THE MIDDLE EAST
Re: Where are we?
  • Currently 1.7
  • 0
  • 1
  • 2

(29)
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Uploaded on 01/14/2008

Description: Nuclear weapons and religious fanaticism is a dangerous combination, Ali says.

Question:  When you read the newspaper and watch the news, what issues stand out for you?

Transcript: Nuclear weapons in the hands of fanatical religious people who think that the day of judgment is around the corner. I think for people to understand it, they should probably see pictures of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and that was pretty much a primitive bomb.  The bombs that they are trying to make now are far more advanced and can kill far more people, and with consequences for decades for the places that are . . . that will be affected.  Someone like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the current President of Iran, has made it very clear that he is able . . . he is willing and he is able to acquire that bomb, and he is going to use it.  He has declared war on the state of Israel.  When the leader of one country tells the leader of another country, “I’m going to wipe you off the map,” that, according to international declarations, is a declaration of war.  Ever since he came to power, he made it very clear – pretty much like Hitler when he came to power – that he was going in that direction.  Now the first reaction was understandable, where you see, “We should negotiate this man.  Let’s understand what he has to say.  Let’s talk to him.  Let’s use sanctions,” and so on.  But you always have to have that military option – the option of force on the table.  And my criticism of the European Union leadership is that that is off the table. 

Question: Do you believe Ahmadinejad would use nuclear weapons if Iran acquires the capability?

Transcript: Yes. He has made it very clear that he is going to use it.  And not only that.  He is already financing and disrupting the U.S. policy and western policy in the Middle East.  And he is trying to become very dominant in that region.  And so he is someone who is very much . . .  He’s very self-assured because the usual mode of detriment, you know . . . deterring someone from doing something, which are always material and worldly, are things he doesn’t believe in.  He welcomes death.  And in that region, it’s not the . . .  I’m not saying that everyone there believes that; but part of the radical Islamic doctrine is to believe that things will be better in the hereafter.  So people welcome death.  Not all of them, but many of them and those engaged in that welcome death.  Which means the old forms of deterring people from doing things such as acquiring a bomb or using it – that the old methods – the sanctions and so on – that’s not something that’s going to make any impression on him.

Question: When did the West and the Islamic world diverge?

Transcript: I think if we go back to as far as the 10th and 11th centuries when, according to the history books, there was west was backward, and the Islamic world was far more progressive; that one thing that changed was Europeans . . . that was the west then and went off and traveled towards the Islamic world with China and Japan, and started to observe the way these people lived, and thought that by doing that they could learn something from them.  And they came back with those lessons and they innovated at the same time that they were challenging their own institutions such as the church.  Then later the printing press came and all these forces came together where there was the desire to learn from the outside, and the challenge of the futile institutions within that were closing the minds within the west.  It’s around that time that in the Arab-Islamic empire, that’s what it was. There was a conviction that they had nothing to learn from the past or from others; that all knowledge was sort of concentrated from the Koran; and that we were leading in everything.  So there was this lax . . . this attitude that all knowledge is something we have.  We can’t learn anything from the west.  And I think that that’s when the divergence started.  And those minds on the eastern side closed, and the western mind opened and innovated and progressed at a pace that was so breathtaking for the Arab-Islamic world.  But by the time they actually woke up to their backwardness, the west was so far ahead in military, political, religious, cultural and social progress that all we can do now is copy.  It’s very little left to invent.

Question: What is the state of the Islamic world today?

