Dec 25, 2009

By | 4 Comments | Print Print

The Apostate

infidelInfidel: My Life
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
London: Simon & Schuster, 2007

Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s political career was brief and dramatic. Born in Somalia in 1969, she is the daughter of Hirsi Magan Isse, a scholar and political dissident. She arrived in the Netherlands in 1992 as an asylum-seeker, learned the language, earned degrees in political science at Leiden University, and became an activist in the socialist Labor Party (one of Holland’s biggest parties).

But Hirsi Ali became disillusioned with the Labor Party’s cowardly refusal to confront the threat that unchecked Muslim immigration posed to the Netherlands’ liberal political culture. She then joined the center-right People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy, renounced Islam for atheism in 2002, and was elected to the Dutch parliament in 2003 (aged 34) as a vociferous critic of Islam in the Netherlands. Her 2004 screenplay about Islam’s attitude to women—Submission—got its producer, Theo van Gogh, murdered. (The note pinned to van Gogh’s body with a knife was a death threat addressed to Hirsi Ali.) She was forced into hiding.

A political crisis surrounding the legality of her asylum application led to the fall of a Dutch government in 2006. Stripped of her citizenship—ironically because of the policies she herself advocated—Hirsi Ali went to work for the American Enterprise Institute, a neo-conservative think tank based in the United States noted for opposing Islam in the Middle East, but not Islamic immigration to the United States and Europe. For all these reasons, she is very well-known in Europe, her fall being headline news all around the continent. Her autobiography, now in paperback, has been a best-seller.

Infidel tells the story of the author’s conversion from fundamentalist Islam to Western liberalism and finally to the “illiberal” desire to defend the Western way of life. The book is compelling reading for anybody interested in understanding Islam and the effect it will have—if unchecked—on the Western world.

Infidel is not an easy read. Much of it is like a horror film: you can’t bear to look, but you can’t bring yourself to look away. The tragedies of Hirsi Ali’s life really have to be read to be believed. And, in some ways, they are made all the more horrific by her cold and detached style of writing (much like her style of speaking in interviews).

The narrative begins when Hirsi Ali is five years old. Infidel is immediately exciting in how it brings Somalia to life. We learn not only about its history, but also its clan-based culture. When Somalis meet, they list off each other’s ancestors until they find a common one. A common ancestor means membership in the same clan, which brings immediate obligations of mutual aid. (Members of other clans can be left to starve.) Being members of different clans might also entail enmity because of feuds that could be centuries old. (This becomes interesting later in a Dutch refugee center where the well-meaning Netherlanders try to house Somalis from different tribes together.) Hirsi Ali recalls having to learn the names of her ancestors by heart, with her grandmother threatening to beat her if she gets them wrong. “Get it right!” the grandmother yells. “The names will make you strong.”

The cruelty of Somali childrearing is sickening: the lack of freedom, the genital mutilation, the almost total absence of genuine love. Hirsi Ali recalls parents forcing their children to fight to make them tough. She was once beaten so badly—by an Islamic teacher and her mother—that she almost died in the hospital. The pervasive superstition is also disturbing: “a father’s curse is . . . a ticket straight to Hell” (p. 12); ancestors are prayed to; her illiterate grandmother, with whom she lived, thought the radio was “magic,” and the like (p. 25).

Because of her father’s involvement in the Somali opposition movement, the family was forced to move to Saudi Arabia while Hirsi Ali was still a child. Saudi Islam is far stricter than Somali Islam. “You weren’t naughty, you were sinful,” she explains. “Taking a bus with a man was haram [sin] . . . boys and girls playing together was haram” (p. 42). Wife-beating was commonplace. Also, “In Saudi Arabia everything was the fault of the Jews. . . . The children next door were taught to pray for the health of their parents and the destruction of the Jews” (p. 47). A rather daring young Somali woman whom Hirsi Ali came to admire was publicly flogged, then deported, because she had no husband, which to the Saudis proved she was a prostitute (p. 51).

When Hirsi Ali was nine, the family fled Saudi Arabia to Ethiopia (which, to her mother’s horror, is Christian) and then to Kenya. It was only in school in Kenya that Hirsi Ali discovered concepts such as “minutes, hours, years” (elegant proof of just how differently Somalis think). It was also in Kenya that her independent temperament first awakened. Having reached puberty (for which her mother beat her), she was a proper woman. She took the veil and involved herself in Islamic fundamentalist activism. But she also learned English, romanticized Western ways of life, and even experimented with them.

Back in Somalia she started to become disillusioned with Islam: “I wanted to be someone, to stand on my own” (p. 132). She eloped with a boyfriend and married him (though Islam did not recognize the marriage). Then she fled an arranged marriage her father tried to impose upon her. (She idolized her father, who was generally absent from her childhood, until their relationship fell apart.) It is at this point that she managed to escape to Europe, eventually receiving asylum in the Netherlands. The second part of the book is entitled “My Freedom.”

