TruthBook Religious News Blog

2008 May/June 2008

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is the controversial author of Infidel, her improbable but true autobiography. A Somali-born Muslim woman, she became a member of the Dutch Parliament. As the title of her book implies, after growing up in a world that condones the physical abuse of women, practices honor killing, female genital mutilation, and often marries women against their will, she ends up rejecting Islam as inherently oppressive to women. As a result, she is living under the constant threat of death. An associate, Theo van Gogh, who helped her do an art film to protest against the victimization of women in Islam, was brutally murdered and a note threatening Hirsi Ali was pinned to his dying chest with a knife.

Infidel contends for the idea that took so long for the Christian West to learn: even heretics and skeptics must be given political freedom of speech. A religious community may not be able to tolerate their dissension, but with the freedom to function and speak freely in society their challenge can even benefit the religious community they oppose by stimulating dialogue. If all disagreement is squashed, spiritual growth is impossible. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is against the politically correct manners that forbid the criticism of religious ideas. Sociologists in the West have often advocated a benign (and condescending) view of religion that equates all religious ideas as equally valid. The postmodern idea that all religions are the same not only belieshat can be seen and observed but also implicitly reduces all religious ideas to nonsense. Religious ideas are only equally valid if they are meaningless. To the extent that religious ideas provide the impetus for all kinds of public behavior, they are fair game for public challenge.

Infidel not only contains a challenge for Muslims, but for Christians as well. There is a need for dialogue between church and state and a compelling interest in the state to see that the weak are not made the innocent victims of religion. Pedophilia and the abuse of women should not be tolerated in a civilized society and are legitimate causes for state interference no matter what the religious justification. Policies that demand reasonable behavior of all, regardless of religious affiliation, will benefit all societies, even those that might initially resist on religious grounds.

Hirsi Ali feels that the lack of freedom and the political oppression in Muslim countries are a direct result of their view of the Koran. With the primary virtue being “submission” (the translation of Islam) and instilled with fears of hellish torment, believers are ripe for manipulation. She points out that many of the terrorists are not the marginalized poor, but Islamic professionals and members of privileged classes, such as Bin-Laden himself. Whatever the truth is in this matter, it opens up the strong possibility that the promotion of democracy in Muslim countries will not succeed unless they are willing to open up religious dialogue. The hyperdefensive attitude that dissenters must be killed or silenced speaks poorly to the strength of the core idea, whether that idea is political or religious. Coercion in the realm of religion leads to either hypocrisy or fanaticism. The very nature of human spirituality demands the freedom of choice. Conscience cannot be coerced. It is not an accident that the First Amendment protects both freedom of religion and freedom of speech. One is impossible without the other.

Like political speech, religious speech must include the right to criticize and debate. Otherwise, there is no protection against manipulative demagogues and false ideas leading to intellectual and spiritual bondage. Jesus gives us an example of true dialogue in the New Testament by frequently entering into religious debates. He knows that religious ideas have importance. He accuses some of the religious leaders of His day of binding up “heavy loads and [placing] them on men’s shoulders” while “they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them” (Matthew 23:4).* He proclaimed: “The truth will set you free” (John 8:32).

Religious disputes are dangerous only when taken out of the context of civil tolerance. “Love your enemies,” and “pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44) provide a wonderful foundation for civil discourse on religious ideas that can allow for debate. These principles provide a moral foundation for seeing that disagreement does not become a license for hatred and violence. This is why all religious debate has to take place in the context of peace. “Blessed are the peacemakers” (Matthew 5:9) provides a necessary preparation for the uncoerced conscience that is necessary for all true conversion. Jesus’ statement that “[His] kingdom is not of this world” (John 8:36) provides the foundation for the culture within and apart from the state that is the essence of the kingdom of god on earth. The secular state, with guarantees of religious freedom, is the ideal environment to provide for the free exchange of religious ideas and to guarantee that intimidation will not be a part of conversion.

Labels: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Infidel, Muslims, religious freedom, william McCall