Islamic Reformation and Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Islamic Reformation and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Dan Miller’s Blog, January 2, 2016

(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

In Infidel, Ayaan Hirsi Ali describes her execrable life as a devout Muslim girl in Somalia, Kenya and Saudi Arabia. She explains why she became an Infidel after experiencing freedom in the Netherlands. In Heretic, she seeks a reformation of Islam, with a focus on women’s rights but including tolerance and freedom of thought and speech for all. That will not happen soon, even though there are other current and former Muslims who want it and others who claim to want it. 

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

From the first page of Heretic:

On ______, a group of ______ heavily armed, black-clad men burst into a ______ in ______, opening fire and killing a total of ______ people. The attackers were filmed shouting “Allahu akbar!”

Speaking at a press conference, President ______ said: “We condemn this criminal act by extremists. Their attempt to justify their violent acts in the name of a religion of peace will not, however, succeed. We also condemn with equal force those who would use this atrocity as a pretext for Islamophobic hate crimes.”

. . . .

Let me make my point in the simplest possible terms: Islam is not a religion of peace. For expressing the idea that Islamic violence is rooted not in social, economic, or political conditions— or even in theological error— but rather in the foundational texts of Islam itself, I have been denounced as a bigot and an “Islamophobe.” I have been silenced, shunned, and shamed. In effect, I have been deemed to be a heretic, not just by Muslims— for whom I am already an apostate— but by some Western liberals as well, whose multicultural sensibilities are offended by such “insensitive” pronouncements. [Emphasis added.]


Heretic explores differences between political Islam and Islam as a religion. Hirsi Ali tells of some horrors of Islam as currently practiced in Islamic states, officially pursuant to Sharia law but also unofficially and with little or no intervention by those states to prevent or ameliorate it. Here is an example of the latter type of political Islam:

Political Islam is rooted in and, I think, inseparable from, religious Islam as commanded by the Qu’ran, the Hadith and Sharia law. An article titled The Lure of Fantasy Islam disparages hopeful reformers such as Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, a self-described “devout Muslim,” as promoting “fantasy Islam” by obscuring the nature of Islam as it has developed over the centuries and as it now is.

Dr. Jasser advocates the separation of mosque and state. He

is the Founder and President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) and is the author of A Battle for the Soul of Islam: An American Muslim Patriot’s Fight to Save His Faith (Simon & Schuster, June 2012). On March 20, 2012, Dr. Jasser was appointed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) where he currently serves as a Commissioner.

That’s very good; but how can a “devout Muslim” call for the separation of mosque and state? He also appears to pretend that Islam today is something it is not: a peaceful, tolerant religion. Obama and organizations He supports do the same. He and they do not seek Islamic reformation but instead oppose it. Obama apparently believes that Islam is fine as it is. He is not stupid and must know what Islam is now and has long been.

Hirsi Ali does not pretend that today’s Islam is what it is not: she recognizes today’s Islam as a violent, intolerant and otherwise evil religion that seeks civilizational domination. She is the executive producer of, and appeared in, this Clarion Project Honor Diaries Video as well as others:

For producing the Honor Diaries videos, Hirsi Ali is deemed an “Islamophobe.” Although the suffix “phobia” in “Islamophobia” still invokes the notion of irrationality, that seems to have disappeared in current usage. Now, Islamophobia “(or anti-Muslim sentiment) is the prejudice against, hatred towards, or fear of the religion of Islam or Muslims” — regardless of the rationality of such prejudice, hatred or fear.

Along with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Azeezah Kanji — the featured speaker in the above video — has been very active in disparaging Honor Diaries. Like CAIR, she has ties to the Obama White House and was named a “Champion of Change” by the White House in 2011. What changes in Islam does Ms. Kanji champion? None, apparently, of those intrinsic to it.

Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the CAIR, condemned Ayaan Hirsi Ali as “one of the worst of the worst of the Islam haters in America, not only in America but worldwide.”

Please see also my article titled Islam: Hate, Honor, Women’s Rights and Congress. Obama’s “Champion for Change” would most likely agree with the proponents of House Resolution 569 that “Islamophobia” is a hate crime.

What can we do to promote an Islamic reformation?

