The genesis of Hirsi Ali’s view of the West

A reader has further thoughts about the Somali-Dutch politician Hirsi Ali. While I might quibble with this point or that, I think he’s onto something with his suggestion that Ali’s view of the West does not come primarily from direct knowledge of the West but is instead a reaction to the things about Islam that she doesn’t like. As I said earlier, this is not to find fault with Hirsi Ali, an admirable and courageous person. She has lived in the West for, what, ten years, and her understanding of Western civilization, though flawed, is certainly no worse than that the average Western liberal, say, Tony Blair. But still, even if someone is our ally in some important respect (as Blair was in the Iraq war), that doesn’t mean we should subscribe to everything he or she may say.

I agree with your comments with respect to Ayaan Ali.

When reading her description of the “open society,” my first impression was that it was merely a restatement of classic liberalism as developed during the 19th century.

Then I looked more closely.

But which values are we fighting for? Those who love freedom know that the open society relies on a few key shared concepts. They believe that all humans are born free, are endowed with reason and have inalienable rights. Governments are checked by the rule of law, so that civil liberties are protected. They ensure freedom of conscience and of expression, and ensure that men and women, homosexuals and heterosexuals, are treated equally under the law. People can trade freely, and may spend their recreational time as they wish.

Of course, her use of the word “values” is annoying; these aren’t “values,” they are political principles, grounded in history and tested by the experience of historical nations.

But she neglects to include some key components of classic liberalism, such as: limited government, consent of the governed, and private property.

Then it dawned on me. Ms. Ali’s description of the “open society” is actually the exact converse of Islam as she understands it. Her description of the “open society” is therefore entirely reactive to the strictures of Islam, and has nothing to do with political theory as developed in the West, to wit:

1. “All humans are born free,” etc. Muslims obviously believe that the world is divided into two sorts of human beings, Muslims and infidels. Is an infidel a “free man” with “inalienable rights”?

2. “Governments are checked by the rule of law, so that civil liberties are protected.” There are no civil liberties in Islamic society, particularly for infidels. Ms. Ali misunderstands how or why governments are checked; they are not checked by the rule of law, they are checked by the consent of the governed (“popular sovereignty”), which is expressed through law enacted by elected representatives in public session. Democratic governments are also checked, primarily, by elections, which can cashier an entire government overnight (an unlikely event in a Muslim theocratic state).

3. Freedom of conscience and expression, etc. Clearly, Islam does not subscribe to these maxims. Her explicit mention of homosexuals is of course a direct slap at Islam.

4. People can trade freely. This is interesting, and must refer to Islamic limitations on dealings with infidels.

5. Spend recreational time as they wish. Again a direct slap at Islam.

Her reactivity to Islam also accounts for her neglect to address private property or limited government. It is most likely that Ms. Ayaan Ali doesn’t have a clue where the “values” of Western democracy came from or what understandings they are based on; she just knows they are opposed to those aspects of Islam which distress her. She therefore has little or no interest in your concerns about a historical, ethnic, or national foundation upon which a procedurally democratic state must rest, nor would she understand why this is critical to the functioning of a western, democratic state.

What she describes as an open society is a state floating in thin air, based entirely upon abstract propositions to which the populace supposedly subscribes. This fetish for attractive “propositions” is a confusion of the icing for the heart of a cake. This is almost a neocon idea, as you have pointed out repeatedly ( the “propositional state”).

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 08, 2005 09:32 AM | Send