The first-hand account of life as an asylum-seeker in the Netherlands in the early 1990s is fascinating. Fluent in English and Somali, Hirsi Ali made herself indispensable as a translator, gaining valuable inside knowledge of the Dutch asylum system. She makes it clear that virtually every asylum seeker, including herself, lied to get into Holland. Once inside, Hirsi Ali came to love Holland and worked for its betterment. This is in stark contrast to most Somalis, who repay the generosity of their hosts with staggering hatred and ingratitude.

And, in truth, the Dutch establishment’s naïve liberalism and suicidal “tolerance” of everything (except the desire to remain Dutch) is contemptible. Why do the Dutch insist on flooding their society with people who hold their permissive values in contempt? Hirsi Ali was able to see Dutch liberalism from the outside and notice, unlike other liberals, its bizarre contradictions and hypocrisy. Ultimately, she parted company with the Left because she came to love Western civilization. Liberals, apparently, do not. Hence their mania to embrace those who would destroy them. The story of her break with the Left is truly inspiring.

The main problem I have with Infidel is that I just can’t help wondering how accurate it is. Any autobiography is likely to be selective with the truth and cast its author in a positive light. Furthermore, Hirsi Ali is an admitted and proven liar (and not even particularly ashamed of it). As she points out, in Islamic culture lying is far more acceptable than in the West if done for the sake of Jihad, family, or clan. The Hadith makes this fairly clear (Hadith 6303-05).

Hirsi Ali may, of course, have considered the possibility that the problem is not Islam per se but, as Alain de Benoist suggests, any monotheistic religion, which ipso facto entails not merely the affirmation that a god exists, but also the denial of the existence of other gods. This claim to an exclusive truth is the royal road to religious intolerance. The problem is compounded by the Biblical claim to provide revealed laws for governing ordinary life. In fact, considering that Hirsi Ali lived in the Netherlands, I’m surprised she didn’t observe at least some parallels between Muslims and the conservative Calvinists in the north, where everybody wears black and women are not permitted to speak in church.

Reviewers have accused Infidel of simplistically lumping all Muslims together and of being “Islamophobic” which seems to mean “it hurts fundamentalist Muslims’ feelings.” Such criticisms are to be expected when a writer demonstrates that the liberal view of Islam is inaccurate. In most cases, these criticisms were anticipated and answered in the final chapter.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is evidently an intelligent and courageous woman. Often only an outsider can see a society with relative objectivity, and this is what Hirsi Ali does with Islam and the West’s (especially Holland’s) dealings with it. Infidel is undoubtedly emotive in tone, but its critiques of Islam and Western decadence are quite logical. Islam (like any monotheistic religion) is oppressive, anti-intellectual, and a threat to Western progress and freedom. We must stop it from gaining greater influence in Europe. We must overturn the restrictions on free speech imposed to insulate Islam and its European sponsors from criticism. Infidel may well persuade more people that we can’t just sit back and hope Islam and other oppressors of free inquiry will go away. Like her, we must fight them. We will regret it if we ignore Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Edward Dutton has a Ph.D. in the Anthropology of Religion. His book Meeting Jesus at University: Rites of Passage and Student Evangelicals (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2008) includes a chapter on religion in the Netherlands.

Share

Related Posts

  1. Excellent, thorough review. I am anxious to read this! Praise God that she is still alive, for the god of diversity is full of vengeance. Truly a hero for us all, regardless of one’s faith, race, or any other circumstance of birth or belief.

  2. Ali is just as opposed to socially conservative and white ethnonationalist movements as she is to Muslim extremism.

    [Ali] told the Belgian authorities that they should ban the country’s largest party, the “Islamophobic” Vlaams Belang. In an interview with the Antwerp newspaper Gazet van Antwerpen (1 February), she said why she regards the VB as a dangerous party:

    “I would ban the VB because it hardly differs from the Hofstad group [a Jihadist terror network in the Netherlands, involved in the assassination of Theo van Gogh]. Though the VB members have not committed any violent crimes yet, they are just postponing them and waiting until they have an absolute majority. On many issues they have exactly the same opinions as the Muslim extremists: on the position of women, on the suppression of gays, on abortion. This way of thinking will lead straight to genocide.”

    http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005274.html

    She would probably ban the publication of TOQ too.

  3. avatar

    There are some incredibly politically correct anti-Christian claims in Edward Dutton’s review of Infidel. Much of the book and the review focuses on Islamic abuse of women.

    As part of his review, he states “[the author] may, of course, have considered the possibility that the problem is not Islam per se but, as Alain de Benoist suggests, any monotheistic religion, which ipso facto entails not merely the affirmation that a god exists, but also the denial of the existence of other gods. This claim to an exclusive truth is the royal road to religious intolerance.”

    If this is what Benoist (and Dutton, who endorses this view later in the review) really believes, and he is a leading figure of the European New Right, then it shows a remarkable lack of clear thinking in that movement.

