Hirsi Ali, the conservatives’ hero, lets it all hang out

I have pointed out many times, based on her own words (see this, this, this, this, this, and this), that the Somali-Dutch Islam critic Ayaan Hirsi Ali, now ensconced at the “conservative” American Enterprise Institute, is no friend of the West—unless we define the West as radical liberalism. She is openly hostile to Christianity, which she lumps with Islam as a generic “theocracy” that threatens liberty, and she has indicated repeatedly that she wants to ban conservative and Christian political parties, including immigration restriction parties, in Europe, leaving Europe powerless and voiceless before the Islamic invasion. I’ve also criticized Robert Spencer, who is a Catholic and calls himself a conservative, for uncritically embracing and approving this enemy of Christianity, whom he calls his “hero.”* I’ve criticized the mainstream conservative Islam critics who fatuously believe that the defense of the West against radical Islam requires such “allies” as Ali, an attitude that implies that we lack the ability and the moral legitimacy to defend ourselves.

Ali has removed any doubt about her poisonous hostility toward Christianity in an interview published yesterday at the British website Metro, in which this question and answer appeared:

METRO: Do you see any positive sides to Islam?

HIRSI ALI: That’s like asking if I see positive sides to Nazism, communism, Catholicism. Of course Islam preaches generosity and kindness and taking care of the poor and elderly and so on – but these values aren’t limited to Islam. If you weigh what is provided in terms of kindness and humanity against the evil that can come from a society built on radical Islam, you will see that liberals must stand up to this like they’ve stood up to other ideologies.

Ali equates Catholicism with Nazism and Communism. What more is there to be said? How will the “conservative” Islam critics go on justifying their support for her? But of course, they won’t have to answer that question, because who in the mainstream will pose it to them? Not anyone on the left, because the left likes attacks on Christianity. And not anyone on the “right,” because no one in the mainstream “right” ever asks a serious critical question of another “conservative.” Wouldn’t be, uh, prudent.

_____________

*I’m happy to see that Robert Spencer writing at Jihad Watch today took strong exception to Hirsi Ali’s disgusting attack on Christianity—the first time to my knowledge that he has distanced himself from her on this point. Spencer seems to be finally waking up to the fact that Ali is not someone to be embraced uncritically, as he did last year when he lauded her as his hero.

I found out about the Spencer comment on Ali from Spencer himself, who wrote to several people including me:

Speaking of Auster retailing falsehoods about me, he posted this today: “I’ve also criticized Robert Spencer, who is a Catholic and calls himself a conservative, for uncritically embracing and approving this enemy of Christianity, whom he calls his ‘hero.’”

Ironically enough, I posted this about Hirsi Ali earlier today, but why bother with accuracy if you are the great Lawrence Auster?

Now there is classic Spencer for you. Instead of simply informing me of the fact, as any normal person would have done, that he had criticized Ali in this instance, he says that I am dishonest and don’t care about accuracy. And why am I dishonest? Because I didn’t mention an article of his that I didn’t know about until he told me about it. Of course, as soon as he told me, I added that point to the blog entry. But if I were the liar and smearer that Spencer repeatedly accuses me of being, I would not have added the correction, would I?

- end of initial entry -

David H. writes:

When I noticed Spencer’s petty comment about you. I immediately went to jihadwatch out of curiosity, and although he did indeed criticize her for her anti-Catholic statement, he also posted this which includes his statement “Balancing my criticism of Hirsi Ali today is this wonderful videoclip of a Hannity and Colmes segment with her…” Clearly her hateful comments were not enough to diminish her stature as an “ally.”

So I read his criticism (titled “Agreeing and disagreeing with Ayaan Hirsi Ali”):

“‘Nazism, communism, Catholicism’? Anti-Catholicism is fashionable these days, and the sins of the Catholic Church, like those of any group of human beings, are many. However, to equate Catholicism with Nazism and Communism is a ridiculous reductionism that ignores and implicitly denies the Catholic and Christian bases of so much of Western civilization…”

I’m sure that stings her, especially the tiresome and omnipresent admission that the Catholic Church is sinful (Why do “conservatives” always do this, always and immediately attempt to find common ground with vile leftists? They are actually liberals, no other possible explanation).

He also writes, “I applaud and support her critique of Islamic supremacism, and will continue to do so; however, I do hope she gains an appreciation of the fact that much of what she values in the West is derived from Judeo-Christian principles—from Catholicism. She doesn’t have to be a believer to do this; I still believe that Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists all need to unite against the threat of Islamic supremacism…”

I suppose hope springs eternal. Knowing the left and the rabid nature of many athiests, I myself wouldn’t bet on it.

