Three interviews of Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Here are a few interviews with one of the most interesting and important voices of our time. Its critical to understand the basics of her background to appreciate the gravitas of her message and the best way to get that is her outstanding book, Infidel. One of the best reads anyone might experience, at least according to the people I spoke to who have read it, including myself.

But I post these interviews more to show the bias of the CBC rather than much about Ayaan who is likely well known to readers of this site.

First, an older interview by a left wing extremist named, Avi Lewis, who I believe left the CBC to go work for Al Jazeera. June 2007

Notice his repugnant treatment of someone who has endured more hardship than Mr. Lewis can fathom in his privileged existence. Because she didn’t fit his culturally marxist narrative of an evil US (as Bush was president at the time) and all cultures other than white European as morally superior to that one, he felt he could show that much derision and contempt on live TV.

Let’s see if things have improved at all now: May 15 – 2015 Wendy Mesley

Its noteworthy that the CBC interviewer lied twice by minute 7. For one thing, Prime Minister Harper did not say Islam was rooted in a culture that was anti woman but that the niqab or face cloth is rooted in a culture that is anti woman. By implication however that could mean islam. But many muslims claim that the face cloth is a tribal or cultural practice like FGM and have nothing to do with islam. So while I agree with Prime Minister Harper in either case, he did not say that. Secondly the interviewer claimed PM Harper was denying the head cloth. This is an outright fabrication. (Pun not intended but allowed to stand in evidence) Stephen Harper objected to the covering of the face with a face cloth during important ceremonies in government buildings. This is significantly different from what the interviewer said, not implied, but stated. Ayaan herself without knowing the facts differentiated between the head cloth and the face cloth.

All in all, it would appear that the CBC has learned to conceal its contempt for all things conservative better than Mr. Lewis did, while still trying to shape the narrative in the same way. When the interviewer tries to trap Ayaan into advocating for Omar Khadr as victim it becomes clear what the agenda of the show is. At least Mr. Lewis’s show, The Agenda, was more honestly named.

Now lets watch Bill Mahar in his most recent interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali:

He starts out by revealing her bias. This is fair. But the questions allow her to explain her PoV and not his agenda. Even though its safe to say at this point, they may be very similar.

She is of course, wrong about the idea of an Islamic reformation. It is having one now, Its called, Salafism, Wahabism and the Islamic state In fact the problem with islam is the reformation of it into what it always was, instead of the tamed version of it we forced during the colonial years. If we are no longer willing to accept the responsibilities of colonialism, then we should at least protect ourselves from the fallout of abandoning that responsibility.

(The Bill Mahar segment was removed from YT but this small but very good part is working at the moment, even if it doesn’t make the point as well)

Get Ready for the Muslim Brotherhood

By AYAAN HIRSI ALI The New York Times:

Published: February 3, 2011
WASHINGTON — In 1985, as a teenager in Kenya, I was an adamant member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Seventeen years later, in 2002, I took part in a political campaign to win votes for the conservative party in the Netherlands.

Those two experiences gave me some insights that I think are relevant to the current crisis in Egypt. They lead me to believe it is highly likely but not inevitable that the Muslim Brotherhood will win the elections to be held in Egypt this coming September.

As a participant in an election campaign, I learned a few basic lessons:

• The party must have a political program all members commit to with a vision of how to govern the country until the next election. Dissent within the party is a sure way of losing elections.

• Candidates must articulate not only what they will do for the country but also why the other party’s program will be catastrophic for the nation.

• The party has to be embedded in as many communities as possible, regardless of social class, religion or even political views.

• Candidates must constantly remind potential voters of their party’s successes and the opponent’s failures.

The secular democratic and human-rights groups in Egypt and in the rest of the Arab world show little sign of understanding these facts of political life. The Muslim Brotherhood, on the other hand, gets at least three out of four.

True, they have never been in office. But they have a political program and a vision not only until the next elections, but, in their view, until the Hereafter. And they are very good at reminding Egyptians of why the other party’s policies will be ungodly and therefore catastrophic for Egypt. Above all, they have succeeded in embedding themselves in Egyptian society in ways that could prove crucial.

When I was 15 and considered myself a member of the Muslim Brotherhood movement, there were secular political groups in the diasporas of Pakistanis, Yemenis and Somalis, who lived in exile in Nairobi like my family. These loosely organized groups had vague plans for building their countries into peaceful, prosperous nations. These were dreams they never realized.

The Muslim Brotherhood did more than dream. With the help of money from Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich countries, they established cells in my school and functioning institutions in my neighborhood. There were extracurricular activities for all age groups. There were prayer and chant hours, as well as communal Koran readings. We were encouraged to become volunteers, to help the indigent, to spread Allah’s message. They established charities to which we could tithe, which then provided health and educational centers.

The Brotherhood also provided the only functioning banking networks, based on trust. They rescued teenagers from lives of drug addiction and excited them about a purposeful future for justice. Each of us was expected to recruit more people. Most importantly, their message transcended ethnicity, social class and even educational levels.

It is true that the movement was violent, but we tend to underestimate in the West the Brotherhood’s ability to adapt to reality and implement lessons learned. One such adaptation is the ongoing debate within the network on the use of violence. There are two schools of thought within the network, and both of them invoke the Prophet Mohammed.

Those who want instant jihad hark back to the time when the Prophet had small armies that defeated massive ones, as in the battles of Badr and Uhud. The nonviolent branch of the Brotherhood emphasizes the Prophet’s perseverance and patience. They emphasize da’wa (persuasion through preaching and by example) and above all a gradual multi-generational process in coming to power and holding on to it. Above all, they argue for taqiyyah, a strategy to collaborate with your enemies until the time is ripe to defeat them or convert them to Islam.