Transcript: I’m optimistic about the fact that there are several individuals – by far not the majority – who have been in touch with the west, with Asia, with other non-Islamic cultures, and who realize that there’s a lot that we have to learn.  My optimism is that that group will be influential enough to make the reforms and the changes necessary in that part of the world.  Second observation is you cannot change if you do not accept that there is something to change; that there’s something imperfect.  So that dogma, that everything in Islam, and the moral framework that the Prophet Mohammed left for us is perfect, and that there is nothing to change in that; that is being challenged.  And because of that challenge, a natural reaction is one of defending it with all the fanaticism in the group and the community.  That can lead to bloodshed.  We also live in circumstances where people like Ahmadinejad who is a fanatical Muslim, has nuclear powers – is at least aspiring towards getting one.  Pakistan has one.  Egypt wants one.  Turkey wants one.  Under those circumstances, if they succeed in acquiring these weapons of mass destruction, then we are facing . . . we’re facing terrible times.  Meaning if you look at the western evolution towards modernity and the progress that we have reached now, those weapons were not there.  There were mass murders.  There were genocides.  There were lots of, you know, all those things that human beings do to each other; but having nuclear weapons just makes things so much more dramatic.  It’s not easy times.  That’s the very pessimistic and most urgent thing that we need to look at now.   Another observation is if you look at all the conflicts in the world today, you will be surprised at the number of Muslims entangled in conflict among themselves, with China, with Russia, with the west.  We are only one-fifth of the world population.  Having so many enemies all at the same time is very self-destructive.  Now if the fanaticism within the Muslim world that is now being fed by the fact that if we die, the hereafter is going to be a better place, then it’s very difficult to stop that.  But if that is diluted – I always like to see the cup as half full – that there will be voices, and that they will be strong enough to say that it’s madness to commit . . . to kill and to be killed because of this belief in the hereafter, and make the belief in the hereafter relative when things could look better; but on the very short term it looks like things will look bad.

Question: What misperceptions of Islam prevail in the West?

Transcript: I think the major misperception in the western world on Islam is that it’s equal to peace, and that it can be reconciled with liberal democracy.  The fanaticism within Islam and its basic tenets is something that is underestimated in the west.  And I think that western leaders – political, intellectual, religious leaders – the sooner they recognize that that faith – the Islamic faith – needs to go through a process of reformation and enlightenment, and that it’s going to come at a very high price, the better.  The sooner they do that the better.  As long as these leaders go on as seeing Islam as peace, that is, I think, a major misconception.  It’s also, I think, a very self-destructive one.

 

Question: What has to change?

Transcript: I think we should make a distinction between Islam and Muslims. What I’m trying to do is to say all over the world, we can identify with each other as human beings.  That is the basic glue – the fact that you’re an individual human being and I’m an individual human being, that’s what’s . . . that’s where our commonality or common strength lies in, and common interests. Islam, if we view it as one of the philosophies of political theories or ideas produced by human beings through our history, or just one of them . . . and view it, scrutinize it, criticize it as we have done with all other doctrines – religious or secular – then we may be able from the west – now I’m using “we” as someone who is westernized – to convince Muslims to make a different choice and to reform their faith first by acknowledging that there are things wrong with their faith.  So our goal should not be to preserve Islam. Our goal should be the common human, you know . . .  We are humans. So Muslims are humans.  They are not first born just as a baby in Pakistan, or in Saudi Arabia, or in Yemen, or in a Muslim community here.  If we emphasize that, then I think we can make a change.  And that involves two things.  That involves learning to distinguish between who is an enemy and who is a friend.  But before you decide who is an enemy and who is a friend, you yourself have to decide what do you stand for.  What are your own set of ideas that you feel are superior to that of Islam?  And are you willing to defend and die for your own ideas of freedom, and humanity, and humanism as much as the fanatics are willing to die for their own?

Question: What should be the response to Islamic fundamentalism?

