows, there is no denying that some of its key teachings—not least the duty to wage holy war—are incompatible with the values of a free society.
For centuries it has seemed as if Islam is immune to change. But Hirsi Ali has come to believe that a Muslim Reformation—a revision of Islamic doctrine aimed at reconciling the religion with modernity—is now at hand, and may even have begun. The Arab Spring may now seem like a political failure. But its challenge to traditional authority revealed a new readiness—not least by Muslim women—to think freely and to speak out.
Courageously challenging the jihadists, she identifies five key amendments to Islamic doctrine that Muslims have to make to bring their religion out of the seventh century and into the twenty-first.
Hirsi Ali enumerates those five “amendments” at 9:36 in the video, and says that if Islam is to reform, that must come from the bottom up rather from the top down—from the clerics and imams. I think she’s right, but progress seems slow, for social pressure to conform is strong, and in today’s world, the Qur’an is taken far more literally than is the Bible.
I’m not sure why so many atheists dislike Hirsi Ali, who I see as a thoughtful and immensely brave woman. They don’t like the place she worked because it was a conservative think tank (the only place that would hire her, and she’s no longer there anyway); they don’t like the controversial views of her husband (why is that even relevant?); they don’t like the strong statements she’s made about Islam (those who criticize her secretly sympathize with Muslims much more than they do with other believers). I think the interview will give you an idea of the woman’s mettle.
Here’s her new book, which came out yesterday; click on the cover to go to the Amazon page. I’ll be reading it for sure.
h/t: Merilee
I agree with all of the above, except your disappointment in Stewart. “relentlessly driving the conversation back into politically correct territory” is a succinct summary of his entire career, and I expect nothing else now.
As for the hostility towards this brave woman. Hirsi Ali brings to the fore the hypocrisy of many self-professed liberals by forcing them to confront head on a stark criticism of another culture. Those truly committed to liberal values — which includes much of the American right by the way — have the gumption to do this. Those who are only using liberalism as a group membership signal often balk. And then they seek a pretext to reject the messenger. I have long known which group Stewart courts.
I don’t know about your first paragraph because I rarely watch Jon Stewart, and from NZ, I can’t access the interviews on line.
But I agree wholeheartedly with your second paragraph. It’s a situation that annoys me intensely. It’s Islamophobia-phobia. They’re so scared of being accused of Islamophobia, they give the religion a pass when it comes to its attitude to and treatment of women, LGBT people, anyone who calls for reform (e.g. Hirsi Ali, Badawi, Namazie, Nawaz), and apostates.
Heather, I’m in Australia and usually have the same problem accessing Dail Show clips. I saw the interview here OK, for some reason.
http://atlantablackstar.com/2015/03/25/jon-stewart-schools-this-author-on-how-christianity-has-a-violent-history-just-like-other-religions/
Ayaan is one of my heroes, but I think she was rattled by Stewart. I agree with what you’ve said about Islamophobia-phobia, I think that was exactly Stewart’s motivation. But he’s (perhaps because he hasn’t read the actual book) attacking more the title than her desire to reform Islam,and his point about The Reformation is correct.
Thanks for the link. That didn’t seem to go so badly at all. Was this the full interview? Anyway, Jon seemed to have been bending over backwards to be PC and lost a golden opportunity to hear more about the 5 key points. So I guess we gotta buy the book.
Drats, that wasn’t the full interview, just a clip.
(…or was it? It’s all I could find that would play here. PCC referred to a 20-minute interview.)
British viewers can see the interview from this link.
http://www.comedycentral.co.uk/the-daily-show/videos/exclusive-extended-interview-with-ayaan-hirsi-ali
Allele akhbar. x
Though I mostly agree with you, I disagree with this:
“Stewart’s claim that all religions are the same, since all of them went through a period like Muslims are experiencing now, is just wrong. Jains didn’t, Jews didn’t, Quakers didn’t, the Amish didn’t, and Unitarian Universalists didn’t.”
If one goes back far enough most recently-diverged sects of Christianity (including Amish and Quakers) and the different Jewish traditions are rooted in blood. The Quakers and Amish split off from Christians a couple of centuries after the Crusades (“Holy Wars” not too different from the Jihad). The Jews, by their own account, committed genocide on a wide scale and also killed each other for not being sufficiently strict.