Why are the secular democratic forces in Egypt so much weaker than the Muslim Brotherhood?

Continue Reading →

DOUGLAS MURRAY: Warning to the US: Don’t Play by Islamic Rules

This is a truly excellent piece of work by a man who I grow more and more to admire as one of the great intellectuals of the day. Douglas Murray appeared with Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the IQ2 debate, ‘Is Islam a religion of peace’ and was excellent. But this piece is superb. If you read nothing else today, read this. Thank you Fred for sending it to me. This is nectar for a thirsty mind.

From Standpoint Mag

By Douglas Murray

What was your first reaction back in May when you heard of plans to build a mega-mosque near the site of the Twin Towers in New York? Did you assume it was a tasteless joke? Did your jaw drop? Or did you think: “What a good idea. No better place.”

My bet would be that most readers (including self-described liberal readers) had a touch more of the former reaction than the latter. Some people even said so at the time. A number of families of 9/11 victims spoke out against the building and for a few weeks the idea of a 13-storey mosque complex beside the World Trade Centre craters, due to cost £68 million yet with no known financial backer, seemed a dead duck.

So how was it that within a few months many of those same people, most notably the most loudly self-declared liberals, were not merely advocating the building of that same mosque but in many cases seemed eager to build it themselves, finally depicting its construction as the sine qua non of America’s survival? The distance between first and second instincts is always illuminating. But this one turns out to be more than usually so. Public debates in America tend to happen rougher, faster and more ferociously than they do in most of Europe. And so it was that a heated debate over one hot summer transformed a planning dispute into something far larger and more significant.

Daisy Khan: Wife of the Imam of the proposed Ground Zero mosque has claimed to be a victim

It was at the beginning of August that the Mayor of New York City Michael Bloomberg stood with the Statue of Liberty in the background to make a major announcement. The planning regulations surrounding the former Burlington Coat Factory on 45-51 Park Place, had already met opposition at the community board advisory level. National polls suggested that a majority of Americans were opposed to the building of what was then called Cordoba House, a couple of blocks from Ground Zero. But Bloomberg thought differently. Surrounded by the requisite collective of religiously-attired figures, Bloomberg declared that restrictive planning laws of New York would not be allowed to stand in the way of the planned mosque. The debate was not about a planning application any longer. It was about something more, he declared. It was about America.

In his often teary-eyed speech, Bloomberg exercised the now decade-long tendency to believe that al-Qaeda meant whatever you want them to have meant when they destroyed the Twin Towers. Bloomberg declared: “Three thousand people were killed because some murderous fanatics didn’t want us to enjoy the freedom to profess our own faiths, to speak our own minds, to follow our own dreams and to live our own lives.” The issue, he said, was “as important  a test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetime”. And it wasn’t a test he intended to fail. Expressing his support for the construction of the mosque, he said: “The community centre and mosque will add to the life and vitality of the neighbourhood and the entire city.”

President Barack Obama appeared to enter the debate on Bloomberg’s side when he raised the matter at a Muslim iftar (post-fast) dinner at the White House. “This is America,” he confirmed indignantly. The next day, he changed tack in the face of a popular uproar, and claimed that he had not in fact made the statement he appeared to have made, but had instead carefully avoided making any statements about the wisdom of building anything anywhere.

Despite Obama’s phantom U-turn, by the end of the summer the liberal consensus appeared to be with Bloomberg. After further negative opinion polls, Bloomberg declared that those opposed to the mosque “ought to be ashamed of themselves”, adding: “To cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists.” Al-Qaeda had attacked the World Trade Centre and as a result it was now vital that America reply by building a mosque.

Other politicians were not as distrustful as Bloomberg was of popular sentiment. In mid-August, Newt Gingrich, the former House Speaker, said on air: “Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust museum in Washington…We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbour.” Gingrich’s intervention allowed mainstream politicians respectfully to oppose the construction. But by then another element of the debate had emerged. It was one which points to perhaps the largest difference between the European and American debate on this issue. Continue Reading →

Ayaan Hirsi Ali slam dunks oponents in IQ2 debate. islam not peace.

A few weeks ago or more, I watched an IQ Squared debate perhaps four times trying to find what I felt was the defining moment in the ABC (I think it was) debate as part of their series, ‘IQ Squared’ where Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Douglas Murray took the negative on the proposition, ‘Islam is a religion of peace’. Below, is the footage I felt best summarized both sides. The positive side read a passage of Koran, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali read the next line of the same verse showing in fact, that the yes side had totally misrepresented it.

The whole debate and some analysis can be seen here:

Show #2 US TV, Is Islam a religion of peace?

This one seems to be a great deal better than the recent ABC one that was aired last week. Despite the all star cast, it fell somewhat short of expectations. This one which was recorded today in New York, although I have not seen it all in its entirety yet, seems much better and to the point. it also features Ayaan Hirsi Ali for the ‘not’ side as well as Douglass Murray.

ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF PEACE from Intelligence Squared US on Vimeo.

Newt Gingrich speaks on Islam and the danger America faces today.

Yes I know lots of you do not have time to watch all the videos I post on this site and to be fair, it would take up a large part of one’s day to do so. But please, watch this one. Newt is fantastic and calls it like it is. He makes me want to make a T shirt saying: “2+2=4? RACIST! My little objection to the dialectic scam. In any case please do watch this superb video of Newt G. Really, it is worth your time.

Below, I did a 9 minute sort of highlights of his speech as a teaser: