Ayaan Hirsi Ali spoke at Yale last week, and there was mild annoyance in the press section that no screaming protesters appeared to punch up the headlines. A small group distributed leaflets to people waiting outside; inside, all was quiet.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
The
lack of disturb-ance was in part thanks to good planning—every seat was
filled, but no standing room was allowed, and the aisles were kept
clear. In the main, there was no disturbance because Ayaan Hirsi Ali is
hugely admired. The hundred or more people who were turned away for lack
of seats, some clutching copies of Infidel, her autobiography,
had hoped only to listen respectfully (and perhaps collect an
autograph). A great international thug syndicate has told Hirsi Ali
that, if she keeps talking, she’s dead. And she keeps talking. That
alone should win the admiration of every American.
Perhaps another reason the anti-Hirsi Ali protest fizzled
is that its front-line soldiers at Yale made fools of themselves. Yale’s
Muslim Students Association (MSA) was widely condemned for an open
letter that argued against her appearance on campus, claiming she lacked
the credentials to speak about Islam. (Never mind that she was raised
Muslim and now has a fatwa out against her.) The letter
referred to her childhood experiences of genital mutilation and forced
marriage as “unfortunate circumstances.”
The MSA’s letter was cosigned by 35 student organizations. Except not really. On the morning of Hirsi Ali’s appearance, the Yale Daily News reported
that many student groups—including Yale Hillel, Yale Friends of Israel,
and the Women’s Leadership Initiative—had been listed as cosigners
without their permission.
The attempts over the last decade to silence Ayaan Hirsi
Ali range from death threats to polite suggestions that she be barred
from campuses. They have served only to heighten her stature—and Hirsi
Ali is already impressively tall. She has a stately bearing, dresses
quietly and tastefully. She speaks slowly, with a rich and robust
accent. And you’ll never see a less affected speaker at a podium.
She began by thanking Yale in contrast with Brandeis
University. The latter had, only a few months earlier, first offered and
then rescinded an honorary degree and an invitation to appear at their
commencement ceremony. Yale will probably get more credit than it
deserves for the comparison: It was not the university but William F.
Buckley, Jr. Program, a conservative undergraduate group, that invited
her to speak on campus. Perhaps Yale will follow through and do the
decent thing and award her a degree this spring term. That would mean
something. It would turn Yale into a bastion of freedom overnight, at a
time when American universities are threatening to become an elaborate,
extremely expensive practical joke.
Hirsi Ali was introduced by Harvey Goldblatt, a professor
of Slavic languages, who praised her courage and especially her work on
women’s rights, and reminded the audience that part of a serious
academic environment is listening to opposing viewpoints. That this
reminder should be deemed necessary on a university campus is striking,
but even more striking was the almost pleading tone. There was a hidden
acknowledgment of helplessness, like a Wild-West saloon owner sidling up
to the local outlaws and saying, “Please, y’all, we don’t want any
trouble here.”
The protesters who had warned against a rabble-rousing
speech to be delivered by an ideological firebrand must have been doubly
disappointed. Hirsi Ali is a gentle, thoughtful speaker. There were no
red-meat “applause lines”—though she did often get applause. Her thesis
was simple: Any attempt to deal with Islamic terrorism is doomed unless
we acknowledge its connection to Islam. Every religion has a “core,” and
the core of Islam is to submit to the will of Allah. (That is, in fact,
what the word “Islam” means—submission to God. Hence also the
title of Hirsi Ali’s film collaboration with Dutch director Theo van
Gogh criticizing the treatment of women in Islam. Van Gogh was
subsequently murdered by an Islamic extremist.)
She insisted that there are not, as some suggest,
“many Islams”—but there are several sets of Muslims: The first group
are radicals who want to force the entire world into Islam by
eradicating everything else. The second group, the vast majority, are in
a “state of cognitive dissonance”—torn between the strict teachings of
the first group and their own consciences, which revolt at the
terrorists’ behavior. The third group, perhaps the smallest, are
reforming Muslims, who suggest, for example, that mosque and state
should be separate. Members of the third group are excommunicated,
exiled, threatened, murdered.
Hirsi Ali associates the rise of Islamic terrorism with
the rise of the first group. This new order represents a striking change
from the attitudes she knew growing up. In her early childhood in
Somalia, the attitude had been lenient: You kept what rules you could.
“If you neglected your religious duties, you were left alone.” Then a
new figure appeared, “the preacher teacher.” Most often he’d been
trained in Saudi Arabia. He would insist not only that all laws be
followed to the seventh-century letter, but that friends and family who
didn’t meet standards be snitched on immediately. If they would not
reform, ties must be broken. Christians must be converted or else ties
broken. Jews must simply be destroyed.
Hirsi Ali places the students of the MSA squarely in group
two—Muslims who should resist the radicals, but often unthinkingly (or
fearfully) direct their attacks in the wrong direction. Islamophobia,
she says, is a disingenuous term. Of course there are bigots of every
sort—there always have been. But why shouldn’t we criticize Islam as we
would any other religion? If we refrain from criticizing Islam alone, that expresses fear of Islam. That is true Islamophobia.
She concluded with a challenge to the MSA: Who is doing
the real damage to the image of Islam? Should these students protest
against reforming Muslims, or should they rather protest Boko Haram’s
sandwiching a Koran between two AK-47s on their flag? The flag’s
inscription reads “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his
messenger.” The Saudi Arabian flag has the same inscription underlined
with a sword—in both cases, an ordinary theological inscription turned
into a threat. So, she asks, “will you submit—passively or actively—or
will you finally stand up to Allah?” Will you let the preacher teachers
destroy your communities, or will you tell them to bugger off? It was an inspiring speech and I think it would have given the MSA food
for thought, if they’d been there. I hope they get their hands on a
transcript.
No comments:
Post a Comment