 Transcript:     I think that’s such a good question because it puts . . . it just shows how experimental it all was – a  process of trial and error, and it’s still the case.  For instance – and this is a point of criticism – there’s no consensus in the United States on who the enemy is, or whether to freely say it’s Islam, or it’s a perversion of a form of Islam. Is it Wahhabism?  Is it Salafism?   Or is it basic Islam?  Who should we ally with strategically?  In other words, the approach has been very much strategic.  There are people in the United States, including this administration, who are waking up to the fact that there is a battle of ideas going on, but they’re too shy to voice what the ideas are.  Another point of criticism – and that’s not only towards this administration – but I’ve seen it all over the place is just this desire to avoid Saudi Arabia as a culprit; the state that’s not only financing terrorism, but also financing the ideology behind the terror acts. I think it was a mistake to declare it a “war on terror.” Terror is just a tactic, and it shows how much . . . how strategic the whole approach is towards what’s going on.  Another mistake on both sides of the Atlantic is that if we just appease them – if we just understand what they want from us and we give it to them, they might not be so bad to us. Or they might _________. Or they might . . .  I think those are mistakes that were made.  But again I’ll come back to the distinction between Europe and America.  And it seems as if America is learning much faster than Europe.  And by learning, I mean waking up to the fact that it is Islam . . . not necessarily all Muslims, but Islam as a set of ideas; and that that can mean military . . . I mean very disastrous military action.  Which for every politician, it is a terrible decision to take to say, “We are going to war.” Or, “We are going to do something destructive.” Or, “We’re going to take an unpopular action.” And Americans seem to be much more courageous in making that decision.  They did this in the Second World War and later than the Europeans who have . . .  I think the Europeans leadership at this point is really self-restrained and I say this because of the approach to Iran.

Recorded on: 8/15/07

25
3
RESPOND TO THIS IDEA
Report Abuse
3
Responses
STATEMENTS
QUESTIONS
ALL
SORT BY
popular | date
Re: Re: Where are we?
OmarS

I have nothing but disdain for this woman and her promotion of the US neoconservative pro-war agenda. Iran has every reason to hate America. It was the Americans and the British that gave support to the overthrow of Musaddeq, for no other reason than that he wanted to ensure that Iran has sovereign control over its own oil. A brutal and self-serving shah was installed, who was then overthrown in favor of the current conservative islamist government. Iran never did anything to harm America. America did in fact attack the Iranians. And lets not forget the support America lended to Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war, that left many hundreds of thousands of people dead on both sides. Ayaan points to Iran trying to gain influence in the Middle East and counter American actions there, as though Iran had no legitimate reason to do so. And given America's history in attacking the Iranians both from within and via warfare, it is entirely understandable why Iran would want to bolster their military abilities, as well as their capacity to operate in a region where the majority of leaders of Arab countries are in the pockets of Washington. 

The use of nuclear weapons as a deterrent is an established practice by many countries, and has been so for decades. Given America's aggressive stance towards the Middle East, Iran has as good a reason to seek it as any. However, Iranian scholars have repeatedly stated that it is not permissible under Islam to own or use such weapons, as they do not differentiate between civilian and military targets. UNSCOM has not confirmed that Iran has actually done anything to suggest they're on the way to producing nuclear weapons. Ayaan claims Ahmedinejad openly said he's seeking it. That's a lie. If she had an ounce of willingness to address issues as an unbiased, uninvested and rational scholar, she would point all this out. She hasn't and she wont. 

 My position is that nuclear weapons should be abolished altogether. There's nothing that needs doing that can't be done with conventional arms. Nothing justifies leveling entire cities or villages to dust, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians on the way. The US cannot ask any country to stop seeking the weapons it already posessed, unless it rids itself of them first. 

Ahmedinejad is a nut job, I agree. No doubt about that. What Ayaan and her employer, the American Enterprise Institute would not have you know, though, is that he is as much disliked by his people in Iran as Bush is in America. He was elected in the first place because he promised economic reforms that would boost the struggling Iranian economy, and for that was supported by the lower and lower middle class people seeking economic change. They didn't know he'd turn into a wannabe Messiah. However, Iranians do protest his rhetoric, even the clerical elites do this. He was recently booed at a public university for his behavior. The man simply doesn't have as much influence as Ayaan would claim he had.

As for Ayaan's position that Islam is the enemy:

If you'd actually make an effort to meet Muslims around the world, you'd fine the caricature she draws of Muslims is false. Yes, there are extreme strains of Islam that have adopted violence as a means to subjugate and oppress people. That group of Muslims is the minority. There are also Muslims who have no such hatred of the West. Look at the Muslims in India or Bangladesh or Indonesia. Look up Doctor Muhammad Yunus (2006 Nobel Peace Prize Winner) and his massive contributions towards alleviating poverty via microcredit, something westerners now copy and imitate in their own countries to alleviate poverty. To suggest Muslims collectively need to be woken up to modernity is an insult. Wahabism is a problem, but it is losing steam as we speak, as people recognize this desire to create chaos does nothing but worsen things on all sides. To suscribe to Ayaan's rhetoric that Muslims are stuck in the 10th century is to deny the contributions Muslims make every day in the sciences, in art, and in society.

