British ID register

vimothy

yurp
I'd have thought it pretty obvious by now that this isn't my view (though I appreciate you are probably being rhetorical).

No, I do appreciate that. I guess I'm still talking to Crackerjack, really. I don't understand why he has so little time for AHA, yet is prepared to listen to Garton Ash (a man who praises Tariq Ramamdan -- a real fanatic and an illiberal Islamist -- on the basis of, what: a whim? Conjecture? Hope that the enemy of my enemy is my friend?) dismiss her as an "Enlightenment fanatic" and a writer who is only popular because she is an attaractive woman. (What a patronising ass). I'm also interested (and frequently frustrated) in the way that these debates are positioned, such there is a "right-wing" position and a "left-wing" position, where one is knee-jerk faith in western superiority and the other is knee-jerk faith in western inferiority.
 

crackerjack

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by vimothy
It depends on what you mean by "right-wing", doesn't it? If condemnation of Islamism is "right-wing" in your view...
I'd have thought it pretty obvious by now that this isn't my view (though I appreciate you are probably being rhetorical).

Nor is this my view, as I'm sure you know. I disagree with TGA about Ramadan, but AHA's position is basically that Islam is unreformable, which is why she has been adopted so eagerly by the (I repeat) Clash of Civilisationists.

Edit: sorry I made a muddle of that quote - for anyone confused, the 1st sentence is Vim's., the 2nd Tea's.
 
Last edited:

vimothy

yurp
Nor is this my view, as I'm sure you know. I disagree with TGA about Ramadan, but AHA's position is basically that Islam is unreformable, which is why she has been adopted so eagerly by the (I repeat) Clash of Civilisationists.

Edit: sorry I made a muddle of that quote - for anyone confused, the 1st sentence is Vim's., the 2nd Tea's.

Er --

I don't think your representation of AHA's position is correct. Quite the opposite, in fact. Can you cite anything in support? It seems to me that the whole purpose of AHA's writing, whether you think it appropriate or not, is to call for an Islamic reformation:
MUSLIMS must get their "act together" and reform Islam to avoid a bloody future, Somali author Ayaan Hirsi Ali says.

Ali, 37, who has renounced her Islamic faith and considers herself an atheist, was speaking in Sydney as part of the Writers Festival.​
[There is a good, rational review of AHA here, which -- correctly I think -- questions her impact and importance to the Islamic world. But that is very different from describing her as someone who thinks that Islam is beyond reform and so must therefore fought (as if that were possible).]

Can I also ask, who are these "Clash of Civilisationists"? By this phrase, do you really mean that she works for the AEI?
 

Gavin

booty bass intellectual
AHA: "We are not at war with 'terror', that would make no sense. Terror is just a tactic used by Islam," she continued. "We are actually at war, not just with Islamism, but with Islam itself."

"Islam — all Islam, not just Islamism — has not acknowledged that it must obey secular law. Islam is hostile to reason."

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/376476/we-are-at-war-with-all-islam.thtml

http://www.alternet.org/rights/66830/
Reason: We have to crush the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims under our boot? In concrete terms, what does that mean, “defeat Islam”?

Hirsi Ali: I think that we are at war with Islam. And there’s no middle ground in wars. Islam can be defeated in many ways. For starters, you stop the spread of the ideology itself; at present, there are native Westerners converting to Islam, and they’re the most fanatical sometimes. There is infiltration of Islam in the schools and universities of the West. You stop that. You stop the symbol burning and the effigy burning, and you look them in the eye and flex your muscles and you say, “This is a warning. We won’t accept this anymore.” There comes a moment when you crush your enemy.

Reason: Militarily?

Hirsi Ali: In all forms, and if you don’t do that, then you have to live with the consequence of being crushed.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/122457.html

Is this not clash of civilizations? And the reason why she's on the payroll of various neocon organizations (such as the American Enterprise Institute)? She has stated unequivocally that the entire religion of a billion people is completely "unreformable" and those who follow must be converted to secularism by the sword if necessary.