I think it is always worth pointing out to Christians that their own Holy Book is just as filled with god-ordered atrocities and extremism as the Quran.
Granted, it matters a lot that the main religion which STILL acts this way is Islam.
I suppose there would be no blood in the ancestry of a sect of Christianity that disavowed the OT and diverged from the main branch of Christianity BEFORE that main branch got power. But I don’t know of any such sect.
Marcionites (2nd century) for one – and probably extremely widespread especially in Asia Minor: they lost out to the proto-orthodox. Marcion produced the first canon of the NT: Luke’s gospel and 10 Pauline epistles. The Diatessaron, our 4 gospels, was put forward as the proto-orthodox canon in response.
But if you theologically break with the OT as an early Christian, there is the possibility that you would be even more anti-Semitic. Then again, if you disavow your Judaistic roots why concern yourself with Jewish thought? I think the jury is out on Marcionite anti-semitism. x
Yeah, the Hasmoneans really were an Islamic State of their day.
Are you taking the Old Testament as (pardon the pun) gospel truth here? And are you claiming that all religions are precisely equal in the amount of violence they commit? Finally, you can’t make a credible argument that Quakerism, because it split from Christianity, is as bad as the worst forms of Christianity. That just doesn’t make sense given Quakerism’s explicitly nonviolent tenets.
I notice you didn’t mention the Jains. . .
No, my argument was not that all religions are currently equally bad. My argument was that all the sects I mentioned, specifically the Jewish and Christian sects, not Jains, evolved from bloody ones.
Also, of course I don’t take the OT as gospel truth, but it was written by the Israelites themselves, not by third parties, so it is fair to think that at that early stage in their history, they approved and admired the exploits described, even if the events didn’t happen as stated.
And both the Unitarians and the Universalists were originally Christians (post reformation), of very very strange sorts – much as Quakers sort of were. Now no, in general …
I had a similar reaction. Disappointed but not surprised.
Me too. Stewart’s great but he’s not a saint. Generally I much prefer him to Maher, though.
It’s funny how so many liberals claim that they are for the emancipation of women from religion in general and Islam specifically but as soon as they encounter a former Muslim who happens to be a dark skinned woman who fearlessly speaks her mind they demonstrate what utter contempt they have for this demographic.
It’s the bigotry of low expectations at work and it is the logical outcome of not holding Muslims to the same standard of behaviour expected of others.
The corollary to excusing bad behaviour in a group of people is to believe that none of their ideas have any worth.
Nothing to add, except well said!
I agree, well done.
Funny how I got grief the other day for expressing something like this. I will grant that I used thee term feminist rather than liberal.
Liberal and feminist don’t seem to mean what I thought they mean. I thought they were on the side of individual liberty and freedom to take one’s own path.
Everything seems to be corrupted when it touches religion or politics.
I say we cling desperately to traditional definitions of liberal and feminist and hope the pomo relativistic narcissists die a natural death.
Hear, hear!
I think I can go along with that.
Bigotry of low expectations.
EXACTLY the problem, not only here but in a number of ‘liberal ‘ positions.
I will add to the chorus. Well said!
They make arguments such as:
“Always listen to women”
“Always listen to the most oppressed”
etc etc
Yet, when the most oppressed do speak, they are told to stfu and accused of being bigots because they refuse to follow the party line.
Ideology, the narrative that they are pushing, comes before *actually* helping the oppressed.
It’s about convincing themselves, and the world, that they are ‘good people’, F$%K actually, truly, helping someone.
It’s all one big ego trip, as far as I am concerned.
I really can’t stand these people.
Reminds me of one funny thing Rush Limbaugh once said (possibly the only thing). In remarks about the latest ribbon-for-a-cause that celebrities were then wearing, he said:
“And of course, we all know what that means. It means, ‘I care….more than you do.'”
“And of course, we all know what that means. It means, ‘I care….more than you do.’”
Exactly Diane G. Exactly.
In fact, didn’t PCC, or someone in comments, recently post a quote about how the fanatical mind operates? About how proving one’s devotion overrides all other concerns?
Makes me think of the Orthodox Jewish men on that flight who refused to sit next to women. If it had been just one man, I doubt that he would have necessarily made such a fuss, but, since it was a whole troop of them, they each had to prove who was more pious to the rest of the group.
