In April, Brandeis University, under pressure from misguided people decrying Ayaan Hirsi Ali as an “Islamophobe,” as well as from the Council on American Islamic relation (CAIR; an organization that, under the guise of improving those relations, issues veiled threats about offending Muslims), rescinded an invitation for Hirsi Ali to receive an honorary degree. Hirsi Ali made a dignified  response (here) and refused Brandeis’s invitation to come back some other time to engage in “discussion.”

It was a cowardly move for Brandeis, motivated solely by fear and political correctness. Hirsi Ali is in fact a hero: a woman who has basically given up the possibility of a normal life in the cause of improving the treatment of women under Islam. After the murder of her collaborator Theo van Gogh, and threats on her own life, as well as a political kerfuffle (the Dutch government first rescinded her citizenship because she made untruthful statement on her application for asylum, and then restored her citizenship), she moved to the U.S., where she then had difficulty getting a job.  She still travels with armed guards, and I suspect that if they weren’t there, she would be killed rather soon.

When I wrote about all this a while back, the usual Muslim apologists appeared, decrying Hirsi Ali as unworthy of an honorary degree for four reasons: she lied on her application for asylum in the Netherlands; she said things that, to some, seemed to constitute praise for the Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik; she made statements that were strongly anti-Islam (and thus was an “Islamophobe”; and she worked for a conservative think tank, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Few of these commenters bothered to dig into the background of those accusations, so eager were they to smear her as an unworthy “Islamophobe.”

On his website yesterday, Sam Harris published a long conversation he had with Hirsi Ali, “Lifting the veil of ‘Islamophobia’.” I recommend that you read it, especially if you’re one of her critics.  It’s not so much an interview as a mutual condemnation of the perfidies and violence of Islam, and of the silence of Islamic “moderates.” It’s a conversation between friends who are frustrated at the unwarranted sympathy or silence accorded to Muslim misdeeds and the condemnation of critics as “Islamophobes.”

Sam concentrates on the issues above that have led to Hirsi Ali—and Harris himself—being labelled as “Islamophobes.” You’ll learn the reason she was untruthful on her application for asylum (she feared retribution from her Canadian husband from an arranged marriage, retribution that indeed happened), what she meant when she talked about Breivik, and why she went to work for the AEI. The reason for that is because, cowed by Islam, no liberal think tank would hire her. So let’s correct that record right now:

Hirsi Ali: ” . . . So I approached Cynthia [Schneider, the U.S. ambassador to the Netherlands under Clinton], and she took me to the Brookings Institute, and to Rand, and to Johns Hopkins, and to Georgetown—she took me to all these institutions, and there was no interest. They didn’t say it to my face, but I got the feeling that they were uncomfortable with what I had been saying about Islam.

Then, on the last day, just before I left the country, Cynthia suggested that we try the AEI. And I said something like “I can’t believe you’d take me there. It’s supposed to be a right-wing organization.” And she said, “Oh, come on. You Dutch people are too prejudiced against the U.S. Things here are really very different than you think. I was a Clinton appointee, and one of my best friends—one of Clinton’s best friends—Norm Ornstein, is there. So it’s not what you think it is. And it’s definitely not religious.”

So we went to the AEI, and I met with Norm Ornstein and a woman named Colleen Baughman, and they were so enthusiastic. They immediately introduced me to their president, who suggested that we talk again in a month. And we just kept talking. I spoke about my work; they told me about what they do. And I didn’t hear back from any of the other institutions that I had solicited.

Harris: So the truly mortifying answer to the question of why you are at the AEI is that no liberal institution would offer you shelter when you most needed it—and when your value to the global conversation about free speech, the rights of women, and other norms of civilization was crystal clear. And ever since, your affiliation with the one institution that did take you in has been used to defame you in liberal circles. Perfect.

Hirsi Ali: Well, it certainly seemed at the time that none of the other institutions were willing to talk about Islam in the way that I do—and specifically about its treatment of women.