Tariq Ramadan is not a raving Islamist as much as he's a savvy salesman -- he preaches liberal accomodation/multiculturalism to his Western patrons (such as Bill Clinton) while sharpening his rhetoric for Islamic audiences. I have not found any of his ideas original, compelling, or worth comment -- he's basically a pseudointellectual with some Daily-Show-ready feel-good multicult platitudes.
 

vimothy

yurp
Is this not clash of civilizations? And the reason why she's on the payroll of various neocon organizations (such as the American Enterprise Institute)? She has stated unequivocally that the entire religion of a billion people is completely "unreformable" and those who follow must be converted to secularism by the sword if necessary.

Gavin, I haven't time to respond in full, but it seems to me that you are just cherry picking the most contentious looking bits (i.e. metaphors) of those interviews. To pick something with a different slant, even at first glance, is easy, though:

Do you believe this is what Muslims genuinely crave—respect?

Hirsi Ali: It’s not about respect. It’s about power, and Islam is a political movement.

Reason: Uniquely so?

Hirsi Ali: Well, it hasn’t been tamed like Christianity. See, the Christian powers have accepted the separation of the worldly and the divine. We don’t interfere with their religion, and they don’t interfere with the state. That hasn’t happened in Islam.​
Anyway, got to go, but ta for the links. AHA is obviously not very knowledgable about Islam (in the sense of historical culture, jurisprudence, etc), but I don't read read her for her insights into Muslim culture, I read her for her experience of life in an illiberal society and the insights this gives her about our own culture.

Also -- good to see you linking to reason!
 

vimothy

yurp
The arabist.net article above looks particularly good, BTW.

EDIT: Although the comments are of the "yeah, what she said!" variety so depressingly common in the "Blogosphere".
 
Last edited:

Gavin

booty bass intellectual
Gavin, I haven't time to respond in full, but it seems to me that you are just cherry picking the most contentious looking bits (i.e. metaphors) of those interviews.

No, I'm cherry picking the particular quotations that support the correct notion that AHA is perpetuating a 'clash of civ' argument. I provided links for context. I don't see the portion you quoted as refuting this. What exactly does she mean by "tame"? And how do you think the AEI proposes doing so to an entire religion?

Also -- good to see you linking to reason!

Fair 'n' balanced, that's me.

I don't read read her for her insights into Muslim culture, I read her for her experience of life in an illiberal society and the insights this gives her about our own culture.

Why are you so sure that the former and latter are so independent of each other? Surely her quite extreme "insights" inform her telling of her life story as much as the other way around? Aren't her insights about "our culture" just stroking the West's ego, which is why she's so beloved by neocons like Perle and Bolton -- our civ so much better than theirs, why don't we crush them for their own good? Bush has framed the War on Terror in explicitly religious terms, but she scrupulously avoids criticizing any other religion with a wave of her hands even when the interviewers press her on it! Because they aren't paying her to bash Jesus after all.
 

vimothy

yurp
Tariq Ramadan is not a raving Islamist as much as he's a savvy salesman -- he preaches liberal accomodation/multiculturalism to his Western patrons (such as Bill Clinton) while sharpening his rhetoric for Islamic audiences.

Also -- Ramadan is clearly both, which is the whole point. He's an Islamist (check his family tree out), and a multicultralist European academic. They aren't mutually exclusive categories.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Bush has framed the War on Terror in explicitly religious terms, but she scrupulously avoids criticizing any other religion with a wave of her hands even when the interviewers press her on it!

Perhaps she doesn't see other religions as causing anything like as much trouble, either in her own (adopted) country or elsewhere in the world, as Islam is?
 

vimothy

yurp
No, I'm cherry picking the particular quotations that support the correct notion that AHA is perpetuating a 'clash of civ' argument. I provided links for context. I don't see the portion you quoted as refuting this. What exactly does she mean by "tame"?

Because the upshot of what she's saying is: Christianity became reformed, and now it is no longer a threat; when Islam is reformed it, too, will no longer be a threat.

And how do you think the AEI proposes doing so to an entire religion?

Don't be silly, AEI is a think tank, not a paramilitary organisation. It won't be taming anyone, and, much like AHA, has zero influence in the Muslim world.

Why are you so sure that the former and latter are so independent of each other? Surely her quite extreme "insights" inform her telling of her life story as much as the other way around?