Yes, I believe someone did post that, and my memory’s equally as blank about who & where. Well, the message was the point.
And I agree about the Orthodox Jews. Perhaps we need to start calling the SJWs Orthodox Twits or something.
Women veiling themselves is anger example. It often is a “I’m holier than you” thing. I had a friend who would get pissed off about this.
I’ve been told that if I ever go fishing with two Baptists, I’ll get to keep all my beer for myself. But if I bring one Baptist friend along, he’ll probably drink more than his share.
Luckily, I don’t fish!
That’s funny!
Completely agree re the bigotry of low expectations. But there may be another reason why some atheists and liberals dislike/disavow Hirsi Ali. She makes them uncomfortable; a dark-skinned woman who clearly doesn’t fit their preconceptions about what her views should be, and is very articulate and forthright about her own. I think her a noble and heroic figure.
Agreed 100%.
Personally, I greatly admire Ms Ali for her utter fearlessness. This new book looks very intriguing, & is on my list.
Prof CC, I am pleased to see you address Stewart’s error, & draw a firm distinction between the Reformation & the later Enlightenment.
I find myself continually surprised by the number of people — including more than a few atheists — who, like Stewart, believe that late 15th–18th century Protestantism was a thoroughly ‘progressive’ movement which never persecuted dissenters or scientists, etc. Some of religion’s worst atrocities were perpetrated by pre-Enlightenment Protestants. Although generally far better informed than most, a certain subset of secularists need to work on improving their historical literacy. (In fairness, this might be partially our (i.e. humanities scholars’) fault).
I watched that episode the other night. She was great! I will definitely be picking up a copy of her new book.
What a frustrating interview! I couldn’t understand why Stewart kept reiterating his points about the protestant reformation and its search for a purer form of Christianity. Obviously that’s not what Hirsi Ali means when she’s talking about an Islamic reformation, which will need to be one infused with secular values.
And I also wonder what is Stewart’s view on what should happen? Is his view that a reformation isn’t necessary, or that it is and will take hundreds of years? Like you say, in the modern world we can’t wait that long.
I think it’s partly superficial: Gasp she worked for the AEI! And partly what you refer to as liberal support for the perceived underdog or victim. And her view that Islamists are largely motivated by religion. It’s the same dislike registered for Harris, Dawkins, etc. that comes from a subset of the left. Only with Hirsi Ali, she’s lived this stuff, making it even more compelling and in need of denial from the apologists.
That’s not the sole problem: the problem is also that those radicals have a lot of sympathy from more moderate Muslims, as many surveys show
And also the problem that if you lower the standards enough to give moderates a free ride, that’s also giving up important ground that fanatics occupy in their propaganda war.
The public square, so to speak, is the place where ISIS starts its campaign. If they are allowed to already posit unchallenged the idea that there is a God, he gives out laws that you must follow, and I can know those laws, then half the propaganda battle is lost without a word spoken against it.
You go girl! And great cover artwork.
I love the burqa motif.
Stewart is just being his normal obnoxious self in this thing. First he sucks as an interviewer. If anyone does a worse job of interview, I cannot think who.
At the very least, when he obviously knows very little, he should shut up and let the other person talk about what she showed up for. Stewart should stick to comedy and bits and get off the interview business which is nearly always a waste of the viewers time.
It is good that he is leaving.
Nailed it!
The only thing better than Stewart leaving is Stewart never having been there. I can’t think of anyone who has contributed more to the ascendancy of “oh snap” as a form of debate.
As an avid Daily Show viewer (I even attended the show live once), I’ll stand squarely in the middle on this debate. His take-downs of Faux News and hypocritical politicians are often stupendous. He should get a Pulitzer for this week’s comparison of the difference in Faux News’ response to the report largely exonerating Officer Wilson in the Michael Brown shooting, and the Congressional report largely exonerating Hillary Clinton in the Benghazi tragedy. However, Stewart is a notorious accommodationist and a terrible interviewer. His run-on questions and his habit of incessantly walking his hands back and forth across the top of his desk while he tries to formulate those questions annoys the heck out of me. No wonder the Letterman gig went to Colbert instead of Stewart.