    The problem is not monotheism, but that of allowing 75-IQ Somalis into one’s nation, regardless of their religious beliefs. The obvious explanation is that 75-IQ Somalis have an incredible lack of empathy and compassion due to their limited mental capacity; since men are physically stronger than women, Somali men see no reason to treat their women any differently than their livestock which they similarly can dominate. Islam is itself a low-IQ religion, a simple set of rules and rites with very little of the rich scholarship associated with both the Protestant and Catholic strands of European Christianity.

    Does anyone really believe that if they all converted to European paganism and burned incense to Thor, Wotan and Loki they would suddenly become tolerant respecters for women’s rights? Then why even make the claim that Islam’s problem is “monotheism” instead of its cognitively challenged, hostile non-European adherents?

    My guess is that intellectuals find it more interesting to rail against monotheism (other than an opportunity to grind the anti-Christian axe), as bantering about religious-philosophical systems few Somalis (or Dutch, for that matter) understand is more stimulating to an intellectual than boring, empirical cognitive science. It’s certainly preferable to actually confronting the immigrants through the political system, as intellectual practitioners of “meta-politics” are far too important looking at the big picture to get their hands dirty going door-to-door and making phone calls, winning the hearts and minds of voters. Besides, when confronted Islam tends to be quite nasty, with the fatwas and all. It’s much safer to attack “monotheism” instead, like the American house-trained Right who rail against “secularism” when most of the secularists hail from one conspicuous tribe.

    Dutton goes on to make an even more outlandish comparison:

    “I’m surprised she didn’t observe at least some parallels between Muslims and the conservative Calvinists in the north, where everybody wears black and women are not permitted to speak in church.”

    Really? The Reformed Dutch, heirs to a great scholarly and mercantile tradition, cousins in faith and blood to the Afrikaners who conquered South Africa, who dare to adhere to centuries-old anti-feminist and anti-materialist norms and who are the primary engine of white birthrates in Holland? You really think they should be compared to 75-IQ savages who cut out the clitorises of four year olds?

    The pervasive anti-Christian bias among some in the white racial realist community is not helpful, as the only white communities reproducing at replacement level and above are white religious communities. Build bridges between explicit race realism and the implicit white nationalism being practiced in these communities. Please avoid venting anti-Christian biases with no empirical support and respect that these Christians have, at least, accomplished what no atheist or pagan group has ever accomplished: multi-generational above-replacement birthrates among high-IQ whites.

  4. Referring to the last comment: it is true that many European intellectuals on the right tend to despise race as supreme argument for ethnic preservation. But it is not, as many Americans naively believe, because of their wish to appear “politically correct,” or because of the fear from the European thought police, but has its roots in some deep differences of mentality between America and Europe.

    Americans, and Anglosaxons in general, have a propensity to base their arguments on facts derived from observations, based on empirical-rationalist method, and on some generalizations based on thus collected data. They tend to shun pure ideas, ideologies, stories, myths etc. Thence proceeds the penchant of many American conservatives (but not of all-obviously) and right-wingers towards racial explanations of civilization and culture, simply because race is seen by them as a very obvious, concrete, material thing, easy to observe and easy to quantify (speaking of abilities, IQ etc). Whilst on the other side Europeans often suffer from personalist and quasi-aristocratic conceit which makes them scorn, to certain extent, the alleged “vulgar materialism” (as they put it) of racialism and its worldview. European intellectuals are too much into the supposedly “higher” realms of soul, spirit, ideas, philosophy, theology (either of Christian or of anti-Christian inspiration), to pay any significant attention to such “lowly” and trifle matters they feel contempt for, like genetic continuity of their people(s), for example. For their individualistic and quasi-aristocratic tastes and preferences, a hard scientific view of reality, based on objective quantified data, is too reductionist and too little poetic. They prefer to give way to their imaginations instead. It is not that they entirely reject scientific arguments for the ethnic preservation, but it is to them only a small bit of reality, a boring one for that matter, whereupon they don’t want to dwell too much. Many of them, although they accept the biological theory of evolution, reject social Darwinism and most forms of sociobiology because they see them as “too mechanical” and as doctrines denying the free will.

    Theirs is a blend between some pre-modern and post-modern worldview, with elements of the strange European individualism going back to Romanticism. Romantic individualists are often at odds with the idea that they should feel themselves almost automatically as part of a larger whole, their people or their genetic community. Because they are so unique individuals, I guess. I grew disappointed with the contempt and disinterest of many European nationalist and right-wing intellectuals for racial science and questions and came to the conclusion that they are pretty much useless in our fight for the preservation of our race. I travel often to Europe, communicate with Europeans of this political inclination, both in real life and through the internet, so I know what I am talking about. Even some sections of the European nouvelle droite have strayed away from biological realism of its early days. Of course, there are exceptions to this general rule, there are still Europeans stressing the importance of race, but they are, well, as I already said: exceptions.

Leave a Comment

Comment Policy: Abusive, irrelevant, spammy, or trollish comments are prohibited. Repeat violations of this policy will result in a permanent ban.

Back to Top