RSS Feed MenuIn an exclusive interview with NM’s Jeb Golinkin, Ayaan Hirsi Ali — the bestselling author of Infidel and Islamic reformer — gives us her quick take of the President’s address to the Muslim world. Here are excerpts:
ON WOMEN’S RIGHTS:
President Obama’s speech didn’t do much for Muslim women. He defended their rights in Western countries to wear the hijab. He didn’t touch on Muslim women being confined, being forced into marriages or being victims of honor killings: These traditions and principles in the Koran and in Islam are being practiced in the West. He didn’t address that.
I think he was just appeasing the Muslim world because they perceive–they have these notions that Muslim women in Western countries–are not allowed to wear the headscarf or cover themselves. I mean you can wear whatever you want in the United States.
In Egypt where he spoke, women who do not wear their veil in public are subjected to very obscene remarks on the street and even sexual assault. Nowadays, even if they are covered they become victims of the same things: That is, in public, in Egypt, as a woman, you run 80% of the time the risk of being assaulted simply because you are a woman walking down the street. They are forced into marriages; their testimony in countries where Sharia is law is just half of that of a man. They can be divorced with no rights. They need guardians, a married guardian or they cannot sign any legal papers. The President simply did not address Sharia or Islamic law in relation to women.
ON ISLAMIC EXTREMISM:
Who is a real reformer? Obama’s message is that all of this [violence] has nothing to do with Islam. He says that progress and human rights are perfectly reconcilable with Islam. “Islam is peace.” He sticks to the line that there is nothing to reform in there. According to the President, we are only fighting a very small number of extremists, but it’s not Islam, so if that’s the case then there really isn’t much to reform. The true reformers — the moderate Muslims — take away from the speech that they can’t depend on the Obama administration to criticize Islam. Between the lines it’s as if he is saying that he will prevent Islam from negative stereotyping or something like that, which is ridiculous because he can’t do that. But most Muslims as we know, believe that negative stereotyping is equal to criticizing Islam.
Obama said “let’s speak plainly to one another”; I would have liked him to have added, “and that means let us face some of your religious principles and how they are radically different from American principles.” That’s what we need to talk about. His plain speaking went as far as saying we have a right to be in Afghanistan because Al-Qaeda attacked and keeps trying to attack us… but what inspires Al-Qaeda? Why are people we call moderates not facing up to Al-Qaeda? What is it about Islamic values that causes this? His plain speaking ended exactly where George Bush’s and all the Presidents that came before him… and Tony Blair… ended: with the selective quoting from the Koran. It’s like Hillary Clinton putting on the headscarf as a “sign of respect.”
That said, some of the speech’s passages were tough. I liked it the way he told them that “we are in Afghanistan and we are not leaving,” and I liked what he said about Holocaust denial. But overall, the speech just didn’t go far enough.
ON OBAMA’S “NEW ERA”:
Obama has now clearly defined that he is different from the previous administration. So far, that clearly has been his goal: To show the Muslim world that they are different, and that this is the beginning of a new era, etc. I think once he has succeeded in creating the image that he is different, then I hope he will say look, I am different but — and this was a statement I really liked — I will always protect the security of Americans.
American security is going to repeatedly be attacked in the name of Islam. When that happens, he can always point back to this speech and to negotiations with Iran and say “I came with outstretched arms, I tried to include you… I told you some things about how fabulous you are.” And when all of that is rejected, then that’s when he can say “Now lets really discuss what is wrong with your religion, and where do our [American] values clash with Islamic values? Will he do that? That’s That’s the real question. But I don’t know if he will do it. George Bush never did it. He used the term “Islamofascism”; once but quickly took it back. So I don’t know. We will see.