“the problem is also that those radicals have a lot of sympathy from more moderate Muslims, as many surveys show”. That is the larger problem. Islam needs to reform from within and until there is a tipping point in tacit support, change will be hard to come by. But Jerry, please let’s continue on the all-religion-is-silly front!
Has Jon Stewart just put the blame for the lynching of a defenseless young woman accused of burning the Quran on years of colonialism?
It’s quite difficult to watch examples like this one with Jon Stewart, where intelligent people are so blinded to, or staunchly resistant to, the impact of beliefs on people’s actions. I struggle mightily to understand what the blocker is here. On a purely empirical evaluation you can’t help but accept that people’s beliefs have enormous impact on their actions. And on a purely empirical evaluation you can’t help but accept that some beliefs–any by extension, some religions–motivate and justify more violence than others. Yet, something else is at play, forcing some people to be very uncomfortable with what are relatively clear conclusions. Would love to better understand what that blocker is.
Maybe it has something to do with de river in Egypt?
The problem is that many atheists have a sentimentalism about religion from living lives with people they love who are religious. (grandparents, parents, spouses, friends)
They have lived privileged lives with “nice” religious folks. They seem unable to empathize with those who have suffered at the hands of the religious.
The “blocker” is that Islam is not simply a set of beliefs, rather it is thousands of different sets of beliefs with the same name. I hope you will consider the possibility that the conclusions are not as clear as you think.
Violence prone Islam predominantly comes from societies with enormous social strife, poverty, corruption, and poor social mobility. Speaking as a former Muslim myself, trying to change the religion is a waste of time and energy, what we need to change are the conditions in which these beliefs arise. This is why many liberals like myself find it pointless (and even a distraction) to criticize Islam, we believe that violent Islamism is a symptom and not the disease.
And yet the 9/11 hijackers and the Charlie Hebdo murderer were from well-off backgrounds, some with college educations, all had lived for some time in the West…
You mean like the UK, France, and Germany, right? Or do you mean like poverty-ridden Saudi Arabia?
And in today’s news… another downtrodden youth. By which I mean “law student son of government leader”.
But, of course, the slaughter at Garissa University really had nothing to do with religion.
Good find.
Jon Stewart (and Robert Pape and Scott Atran for that matter), if the entire Middle East were populated by Jains, we would not have this sectarian violence. It’s a simple point.
Most lay members of all major religions are morally superior to the dogmas of their founding texts. Otherwise life on earth would be unbearable.
Take an hour of your time to read the Pew Research Centre’s polls on worldwide Muslim attitudes. And there you’ll find the shocking percentages for shocking Muslim moral values. Convert the percentages into numbers and you know how pervasive illiberal ideas are in the umma.
And no, it’s not an argument to respond with the banality that humankind is violent: we already know that.
Allele akhbar. x
“And though Stewart seems to think that we simply need to sit back and wait a few hundred years till Islam is reformed, we don’t have time for that.”
Absolutely, and what I would also want to point out is that back then we didn’t have NATO, UN, Human Rights Watch groups, World Wide Web, 24/7 news networks etc. It’s ridiculous to assume that the reformation of Islam will have to take as much time as it did to reform Christianity hundreds of years ago.
I was so close yesterday, after a Catholic family member posted an Auschwitz picture with a “never again” type message, to write: “Catholics no longer referring to Jews as ‘Christ killers’ might be an important first step in ensuring that ‘never again'”. But, I chickened out & probably for good reasons of keeping some harmony. I will have my time to bring it up later! 🙂
The blanket statements that “all religions are bad” seem to be a way for us to just all get along. It’s doomed to fail because avoiding the root of the problem gets us nowhere.
“The blanket statements that “all religions are bad” seem to be a way for us to just all get along.” Yes, I have noticed this too. Although I usually hear it in the weaker form “all religions have their problems”. Which is just an awful example of smearing a platitude over a topic to end discussion. The implication is that none is bad enough to warrant urgent attention. And I hear it most just after a massacre by the adherents of one particular religion.
“But don’t you think…?”
“Shut the fuck up, John.”
“But don’t you think…?”
“Shut the fuck up, John.”
“But don’t you think…?”
“Shut the fuck up, John.”
I got to that stage sooner rather than later…
It’s almost impossible to imagine that Hirsi Ali is as brilliant and poised and unrattleable as she is, until you see her in action.
I’ve just started Heretic and it’s as compulsively readable as her previous books, something I really didn’t expect since I knew it would have less detail about her personal history and more about religio-political conflict. But every paragraph seems to have an indelible statement on one topic or another. And it’s full of facts about Islam and its history that I’ve never before heard, or thought of, that are key to understanding and bringing about an Islamic reformation.
So glad you said it for me. I didn’t want to get too radical or over the top on this, but Stewart has been doing this for a long time.
One of the great things about Johnny Carson was that he could do the interviews. Very few of them can and Stewart should not even try.
I still miss Johnny!
I agree with Jerry on this one… Stewart was a bit harsh on his interview with her.
Mr. Stewart has interviewed hundreds of authors that have put out new books on his show
does anyone know how the daily show decide which authors to interview?
Wouldn’t it be fascinating and must watch television if our own Jerry a brilliant author with a new book coming out
To appear on the daily show to discuss ithe book and evolution and religion with the host Mr. Stewart?
Jerry, would that be something you would enjoy?
Mr Stewart is a bit abrasive, but you have a calming demeanor, and the daily show has a huge following as we count down to his last daily show.
A DVR INTERVIEW FOR SURE.
I like this idea, & I’d bet that your publisher would be open to it, Prof. CC. Another possibility is John Oliver’s show. An interview with Mr. Oliver would probably be more pleasant & productive than one with Mr. Stewart, if the comments here give any indication of the latter’s usual approach. (Being in Canada, I’ve not watched the Daily Show).
If Islam is not deeply problematic how are we to explain that approximately 15% of the headlines deal with Islamic atrocities committed all around the globe? Does anybody in his right mind think that this will stop any time soon?
It’s a zionist conspiracy to make islam look bad. Just like 9/11. And ISIS.
I bet islam itself is a zionist plot to make islam look bad.
LOL!
Not Zionist, but Jewish, EvolvedDutchie. There actually is a school of thought which posits that the Hadith were deeply influenced by the Babylonian Talmudic scholars who really knew their Deuteronomy and Leviticus. The idea is that certain hadith come from the same region, only somewhat later, as the Jewish apologists. Hence the similarity in tone between the Hadith and the barbaric bits of the Torah.
Intriguing, but I’m by no means qualified to judge.
If it could be proved true, Netanyahu would have to open any negotiations with HAMAS with something like, “Call me Ishmael.” And they would have to respond in kind.
Allele akhbar. x
I don’t know much about the hadith, but I do know that the quran is a collection of jewish and christian plagiarism combined with “revelations” that conveniently served Muhammed’s short term political goals.
I would actually be surprised if some jewish stuff is in the hadith, because those writings are supposed to be about Muhammed, right?
As I say, I’m no expert. It must be at least worth considering that Zoroastrianism and Jewish exegesis influenced the Hadith as they sprang from the same area.
I understand for instance that the Quran recommends praying 3 times a day: 5 times a day comes from a hadith. And the ultimate source is Zoroastrianism. I’ve never bothered checking.
Allele akhbar. x
It would be pretty amazing if islam were not heavily influenced by zoroastrianism and judaism, not to mention nestorian christianity.
Islam is pretty clearly a mashup, just as post-Constantine Xtianity is a mashup of pre–Constantine Xtianity and Graeco-Roman religion.
“Jews didn’t”
What about when Jews destroyed the Samaritan temple just because? Or Sauducees crucifying 800 Pharisees? Or the almost 100 years of warring with the Romans (2nd temple destruction c. 70 / Kitos War / Bar kokba revolt)?
People are constantly complaining about the image of Islam in the media as violent and intolerant.
Perhaps if some notice was taken of those calling for reform there wouldn’t be so much available to feed this image.
Here are a couple of more items in the news proving that yes, religion does in fact, kill:
A JW woman refused a blood transfusion, because her faith was more important than actually living for the daughter that she had just given birth to:
http://jwsurvey.org/cedars-blog/witnesses-on-instagram-respond-to-images-of-tragic-jw-mother-who-died-refusing-blood
—————–
Phil Robertson ruminates about atheist family getting brutally raped and murdered to make point about how without God, there can only be evil:
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/phil-robertson-hypothesizes-about-atheist-family-getting-raped-and-killed
Ali’s husband is with the Hoover Institute, a conservative think tank whose views a strongly disagree with but I must (reluctantly) admit that it is (relatively speaking) the most rational of the conservative think-tanks in America. I don’t understand why people tar it with the same brush as they do more bogus institutions like the Family Research Council.