To a great extent, it’s up to the Muslims. However, Hirsi Ali suggests the following in Heretic:

There is probably no realistic chance that Muslims in countries such as Pakistan will agree to dispense with sharia. However, we in the West must insist that Muslims living in our societies abide by our rule of law. We must demand that Muslim citizens abjure sharia practices and punishments that conflict with fundamental human rights and Western legal codes. Moreover, under no circumstances should Western countries allow Muslims to form self-governing enclaves in which women and other supposedly second-class citizens can be treated in ways that belong in the seventh century. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

It is no longer plausible to argue that organizations such as Boko Haram— or, for that matter, Islamic State— have nothing to do with Islam. It is no longer credible to define “extremism” as some disembodied threat, meting out death without any ideological foundation, a problem to be dealt with by purely military methods, preferably drone strikes. We need to tackle the root problem of the violence that is plaguing our world today, and that must be the doctrine of Islam itself. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

[The]  phenomenon of Christophobia (as opposed to the far more widely discussed “Islamophobia”) receives remarkably little coverage in the Western media. Part of this reticence may be due to fear of provoking additional violence. But part is clearly a result of the very effective efforts by lobbying groups such as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Over the past decade, these and similar groups have been remarkably successful in persuading journalists and editors in the West to think of each and every example of perceived anti-Muslim discrimination as an expression of a deep-rooted Islamophobia. [Emphasis added.]

What does Islam need to reform?

Islam . . . . needs a Voltaire. But I have come to believe it is in dire need of a John Locke as well. It was, after all, Locke who gave us the notion of a “natural right” to the fundamentals of “life, liberty, and property.” But less well known is Locke’s powerful case for religious toleration. And religious toleration, however long it took to be established in practice, is one of the greatest achievements of the Western world.

. . . .

Most Americans, and indeed most Europeans, would much rather ignore the fundamental conflict between Islam and their own worldview. This is partly because they generally assume that “religion,” however defined, is a force for good and that any set of religious beliefs should be considered acceptable in a tolerant society. . . . [Emphasis added.]

But that does not mean we should be blind to the potential consequences of accommodating beliefs that are openly hostile to Western laws, traditions, and values. For it is not simply a religion we have to deal with. It is a political religion many of whose fundamental tenets are irreconcilably inimical to our way of life. We need to insist that it is not we in the West who must accommodate ourselves to Muslim sensitivities; it is Muslims who must accommodate themselves to Western liberal ideals. [Emphasis added.]

Unfortunately, not everyone gets this.

In the fall of 2014, Bill Maher, host of the HBO show Real Time with Bill Maher, held a discussion about Islam that featured the best-selling author Sam Harris, the actor Ben Affleck, and the New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof. Harris and Maher raised the question of whether or not Western liberals were abandoning their principles by not confronting Islam about its treatment of women, promotion of jihad, and sharia-based punishments of stoning and death to apostates. To Affleck, this smacked of Islamophobia and he responded with an outburst of moralistic indignation. To applause from the audience, he heatedly accused Harris and Maher of being “gross” and “racist” and saying things no different from “saying ‘you’re a shifty Jew.’ ” Siding with Affleck, Kristof interjected that brave Muslims were risking their lives to promote human rights in the Muslim world. [Emphasis added.]

After the show, during a discussion in the greenroom, Sam Harris asked both Ben Affleck and Nick Kristof, “What do you think would happen if we had burned a copy of the Qur’an on tonight’s show?” Sam then answered his own question, “There would be riots in scores of countries. Embassies would fall. In response to our mistreating a book, millions of Muslims would take to the streets, and we would spend the rest of our lives fending off credible threats of murder. But when IS crucifies people, buries children alive, and rapes and tortures women by the thousands— all in the name of Islam— the response is a few small demonstrations in Europe and a hashtag [# NotInOurName].” [Emphasis added.]

Islam is apartheid and should be recognized as such.

Too often, when it comes to women’s rights (and human rights more generally) in the Muslim world, leading thinkers and opinion makers have, at best, gone dark. [Emphasis added.]

I cannot help contrasting this silence with the campaign to end apartheid, which united whites and blacks alike all over the world beginning in the 1960s. When the West finally stood up to the horrors of South African apartheid, it did so across a broad front. The campaign against apartheid reached down into classrooms and even sports stadiums; churches and synagogues stood united against it across the religious spectrum. South African sports teams were shunned, economic sanctions were imposed, and intense international pressure was brought to bear on the country to change its social and political system. American university students erected shantytowns on their campuses to symbolize their solidarity with those black South Africans confined to a life of degradation and impoverishment inside townships. [Emphasis added,]

Today, with radical Islam, we have a new and even more violent system of apartheid, where people are targeted not for their skin color but for their gender, their sexual orientation, their religion, or, among Muslims, the form of their personal faith. [Emphasis added.]