You should be more generous -- not unlike TGA -- then we could debate ideas rather than slinging ad homs at each other. I'm sure that there's a more substantive way to disagree than simply accuse her of making the whole thing up to fellate our (though obviously not your) egos.

Aren't her insights about "our culture" just stroking the West's ego, which is why she's so beloved by neocons like Perle and Bolton -- our civ so much better than theirs, why don't we crush them for their own good?

Yes, it does get complicated, too complicated perhaps for AHA, but I don't think that this helping either. Look at it this way: in some respects, the "West" has developed superior institutions (the separation of church and state, universal sufferage, etc) to the "Islamic World", and these institutions are emboddied in a mesh of social norms and behaviours. In this limited politico-cultural sense, the "West" is superior to the "Islamic World". However, since this exists outwith the individual, asince culture is itself no smooth space or discrete unity, and since human behaviour is relentlessly self-interested regardless of context, it is best not to get too over-excited about our "cultural superiority" and instead concentrate on how we can provide spaces, not for assualts on Islam, but where Islam can be freely practiced in a manner that is denied to most Muslisms in most nominally Muslim countries around the world today.

If we are to have an Islamic reformation, it will come from there, I think, and not from fringe charatcers like AHA.
 

Gavin

booty bass intellectual
Also -- Ramadan is clearly both, which is the whole point. He's an Islamist (check his family tree out), and a multicultralist European academic. They aren't mutually exclusive categories.

Well, however you'd like to classify him, his "arguments" are mostly platitudes because he has castrated his own analysis (in my opinion of course) by ignoring any kind of economic component. He regurgitates that liberal assumption that beligerants are simply misinformed and that he will straighten them out, that current conflicts are just a big misunderstanding. Not that certain parties know exactly what they are doing, and doing it as part of a larger geopolitical and economic agenda. Essentially he's mired in the same "culturalist" swamp as AHA, and probably benefits from a faux-native-informer status as she does. He sounds like a politician, like he's going to run for high office, not as someone who engages in serious analysis.

Admittedly I know less about him than perhaps I should (he is much bigger in the UK), but it's shit like this: http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article1162811.ece
Profoundly stupid -- how can you write this article and not mention the war at all? Is "victimology" really a pressing concern? This is pandering.
 

Gavin

booty bass intellectual
Don't be silly, AEI is a think tank, not a paramilitary organisation. It won't be taming anyone, and, much like AHA, has zero influence in the Muslim world.
[/quote[
Thank you for the civics lesson, and I'm sure charter members like international criminal Richard Perle have no influence on policy (although I've heard that the AEI is where neocons send their least capable members, a kind of sinecure, which is funny). Taming is something done UPON someone else, not something someone does to themselves.

You should be more generous -- not unlike TGA -- then we could debate ideas rather than slinging ad homs at each other. I'm sure that there's a more substantive way to disagree than simply accuse her of making the whole thing up to fellate our (though obviously not your) egos.
I didn't accuse her of making it up, I suggested that she might tailor her memoirs to suit her career as neocon ideologue. Not controversial, is it? Should Chomsky write an autobio, should we pretend it's objective fact divorced from his politics?

Yes, it does get complicated, too complicated perhaps for AHA, but I don't think that this helping either. Look at it this way: in some respects, the "West" has developed superior institutions (the separation of church and state, universal sufferage, etc) to the "Islamic World", and these institutions are emboddied in a mesh of social norms and behaviours. In this limited politico-cultural sense, the "West" is superior to the "Islamic World". However, since this exists outwith the individual, asince culture is itself no smooth space or discrete unity, and since human behaviour is relentlessly self-interested regardless of context, it is best not to get too over-excited about our "cultural superiority" and instead concentrate on how we can provide spaces, not for assualts on Islam, but where Islam can be freely practiced in a manner that is denied to most Muslisms in most nominally Muslim countries around the world today.

If we are to have an Islamic reformation, it will come from there, I think, and not from fringe charatcers like AHA.