There are many who would say more have died because of the extreme right wing of Christianity. How many are dead now in Iraq as a result of America's invasion? 800,000? A million? How many 9-11s is that? Why hasn't she considered the violence done by the side she stands by? As a Muslim, I've vocally condemned those who engage in acts of violence in the name of Islam. I blame Al Qeda for inciting the kinds of reactions that's lead to the ridiculing of Islam in western media, the same media many Muslims have protested for exibiting islamophobia. Can't we condemn the trouble makers on both sides? The worst of people in this conflict are those who are completely aware of the faults on one side, yet oblivious to those on their own. The Islamists are guilty of this. So is Ayaan, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Americans who support America's self-righteous crusade through the Middle East.  


  

2
0
Re: Re: Where are we?
gavastik
Much of Ms. Ali's argument comes from a depth of understanding and is extremely well-reasoned and compelling. However, I'm having trouble with one thing. It is the idea of encouraging a reform of Islam as a faith (otherwise a great idea!) by threatening Islamic countries with military force. I don't think this will work for a minute. Historically and psychologically, when a country is threatened with foreign military might, its people come together against the enemy. This patriotism usually supersedes rational thoughts about the humanity of individuals. Therefore, if a reform is our goal, then we should encourage and support _internal_ reform movements in Islamic countries. After all, Christianity was reformed from the inside by generations of people who questioned their own institutions. How might support for internal reform be achieved? The specifics will have to be figured out by professionals, but the key is a combination of education in critical thinking and providing an opportunity for a better life. And the ideas/education and the opportunities must somehow come or appear to come from within. Maybe one way of doing that would be to start in more open societies (like, say, Lebanon) where these functions are now performed by organizations like Hezbollah. And then let the success stories percolate to the more closed-in societies. And a question for Ms. Ali: in the moderate Islamic communities in the US and in Western Europe, is the people's faith reconcilable with peace and liberal democracy? If it isn't then how come these communities live and thrive in peaceful and democratic countries? If it is, then how much fundamentalism and violence is in the tenets, and how much is the conditions of everyday life? Sorry if I sound Marxist, but I was surprised to not hear the economic/opportunity aspect of the problem addressed at all in the interview.
1
0
Re: Re: Where are we?
reasonbeing31
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an extremely intelligent and articulate woman, not to mention courageous, considering the stand she has taken for women's rights, free inquiry, and reason at great peril to her own life. I wholeheartedly agree with her on the importance of keeping nuclear arms out of the hands of ALL religious fanatics and fundamentalists (incidentally, which heavily religious country has more nukes than every other nuclear capable country in the world but one? Hint: Its initials are U and S). Her comments about Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, however, bare an unfortunate resemblance to the rhetoric of fear being peddled by Bush, Cheney, and their neoconservative war hawks, and should therefore be taken with a big grain of salt. She says Ahmadinejad has told Israel "I'm going to wipe you off the map," paraphrasing an oft-cited and terribly mistranslated statement made by him in 2005. The truth is that Ahmadinejad was reciting an old quote by Ayatollah Khomeini calling for the "regime" occupying Jerusalem to "vanish from the page of time." That sounds like a call for regime change, NOT marching orders to commit mass genocide or nuke an entire country. Furthermore, Iran does not even have nuclear weapons capability. Its uranium enrichment program, about which it has been quite open to the IAEA of late, can only produce low-grade uranium for generating power, not the high-grade stuff needed to build a bomb. Ali should be careful about falsely characterizing Iran as some rogue nuclear aggressor, because it can only give credence to the Bush administration's illegitimate, destructive, and anti-human use of preemptive war as an instrument of foreign policy.
0
1
PAGE
1
ABOUT| CONTACT| BLOG| HELP| TERMS| PRIVACY