. . . . As I have repeatedly said, the connection between violence and Islam is too clear to be ignored. We do no favors to Muslims when we shut our eyes to this link, when we excuse rather than reflect. We need to ask: Is the concept of holy war compatible with our ideal of religious toleration? Should it be blasphemy— punishable by death— to question the applicability of certain seventh-century doctrines to our own era? Why, when I have made these arguments, have I received so little support and so much opprobrium from the very people in the West who call themselves feminists, who call themselves liberals? [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

A Unique Role for the West

Whenever I make the case for reform in the Muslim world, someone invariably says: “That is not our project— it is for Muslims only. We should stay out of it.” But I am not talking about the kind of military intervention that has got the West into so much trouble over the years. For years, we have spent trillions on waging wars against “terror” and “extremism” that would have been much better spent protecting Muslim dissidents and giving them the necessary platforms and resources to counter that vast network of Islamic centers, madrassas, and mosques which has been largely responsible for spreading the most noxious forms of Islamic fundamentalism. For years, we have treated the people financing that vast network— the Saudis, the Qataris, and the now repentant Emiratis— as our allies. In the midst of all our efforts at policing, surveillance, and even military action, we in the West have not bothered to develop an effective counternarrative because from the outset we have denied that Islamic extremism is in any way related to Islam. We persist in focusing on the violence and not on the ideas that give rise to it. [Emphasis added.]

Are you listening, President Obama? Not at all likely.

Why the Tide Is Turning

Three factors are combining today to enable real religious reform:

• The impact of new information technology in creating an unprecedented communication network across the Muslim world.

• The fundamental inability of Islamists to deliver when they come to power and the impact of Western norms on Muslim immigrants are creating a new and growing constituency for a Muslim Reformation.

• The emergence of a political constituency for religious reform emerging in key Middle Eastern states.

Together, I believe these three things will ultimately turn the tide against the Islamists, whose goal is, after all, a return to the time of the Prophet— a venture as foredoomed to failure as all attempts to reverse the direction of time’s arrow.

. . . .

In November 2014, an Egyptian doctor coined an Arabic hashtag that translates as “why we reject implementing sharia”; it was used five thousand times in the space of twenty-four hours, mostly by Saudis and Egyptians. In language that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago, a young Moroccan named Brother Rachid last year called out President Obama on YouTube for claiming that Islamic State was “not Islamic.”[Emphasis added.]

Here is the referenced video: Please listen. It’s powerful and compelling, albeit “Islamophobic.”

. . . .

I agree with Malala Yousafzai, the Nobel Peace Prize– winning Pakistani schoolgirl whom the Taliban tried to kill:

The extremists are afraid of books and pens. The power of education frightens them. They are afraid of women. The power of the voice of women frightens them. That is why they are blasting schools every day— because they were and they are afraid of change, afraid of the equality that we will bring to our society. They think that God is a tiny, little conservative being who would send girls to the hell just because of going to school.

Here, surely, is the authentic voice of a Muslim Reformation.


Islamic reformation will take a long time. Until there is an Islamic reformation, those who cry “Islamophobe!” — a made-up word intended to box people to keep them “politically correct” — will have won. So will those who despise our freedoms and want to “fundamentally transform” America.

Until we, and our “leaders,” stop damning “Islamophobes” and helping such organizations as CAIR, there will be no significant reformation. If and when we and our “leaders” also begin to take the other steps Hirsi Ali suggests, there may eventually be a reformation that will benefit us as well as Muslims.


Explore posts in the same categories: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, CAIR, Islam, Islam and women, Islamic culture, Islamic honor, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic reformation, Islamic State, Islamophobia

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

5 Comments on “Islamic Reformation and Ayaan Hirsi Ali”

  1. Tyrannovar Says:

    Very commendable. Your book review is commendable, and helpful, since I haven’t read the book, yet. And I always recommend book reading. If more people would read the right books that would go a long way to solving many problems, but alas… And, you’re way ahead of me. I DID read “Infidel”, many years ago, so maybe when it first came out.

    “Renunciation” not “Reformation”, that’s my position on Islam, to make my view as short and sweet as possible.

    The only thing a Muslim can do to atone for the sin of Islam is to Renounce Islam. There is no realistic chance to reform Islam. The Universe has already come to an end for so many victims of Islam. How many? Over 200 million and counting. And the Universe is coming to an end every day, for those who are today’s victims of Islam. For those 200 million it’s already to late to talk of “Reformation” and for the thousands or millions of tomorrows victims “Reformation” will come too late. Their whole world is going to come to an end if our only course is to promote “Reform”.

    Miss Ali doesn’t go far enough in analyzing the problem. She makes a mistake that many people make when they try to argue, she presumes, subconsciously, that her objectives are the objectives of the people she is trying to convince. They are not. She wants to fix Islam. The important people she is trying to convince don’t care about the problems of Islam, they know that Islam is evil, they just don’t care about how much damage Islam is doing, all they care about is that they are getting paid off to grease the skids for the advance of Islam. Miss Ali is generous and wants to help everyone, the politicians are selfish and only care about themselves, the Clintons come to mind, read
    Deception: How Clinton Sold America Out to the Chinese Military
    Paperback – June, 2004
    — Charles R. Smith

    And the treason of our political leaders with respect to Islam brings up the subject of money. The Middle Eastern Islamic states were given trillions of dollars of oil money, petro-dollars, in 1975. They’ve used a big part of those trillions to bribe politicians in the West, and not just politicians, but every organization and institution and individual that might help the Muslims to conquer the world for Islam. So as helpful as Miss Ali’s advice might be if everyone was as sincere as she is, those powerful but cynical and selfish people who actually run the world are just going to laugh at “Heretic”.