. . . I find it sad. And you should know that during all my interviews with the AEI and my subsequent years there, they’ve always understood that I’m a liberal. No one within the organization has tried to change my mind about anything—not about Islam, or euthanasia, or abortion, or religion, or gay rights, or any of the other things that many of my colleagues have problems with. They’ve never opposed my atheism or confronted me with anything I have said in public. It’s a wonderful institution. 

Let us not, then, hear anything more about her association with a conservative think tank. Rather than criticize her for working for the AEI, criticize the Brookings Institute and others for not hiring her.

There’s a lot more meat in their discussion, but you should read it yourself. It’s not short, but will teach you what happens when a Muslim woman goes up against the misogynistic tenets of her faith.

There’s one more thing I’d like to highlight. When Hirsi Ali moved to the U.S., she needed armed protection since the Dutch government would no longer pay for her bodyguards. That protection was purchased with the help of both the AEI and Harris himself, who solicited his friends and acquaintances. That’s a noble thing to do, but not all of Harris’s friends were on board:

Harris: As a relevant counterpoint, I should say that when I was raising money for your security, I got in touch with some of my contacts in the “moderate” Muslim community. In particular, I reached out to Reza Aslan, with whom I was on entirely cordial terms. I said, essentially, “Reza, wouldn’t it be great if the vast majority of Muslims who are moderate helped protect Ayaan from the minority who aren’t?” It seems to me undeniable that if people like Reza are going to argue that Islam is just like any other religion, they have a real interest in ensuring that people can safely criticize their faith—or even leave it.

But all Reza did was attack you as a bigot and deny, against all evidence, that you had any security concerns worth taking seriously. His response came as quite a shock to me, frankly. I was unprepared to encounter this level of moral blindness and ill will, especially at a moment when I was reaching out for help.

Aslan, as I’ve noted before, is a Muslim apologist and author of  No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam, a book that, to me, simply whitewashed the bad aspects of modern Islam, painting it as truly a religion of peace. How cowardly and hypocritical of him to refuse to help, and then attack Hirsi Ali as an Islamophobe! And believe me, she did have reason to fear for her life.  Look what happened to Theo van Gogh, who helped produce the movie she wrote, “Submission“, about the mistreatment of women under Islam (from Wikipedia; my emphasis):

Van Gogh was murdered by Mohammed Bouyeri as he was cycling to work on 2 November 2004 at about 9 o’clock in the morning, in front of the Amsterdam East borough office (stadsdeelkantoor), on the corner of the Linnaeusstraat and Tweede Oosterparkstraat. . .  The killer shot van Gogh eight times with an HS2000 handgun. Initially from his bicycle, Bouyeri fired several bullets at Van Gogh, who was hit, as were two bystanders. Wounded, Van Gogh ran to the other side of the road and fell to the ground on the cycle lane. According to eyewitnesses, Van Gogh’s last words were: “Mercy, mercy! We can talk about it, can’t we?” Bouyeri then walked up to Van Gogh, who was still lying down, and calmly shot him several more times at close range. Bouyeri then cut Van Gogh’s throat, and tried to decapitate him with a large knife, after which he stabbed the knife deep into Van Gogh’s chest, reaching his spinal cord. He then attached a note to the body with a smaller knife. Van Gogh died on the spot. The two knives were left implanted. The note was addressed and contained a death threat to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who was subsequently forced to go into hiding, threatened Western countries and Jews and also referred to the ideologies of the Egyptian organization Takfir wal-Hijra.

Aslan is reprehensible, a conclusion I had already reached from reading his book. But this makes it infinitely worse. A man who argues that Islam is a peaceful religion should certainly help provide protection for someone whose life was threatened for criticizing it!

In honor of Hirsi Ali, I present the film Submission (11 minutes total), the movie for which van Gogh gave his life and for which Hirsi Ali will need lifelong protection. Watch it and see if you think it justifies Muslim outrage. It’s simply a work strongly critical of how Muslims treat women. I’m sure Hirsi Ali knew what it would provoke, but she wanted to show the truth. She truly is a hero, and surely doesn’t deserve the opprobrium heaped upon her by American liberals—and even some readers of this site.