Most of this post was old news to me, but I was unaware of AHA’s husband or of any controversies around it till I read this.
One of her previous books was “Infidel” so “Heretic” is a good follow-up title.
I thought it astonishing how dense Stewart was throughout the entire interview. It was as though he wasn’t even listening to Hirsi Ali. He knew the answers that he wanted from her and when he did not get them exactly as he expected then he behaved like the proverbial dog with a bone. I don’t think he even understood what Hirsi Ali meant by a reformation in Islam. He was so hung up on the Protestant reformation as though that was what she meant in calling for Muslims to reform their religion. So, yes, he did remind me of Ben Afflect. He just does not get it. He has a particular narrative about this entire issue playing in his head and anything that doesn’t fit that narrative just doesn’t get processed.
sub
I’m not so sure that Stewart’s questioning was so wrong. Jerry is right that he’s way too PC about religion, but I don’t think that the reform-minded people from the Muslim world – believers like Zudhi Jasser and apostates like Ali – necessarily have the right idea.
Stewart is also obviously right to point out that what we call the “Reformation” was an attempt to ‘purify’ Christianity of what Luther and others thought had been the corruption of the ‘true’ Catholic Church. They declared their independence and right to go ‘solo scriptura’ (by the Scripture alone), and the result was Calvinism, an unambiguously totalitarian vision of religious life.
The version of Islam that the Islamic State is following IS the Wahhabi-Salafi kind, in which theologians have decided, like Martin Luther, that Muslims need to get back to the ‘original’ Islam, ridding it of later influences and practicing it the way the the salaf (the generations immediately following the Prophet, according to Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 76, Hadith 437). In other words, the Islamic State can be seen as a Reformed Islam.
Then again, the holy book is still only regarded as valid when written/spoken in Classical Arabic, like the Latin of the Church. So maybe there is yet a break to happen.
Anyway, the whole path of Reformation that Ali’s whole mission is aimed at is dubious. This is because the Reformation is not really what Christians claim it to be. The real truth is that Christianity, by many political, social, and intellectual upheavals, was tamed by the forces of secularism and reason, and the “Reformation” is a consoling historical narrative that Christianity tells itself about how it was really reasonable all along, while in reality it is still crazy after all these years.
The real problem in Islam is the massive failure of philosophy, reason and science since the clerics banned it ~800 years ago. Rekindling the spirit of reason is the only way for the Muslim world to dig itself out of the terrifying trap it has built for itself and everyone else.
Correct. She should not have called the book ‘Reformation’, because the analogy doesn’t work. She wants Islam to reform, but the historical Christian context doesn’t apply, and if you *do* try to apply the analogy directly, as Stewart did, the outlook is dystopian.
She didn’t call the book “Reformation.” And in her subtitle she calls for
“a” Reformation, which is a perfectly good word for what she hopes will occur and a word WEIT-ians have regularly been using in the same context (i.e. that Islam needs one) for quite a while here.
Yes Diane.
We all know that that the Renaissance and Reformation is short-hand for the eruption of humanism into the Catholic Christian discourse. From Petrarch and the rediscovery of Ovid, Horace and Tacitus to Erasmus, to Luther even, (with their emphasis on the assumed historical accuracy of the experiences of the early Christians) to Montaigne.
This questioning of the use of the term ‘Reformation’ is all nit-picking. It’s always possible to say that an analogy breaks down somewhere. And the more you push that idea as Stewart did, the more obtuse, as Jerry says, you appear. x
Thank you, Dermot, much better said.
Why are you and supdep assuming that Hirsi Ali is calling for a Muslim Reformation that is identical to Christianity’s?
On page 57 of Heretic she states, “Will a Muslim Reformation look exactly like the Christian one? No, of course not.”
Later on she suggests that those who have trouble with the term “Muslim Reformation” might prefer to look at it as a “Muslim Renovation.”
She’s extremely well versed in political/religious history, and I suggest you read her book before you draw any conclusions.