His final thoughts on the subject (including reference to an incident involving Andrew Bostom) are more critical and quite appropriate. If his entire piece were on that level, I would have been appreciative (if stunned).

Spencer does save this for last:

“Unrelated final note: in a sidebar Hirsi Ali says, “We’ve told ourselves that every criticism of Islam is some sort of racism – but Islam is not a race,” which is, of course, absolutely true.”

That may seem irrelevant, but I believe it is not. It seems like he felt the need to ease the “sting” of his criticism by including that final quote (which is, I agree, true). Now contrast all of this with his personal, vindictive (and quite immature—“the great Lawrence Auster”) attack on you (did he ever dare call her anything like a liar? She just called Catholics everywhere nazis!). Compared to his disagreement (and subsequent praise) of Ali, his words against you are illustrative of his character—or rather his lack thereof. Honestly I’m sick and tired of these false prophets of the “right” crying about the horrors of “Islamofascism” and our impending doom, while embracing leftist malcontents (even if they agree that Islam is a problem, so what?), too terrified to propose a real d*mn solution, and then viciously attacking those on the right who dare to disagree. I’m quite finished with the lot of them.

(BTW forgive me—not because I bear some guilt, but because this tired old act of Spencer’s is really annoying to me and I imagine far more so to you—that the link I sent to the website interview of Ali has resulted in yet another tantrum, another “conservative” reserving harsh vitriol not for a person who basically derided Catholics everywhere, but for the person who points out Ali’s obvious leftist worldview and anti-Christian hate. As if it weren’t obvious!)

Carl Simpson writes:

I quite agree with everything said by David H above. He makes a great point about faux conservatives constantly seeking common ground with leftist atheists like Ali. The truth is that we’ve no more common ground with such people than we do with Muslims. Both are mortal enemies, with leftists—especially those in positions of power—presenting a greater threat than Muslims themselves.

So a few among their number comprehend that an Islamic takeover might be less than ideal for their utopian dreams. Big deal. Cry me a river. The fact remains that the vast majority of the left have already committed themselves to a treasonous alliance with Islam. Even the few like Ali who are not totally delusional about Islamic society devote at least as much time and energy to destroying the few remaining shreds of the traditional west (like the tiny Calvinist Party Ali voted as MP to outlaw in Holland) as they do to warning about the nature of sharia. Ali should be shipped back to Somalia. Let her oppose Islam and work to establish liberalism there. We already have more than enough toxic leftists without importing them from third-world hellholes, thank you.

Isn’t that what the AEI’s purple-fingered Busheviks see as the grand solution for all the Umma’s jihad, anyway? Ali should devote herself into making Mogadishu more like Manhattan, no?

KPA, who recently contributed an article to VFR on the history of Christian-Islamic relations in Ethiopia, writes:

Rereading Hiris Ali’s November 1, 2006 article on FrontPage Magazine, “Muslim Women Are the Key to Change,” I think that your description of Islam as a (totalitarian) political movement is how Ali is functioning also. A few things caught my attention:

Firstly, she seems to be reverting back to some sort of Islamic faith. I always thought that she had never fully denounced this faith, but only wanted follow it under her own terms.

Secondly, she still doesn’t understand or acknowledge that Muslims in the West are an anomaly.

Finally, her ambition knows no bounds, inasmuch as she seems to wish that her Muslim “sisters” will help her in this impossible task of Islamic reform, have offspring that will follow this reform, to the only logical conclusion where that the West, where she is conducting this imaginary experiment, will be full of reformed Muslims just like herself and these women.

Hers is really an Islamic World as designed by her.

But, the biggest irony of all is that she expects all this reform to occur with the express help of the EU through its various satellite governments! In other words, a political change. She has certainly tapped into the most utopian, anti-European institution there is. I would think also that she bargains on the United States being complicit with these methods.

It all fits her strategy very well indeed.

LA replies:

Central to Ali’s strategy is that it is the West that must reform Islam along the lines she wishes. Muslims come to the West, and not only do they become a major problem and threat in the West, but the “reform” Muslims tell us tell us that WE must change the Islamic world as well because THEY are unable to do it on their own. What a great bargain Muslim immigration is for us.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 06, 2007 12:59 PM | Send