    And that brings up the real solution to the “Islamic Problem”. There’s no time for “Reformation”. The problem is existential and imminent, as in if Iran gets the bomb Israel might disappear, completely, and soon. The same goes for all of the US, if Iran can launch an effective EMP attack.

    The real solution to the “Islamic Problem” is to pull the plug on the trillions of dollars they are using to conquer Western Civilization. Pull the plug on their oil. Do that first, fully realizing the inevitable consequences. And only act to save those few Muslims who then choose to “Renounce Islam”.

    • I agree that an Islamic reformation will not happen soon; it may not happen at all.

      However, a reformation in the way that America deals with Islam, and the way that Islamists deal with America, is possible:

      Recognize Islam for what it is, stop helping CAIR and other pro-Islamist organizations, help other organizations that oppose Islam, present Islam as apartheid rather than as the “religion of peace” and implement many of Hirsi Ali’s other suggestions.

      Obama, of course, will do none of that. If his successor is not Hillary, he may do some of it.

      • Tyrannovar Says:

        Ah… Two different “reforms”. Of course my idea of reform for Islam is to eradicate Islam, and oh how easy it would be, pull the plug on their oil supply, if only there was the will. As I said before, one very influential person DID have the will in 1975

        “Seizing Arab Oil”

        And you DO REALIZE, even if the US has passed on that option, it maybe that the Russians and Chinese still see that as a very real possibility, where do you think Russia is heading in Syria? Do you think Putin intends to stop in Syria, or continue on all the way to the Southern Ocean (as the Tsars have been trying to do for hundreds of years), to Basra, to the Persian (i.e. the Iranian) Gulf. We may wake up one day next new year and find out that Russia has seen the wisdom of an action that the West passed up in 1975. And then Putin may see the wisdom of letting all the surviving Muslims go back to grazing camels on the sands over Russian oil, it would certainly take a lot of steam out the the threat he faces from Islam in Southern Russia and the Caucasus. Sounds like a smart move to me. And Senator McCain did call Russia “a gas station masquerading as a country”, but if Russia controlled ALL the oil, Senator McCain might end up laughing out of the other side of his mouth. The response to Islam is not for us alone to decide, other empires get a vote. If we dither, perhaps THEIR solution will be to our detriment.

  2. Tyrannovar Says:


    Suppose for a minute that you had been one of those 200 million victims of Islam, a Christian perhaps, and that your whole world had come to an end, your happy life, the lives of all your family, all your hopes, all your dreams, your whole Universe had come to an end, but then… suppose that you were given a chance to go back in time to that moment when you heard that dreadful pounding on the door, before the Jihadis broke in and dragged your little daughter off to some rape room, before they kidnapped your son to turn him into an Islamic monster just like themselves, before they raped and murdered your wife before your very eyes, before they then beheaded you yourself. But suppose this time you had been given a magic box, with a magic button, a red button. You’d been assured and believed that by pushing this button every Muslim on Earth would instantly and miraculously ascend into Heaven, or descend into Hell, wherever they belonged, at that very moment, leaving no trace of them and leaving no trace of all of Islam on the surface of the Earth. Would you push that button? Would you save your family? Would you trade the lives of every Muslim on Earth for the lives of your family? Or would you be like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and all those others who place their hope in an Islamic Reformation? Would you be self-sacrificing? Would you be magnanimous. Would you be generous? Would you sacrifice your whole family, and allow all Muslims to continue in their ways, perhaps to someday conquer the whole world for Islam, consoled only by the hope that someday, someday in the far off misty and uncertain future that Islam might MIGHT be reformed? I’d push that button…. I wouldn’t push that button…. I’d pound that button, and I’d keep on pounding that red button… and pounding and pounding and pounding….

  3. Tyrannovar Says:

    What Alexander Solshenitsyn had to say about the correct response to another evil like Islam, Bolshevism Communism.

    Did he recommend to Take Action? Or Hope in Reform?

    Alexander Solzhenitsyn Explains the Importance of the Second Amendment

    And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?

    Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?

    After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you’d be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria [Government limo] sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur — what if it had been driven off or its tires spiked.

    The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!

    –Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The GULAG Archipelago

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s