Well said, Diane. That should settle that!
It’s disappointing that we didn’t get to learn more of Ayaan’s ideas. Jon wasted the interview time.
The emotional tenor of both Stewart and Ali really distressed. Stewart didn’t just mansplain [whatever his point was about Luther], his mannerisms and strained voice was just short of screaming at her [which never seems to happen when he has a conservative politician as guest]. She was understandably absolutely frustrated and her voice repeatedly cracked, close to crying toward the end.
Creepy, nasty, PC, and sexist in one take.
I for one thought she maintained her composure and stayed on point brilliantly in the face of Stewart’s one-note harrying.
He goes out of his way to be nice to conservative guests because he wants to be seen as a good host.
This surprises me because I can recall reading other comments by Stewart that are much more critical of religion. I’d have to dig for links.
Remember, too, that Stewart’s audience is largely made up of Affleck-esque liberals, i.e., liberals who haven’t read the Quran
I’d be curious about that. I’m a long time Daily Show watcher and have noticed mainly accommodationism from Stewart.
It’s nonsense to believe that because it took Christianity hundreds of years to reform we should wait it out while Islam reforms itself enough to rid itself of violent extremism. The slow change that came about to rid Christianity of the horrors perpetrated in its name is not something that one should seek to emulate in today’s world. If the Christian Inquisition was happening today would we be patiently standing by for the slow process of reform to hopefully bring us a far distant better future? I would hope that we would demand immediate change.
I have seen a lot of Stewart interviews. Usually tries to find something positive to say about any given work.
I don’t recall him saying “you want people to buy the book” in such an accusatory way too often either. This did cause her a moment of pause at having been distracted from what she really wants.
Islam to be modernized.
Stewart is a joker, he has trivialized things in the name of humor before, but, hmm.
It is obvious that people want their books bought,that’s one reason they come on the show.
There are a couple of Daily Shows with Reza Aslan, one was an awful fawning sycophantic cringe worthy thing by John Oliver I and another person spoke of this a little while ago) and I can’t access the other one and can’t remember for sure but I doubt it had the same negativity to it as this.
I have seen Ayan, in the flesh and heard her speak. She is very good.
I saw her on a panel with three of the four horsepersons when Hitch was on the way out.
She fit well as the honorary fourth.
I also have seen her surrounded by body guards going to a black limo, out the back of the venue.
Ayan has the intelligence and character and experience to be uniquely positioned to to be able to understand the issues, in themselves and in context of the rest of the civilized world. She is able to make valid contributions to the betterment of all those involved in that world.
Unlike some.
I ordinarily have tremendous respect for Jon Stewart but this was a disappointment. It was painful to watch how hard he was trying to misunderstand her.
An interesting piece in which an attempt is made to explain away redicalization as a result of unfulfilled expectations.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amer-tapaenar-/isis-relative-deprivation_b_6912460.html?ir=Religion&ncid=newsltushpmg00000003
I just found a way to watch both Reza Aslan interviews. The tone is completely different.
Stewart is overtly friendly and uncritical
He most certainly does not say “you just want to sell your book” to him at the end.
Here’s a much better interview of AHA regarding her new book.
The amazing thing to me is how Stewart crawls into a (rhetorical) corner with his tail between his legs when faced with Bill O’Reilly in person, but goes after a death-threatened former-Muslim woman of color like he’s got a personal beef.
Good point! And Hirsi Ali’s ten times more articulate that O’Reilly will ever be.
The reason why Christianity is less violent than Islam are too many to number, but essence,it can all be boiled down to the differences between their founders. This is why when Christians broke out of the dark ages, and people started reading the Bible again, and rediscovering what Jesus had to say they became more peaceful. Meanwhile, when Islam, through Wahhabism, did the same thing about Muhammad, they became more violent.
She’s thinking of converting to Judaism? That would sure be interesting! Does anyone here know anything more about this?
http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Islam-critic-Ayaan-Hirsi-Ali-floats-conversion-to-Judaism-394614
The article goes on to say, “Jewish Week Editor and Publisher Gary Rosenblatt, who reported on Hirsi Ali’s comments, noted that it was difficult to tell whether or not she was serious.”
My money would be on, “not serious.”
That’s my hunch too, but I’d love to know more about the context.
