Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now

295 Pages·2015·0.8 MB·English

by  Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Heretic: Why Islam Needs a
Reformation Now
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
2015-03-23T22:00:00+00:00
1
2
DEDICATION
To Niall and Thomas
CONTENTS
Dedication
Introduction
One Islam, Three Sets of Muslims
Chapter 1
The Story of a Heretic: My Journey Away from Islam
Chapter 2
Why Has There Been No Muslim Reformation?
Chapter 3
Muhammad and the Qur’an: How Unquestioning Reverence for
the Prophet and His Book Obstructs Reform
Chapter 4
Those Who Love Death: Islam’s Fatal Focus on the Afterlife
Chapter 5
Shackled by Sharia: How Islam’s Harsh Religious Code Keeps
Muslims Stuck in the Seventh Century
Chapter 6
3
SocialControlBeginsatHome: HowtheInjunctiontoCommand
Right and Forbid Wrong Keeps Muslims in Line
Chapter 7
Jihad: Why the Call for Holy War Is a Charter for Terror
Chapter 8
The Twilight of Tolerance
Conclusion
The Muslim Reformation
Appendix
Muslim Dissidents and Reformers
Notes
About the Author
Also by Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Copyright
About the Publisher
INTRODUCTION
ONE ISLAM, THREE SETS OF MUSLIMS
On ______, a group of ______ heavily armed, black-clad
menburstintoa______in______,openingfireandkilling
4
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.”
As I revised the introduction to this book, four months before
its publication, I could of course have written something more
specific, like this:
On January 7, 2015, two heavily armed, black-clad attackers
burst into the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris, opening fire and
killing a total of ten people. The attackers were filmed shouting
“Allahu akbar!”
But, on reflection, there seemed little reason to pick Paris. Just
a few weeks earlier I could equally as well have written this:
In December 2014, a group of nine heavily armed, black-clad
men burst into a school in Peshawar, opening fire and killing a
total of 145 people.
Indeed,Icouldhavewrittenasimilarsentenceaboutanynumber
of events, from Ottawa, Canada, to Sydney, Australia, to Baga,
Nigeria. So instead I decided to leave the place blank and the
number of killers and victims blank, too. You, the reader, can
simply fill them in with the latest case that happens to be in the
5
news. Or, if you prefer a more historical example, you can try
this:
In September 2001, a group of 19 Islamic terrorists flew hijacked
planes into buildings in New York and Washington, D.C., killing
2,996 people.
For more than thirteen years now, I have been making a simple
argument in response to such acts of terrorism. My argument is
that it is foolish to insist, as our leaders habitually do, that the
violentactsofradicalIslamistscanbedivorcedfromthereligious
idealsthatinspirethem. Insteadwemustacknowledgethatthey
aredrivenbyapoliticalideology, anideologyembeddedinIslam
itself, in the holy book of the Qur’an as well as the life and
teachings of the Prophet Muhammad contained in the hadith.
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 theologi-
cal 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,
whosemulticulturalsensibilitiesareoffendedbysuch“insensitive”
pronouncements.
My uncompromising statements on this topic have incited such
vehement denunciations that one would think I had committed
6
anactofviolencemyself. Fortoday,itseems,speakingthetruth
about Islam is a crime. “Hate speech” is the modern term for
heresy. And in the present atmosphere, anything that makes
Muslims feel uncomfortable is branded as “hate.”
Inthesepages,itismyintentiontomakemanypeople—notonly
Muslims but also Western apologists for Islam—uncomfortable.
I am not going to do this by drawing cartoons. Rather, I intend
to challenge centuries of religious orthodoxy with ideas and
arguments that I am certain will be denounced as heretical.
My argument is for nothing less than a Muslim Reformation.
WithoutfundamentalalterationstosomeofIslam’scoreconcepts,
I believe, we shall not solve the burning and increasingly global
problemofpoliticalviolencecarriedoutinthenameofreligion. I
intendtospeakfreely,inthehopethatotherswilldebateequally
freely with me on what needs to change in Islamic doctrine,
rather than seeking to stifle discussion.
Let me illustrate with an anecdote why I believe this book is
necessary.
In September 2013, I was flattered to be called by the then-
presidentofBrandeisUniversity,FrederickLawrence,andoffered
an honorary degree in social justice, to be conferred at the
university’s commencement ceremony in May 2014. All seemed
well until six months later, when I received another phone call
from President Lawrence, this time to inform me that Brandeis
was revoking my invitation. I was stunned. I soon learned
that an online petition, organized initially by the Council on
American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and located at the website
7
change.org, had been circulated by some students and faculty
who were offended by my selection.