Well then I guess we are in agreement after all! Though I would like to interrogate these "superior institutions" further (not here, in general), perhaps see how they are implicated in present and past imperialism, I am all for secularism, suffrage, gumdrops, rainbows, and all the rest.
 

crackerjack

Well-known member
Er --

I don't think your representation of AHA's position is correct. Quite the opposite, in fact. Can you cite anything in support? It seems to me that the whole purpose of AHA's writing, whether you think it appropriate or not, is to call for an Islamic reformation:
MUSLIMS must get their "act together" and reform Islam to avoid a bloody future, Somali author Ayaan Hirsi Ali says.

Ali, 37, who has renounced her Islamic faith and considers herself an atheist, was speaking in Sydney as part of the Writers Festival.​
[There is a good, rational review of AHA here, which -- correctly I think -- questions her impact and importance to the Islamic world. But that is very different from describing her as someone who thinks that Islam is beyond reform and so must therefore fought (as if that were possible).]

Can I also ask, who are these "Clash of Civilisationists"? By this phrase, do you really mean that she works for the AEI?

Saying Islam "must reform" is not the same as saying it is reformable. She may distinguish between Islam and Muslims, but she says
Islam as a body of work is incompatible with the basic principles of liberalism. Islam is all about submission to one God, no freedom for the individual, life begins after death, the woman is subordinate to the man. There’s no separation of church and state.

you can find the full text of her debate with TGA here:
http://darwiniana.com/2007/12/13/6763/

On the subject of cherry picking, you're no slouch yourself here. You've regurgitated TGA's "enlightenment fundamentalist" charge, even though he has withdrawn it (not because of the substance, but because some have interpreted it as positing moral equivalence between it and Islamic fundamentalism).

The quotes Gavin has pulled out are direct from AHA herself, not paraphrased by a sub on an Australian newspaper. If you can find one from her saying islam can be reformed, then I'm happy to accept she's not a Clash of Civilisationist.
 

zhao

there are no accidents
one way of understanding the aim of islam is striving toward the saturation of the divine in every single aspect of life, so that everything one does is in accordance with god, so that grace eclipses everyday life and they become one -- and in such a state there would be no need for scriptures or law, for all would be harmony.

and many are of the opinion that this is what the no separation between church and state was originally about.
 

crackerjack

Well-known member
one way of understanding the aim of islam is striving toward the saturation of the divine in every single aspect of life, so that everything one does is in accordance with god, so that grace eclipses everyday life and they become one -- and in such a state there would be no need for scriptures or law, for all would be harmony.

and many are of the opinion that this is what the no separation between church and state was originally about.

Gobbledegook though innit. In practice what this means is men in beards and black robes telling everyone else what they can and can't do.
 

vimothy

yurp
On the subject of cherry picking, you're no slouch yourself here. You've regurgitated TGA's "enlightenment fundamentalist" charge, even though he has withdrawn it (not because of the substance, but because some have interpreted it as positing moral equivalence between it and Islamic fundamentalism).

The quotes Gavin has pulled out are direct from AHA herself, not paraphrased by a sub on an Australian newspaper. If you can find one from her saying islam can be reformed, then I'm happy to accept she's not a Clash of Civilisationist.

I have an all-day meeting so probably won't get much chance to get involved in this, but I will say, reading her reason interview in particular, I think I have given her too much credit.

I don't want to get into a debate about semantics, and I think it's pretty clear that you can interpret what she says in those interviews in various different ways. For instance, saying that Islam must reform or it will conquer the West is not the same as saying it can reform, granted, but it's also not the same as saying it cannot reform.

And I may have "regurgitated" TGA's "Enlightenment fundamentalism" charge, but I guess we both missed the boat on that one -- you certainly gave the impression that this was the reason you liked TGA.

Anyway, I don't want to defend her. There obviously isn't much nuance in her thought. "Yes, I am at war with Islam... but I am not at war with Muslims," she says at the end of the interview in Spectator, but I'm not sure that she understands the difference.
 

crackerjack

Well-known member
And I may have "regurgitated" TGA's "Enlightenment fundamentalism" charge, but I guess we both missed the boat on that one -- you certainly gave the impression that this was the reason you liked TGA.

Fair point. It was a slightly glib response. What I meant was I think it takes a fair degree of intellectual courage to criticise AHA from a liberal perspective in the current climate.
 
Top