Well, me too, but I’m not very worried. The very brevity of that article suggests it was written only to publish what could be construed as a controversial statement; i.e., for clickbait. If it were true, I suspect we’d have a much longer article. And more of them.
This is dumbfounding. This women is RISKING HER LIFE for the values Stewart ONLY TALKS ABOUT. Stewart is a hypocrite ideologue. Fucking coward scum.
+ 1
There is a reason why I don’t read Alternet that much any more…
Today there is a hit piece on Ayaan Hirsi Ali, which basically accuses her of being a pathological liar
http://www.alternet.org/media/anti-islam-author-ayaan-hirsi-alis-latest-deception
Sigh.
Oh, yeah, I quit reading AlterNet long ago. All you need to know about that article you link to is the way Blumenthal describes the note that Theo van Gogh’s killer attached to van Gogh’s body via knife stab: ” Before fleeing the scene, the killer pinned a note to van Gogh’s body…”
“Pinned??”
The Holocaust also swept up Slavs, Roma, and the disabled. Not to the extent of Jews, of course, but these were also visible groups of otherness within the Reich.
In a world without religion, where “Jewish” was a secular culture, the Holocaust probably would have still happened to the same effect, just with different epithets being shouted at the prisoners.
I’m a fan of Stewart and rarely disagree with his views on the show, but I agree with the criticism leveled at his performance in this particular interview. He, like most liberals, is trying to bend over backwards to prove his liberal street creds of being even-handed towards Moslems and not painting them with a broad brush of villainy in the way that right-wingers do. However, I don’t think Stewart has enough historical knowledge (and neither does Ali) to engage in a comparative history discussion about Islam and Christianity. What matters is the situation as it is today, where Judeo-Christianity and Western values are the golden standard of civilization while Islam is an ideological relic of the Middle Ages.
I have heard moderate critics of contemporary Islam repeat for the umpteenth time that their criticism is aimed at the radical fringe of that religion and not against all Moslems. Yet, Western ultra-P.C. radicals will never grant that point but will always accuse those critics of islamophobia in general. What is at work in this dynamic is the following. The ultra-left hate liberal democracy and capitalism (especially those that are practiced by America) so much that they would like to see them destroyed sooner than later. They see radical Islam as a strategic ally in this quest since it is striving towards the same goal. The left forgets, though, that they would be the first to be eliminated by their ruthless allies if this phantasmagoric dream of theirs were to materialize.
Might almost be worth it…
As a devotee of the daily show, I was so disappointed by Jon Stewart and this interview. He just tried to disprove that Islam is in a violent state and responsible for 70 percent of today’s conflicts. He came off as an apologist for the troubles and violence — ridiculous. And he showed no respect for his guest, who has an amazing history which he basically tried to make fun of. Awful and embarrassing.
I googled “Jon Stewart Ayaan Hirsi Ali” after that utterly tedious and cringe-worthy interview. I’m very happy to see this skeptical blog has come up on the first page of the results.
Like many here, I was a huge fan of Jon Stewart. This interview made me lose a lot of respect for him.
He says at one point that if Islam wasn’t around, then ISIS and their ilk would find some other ideology to kill for — its the people that’s the problem.
It’s ironic how Jon tries so hard not to offend Islam, but in doing so offends its adherents.
At best he’s completely illegitimizing their religious motivations, and at worst he’s saying they’re a savage people who are predisposed to violence.
It’s also hugely ironic how he thinks that religious texts have no effect on what people do, given that he is the host of a television program which aims to raise awareness of political issues, all the while running into ideological/religious divides within the political system.
Think about that for one minute in the context of the progressive mindset. Think about the typical things that make us progressives weary of politics:
Money in politics; 30 second political television ads; news media monopolies; click-bait headlines and articles apologetic to the status-quo.
We care about these pesky little things because we know they change peoples minds, which affects democracy.
Then ask yourself, if money in politics can influence how people think and vote, and if 30 second advertisements with no substance can influence how one thinks and vote: Are you seriously surprised that a book that tells you how you how you should think and how to live (with threat of punishment otherwise), has an effect on people and their motivations?
If you don’t, then you might as well give up on democracy, because you should deem it worthless to try change someones mind, because apparently ideas have no worth, no influence and no power.
I guess Jon has already done that by leaving the show.