Accusing me of “hate speech,” the change.org petition began by
saying that it had “come as a shock to our community due to
her extreme Islamophobic beliefs, that Ayaan Hirsi Ali would
be receiving an Honorary Degree in Social Justice this year.
The selection of Hirsi Ali to receive an honorary degree is a
blatant and callous disregard by the administration of not only
the Muslim students, but of any student who has experienced
purehatespeech. ItisadirectviolationofBrandeisUniversity’s
own moral code as well as the rights of Brandeis students.”1 In
closing, the petitioners asked: “How can an Administration of
a University that prides itself on social justice and acceptance
of all make a decision that targets and disrespects it’s [sic] own
students?” My nomination to receive an honorary degree was
“hurtful to the Muslim students and the Brandeis community
who stand for social justice.”2
No fewer than eighty-seven members of the Brandeis faculty had
also written to express their “shock and dismay” at a few brief
snippets of my public statements, mostly drawn from interviews
I had given seven years before. I was, they said, a “divisive
individual.” In particular, I was guilty of suggesting that:
violence toward girls and women is particular to Islam or the
Two-Third World, thereby obscuring such violence in our midst
amongnon-Muslims, includingonourowncampus[and]... the
hard work on the ground by committed Muslim feminist and
otherprogressiveMuslimactivistsandscholars,whofindsupport
8
for gender and other equality within the Muslim tradition and
are effective at achieving it.3
On scrolling down the list of faculty signatories, I was struck
by the strange bedfellows I had inadvertently brought together.
Professors of “Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies” lining
up with CAIR, an organization subsequently blacklisted as a ter-
rorist organization by the United Arab Emirates? An authority
on “Queer/Feminist Narrative Theory” siding with the openly
homophobic Islamists?
It is quite true that in February 2007, when I still resided in
Holland, I told the London Evening Standard: “Violence is
inherent in Islam.” This was one of three brief, selectively edited
quotations to which the Brandeis faculty took exception. What
they omitted to mention in their letter was that, less than three
yearsbefore, mycollaboratoronashortdocumentaryfilm, Theo
van Gogh, had been murdered in the street in Amsterdam by a
young man of Moroccan parentage named Mohammed Bouyeri.
First he shot Theo eight times with a handgun. Then he shot
him again as Theo, still clinging to life, pleaded for mercy. Then
he cut his throat and attempted to decapitate him with a large
knife. Finally, using a smaller knife, he stuck a long note to
Theo’s body.
I wonder how many of my campus critics have read this letter,
which was structured in the style of a fatwa, or religious verdict.
It began, “In the name of Allah—the Beneficent—the Merciful”
and included, along with numerous quotations from the Qur’an,
an explicit threat on my life:
9
My Rabb [master] give us death to give us happiness with mar-
tyrdom. Allahumma Amen [Oh, Allah, please accept]. Mrs.
Hirshi [sic] Ali and the rest of you extremist unbelievers. Islam
has withstood many enemies and persecutions throughout His-
tory. . . . AYAAN HIRSI ALI YOU WILL SELF-DESTRUCT
ON ISLAM!4
On and on it went in the same ranting vein. “Islam will be
victoriousthroughthebloodofthemartyrs. Theywillspreadits
light in every dark corner of this earth and it will drive evil with
the sword if necessary back into its dark hole. . . . There will be
nomercyshowntothepurveyorsofinjustice,onlytheswordwill
be lifted against them. No discussions, no demonstrations, no
petitions.” The note also included this passage, copied directly
from the Qur’an: “Be warned that the death that you are trying
topreventwillsurelyfindyou, afterwardsyouwillbetakenback
to the All Knowing and He will tell you what you attempted to
do” (62:8).
Perhaps those who have risen to the rarefied heights of the
Brandeis faculty can devise a way of arguing that no connection
exists between Bouyeri’s actions and Islam. I can certainly
remember Dutch academics claiming that, behind his religious
language, Bouyeri’s real motivation in wanting to kill me was
socioeconomic deprivation or postmodern alienation. To me,
however, when a murderer quotes the Qur’an in justification
of his crime, we should at least discuss the possibility that he
means what he says.
Now, when I assert that Islam is not a religion of peace I do not
10