midcon // Jun 7, 2009 at 11:17 am
sinz,While there remains much we can do about injustice, think about how it comes off when exhort South American countries to save the rain forest when all they are trying to do is industrialize, grow, and achieve economic prosperity like the U.S. Sounds pretty hypocritical doesn’t it?So let’s stand up and tell the world how they should live and what they should do, because we are Americans and we know better.Like you, I believe the black complaints about white racism is largely unfounded, but what we do, has to align with what we say.And what’s with cherry picking you tube of all places to provide references. Here’s one of my own:http://naacp.org/advocacy/international/darfur/index.htmNotice the “Open Letter to President Bush” ? Oh wait, bit out of date I guess.My point was not in the far ranging areas of genocide, genital mutilation, preservation of the rain forest, etc. It was specific about flying to another country bragging about our progress and then denying that progress back home. That denial, while not necessarily emanating from the President, does come many (maybe the majority) of African Americans as mechanism to continue their victimhood.Yes, POTUS can talk about genocide, genital mutilation. That was not my point.
dragonlady // Jun 7, 2009 at 11:20 am
balconesfault said: “If you think any acknowledgement of America’s failures is drawing a moral equivalency, we’re not going to get anywhere.” Actually, I don’t think anyone is saying we should never admit any mistakes. But if you think that continually self-flagellating ourselves publicly will cause cultures steeped in honor, which is characterized by never publicly admitting mistakes, to meet us half-way you may be disappointed. It may actually reinforce the extremists arguments about America. Which then in turn, may undercut our own diplomacy since weve helped them convince their domestic populations that seeAmerica is morally bankrupt. The notion that if we confess all by undergoing public self-examination, that all will be forgiven, is a western construct. Or I could be wrongperhaps the One will solve it since he alone seems to have the wisdom to heal us all by sprinkling around his high-minded rhetoric like fairy dust (chuckle).
Chekote // Jun 7, 2009 at 11:49 am
“when most African Americans would assert that we have such a long way to go.”Most African Americans have not lived abroad and just don’t appreciate how far this country has come on the issue of race. Why do some many Africans emigrate to this country? In Brazil someone like Obam would NOT be elected President. What is motivating the Darfur genocide is discrimination against blacks. I just would like the President to say to the world that they too should overcome racial and ethnic prejudice like this country has. Instead, all we get is him going around apologizing for this and that. When are Africans going to apologize for their role in the slave trade? The genocide in Rwanda? When are Arabs going to apologize for oppressing women? For treating non-Arab immigrants are subhumans? When are the Chinese going to apologize for the killing of Tibetians? The Turks for killing Armenians? I am sick and tired of people acting like this was the ONLY country that ever engaged in discrimination, slavery. The reality that both are common place throughout human history. This country has taken great pains to amend for its past. Time for other countries to do the same.
Chekote // Jun 7, 2009 at 11:53 am
SinzA couple of passages doesn’t make up for the overwhelming “apologize for America” tone of Obama’s trips. Enough. I reality he doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism but does he have to wear it on its sleeve?
dragonlady // Jun 7, 2009 at 12:20 pm
sinz, I thought Obama tried more to explain the American viewpoint to Muslims than really defend her. Which is fine if he didn’t want to come off as arrogantly saying America knows best (actually, he explicitly said we didn’t). But from this speech and past statements, I do not think he believes America is an exceptional country. He continually wants to remind others of America’s faults (Gitmo, torture, etc), and make them morally equivalent to other actions when its far from the case. Even if you don’t believe in waterboarding, there is no comparison between this and beheading civilian hostages. There is no comparison to how women are treated in the West as they are in cultures steeped in political Islam. He clearly states we cannot elevate one country over another in foreign policy. Nice soundbite, but it ignores America’s global leadership responsibilities. Like it or not, few will act on any controversial global issue without some American involvement. So does he intend to lead by example on the principles he espoused (democracy, freedom of religion, womens rights) by engaging diplomatically on these issues? I doubt it. While he gives democracy a few token phrases in his speeches, his own State Dept pressured the UN tribunal to release the suspects in the killing of al-Hairi. Obviously, he prizes a grand bargain with Syria over any real commitment to Lebanese democracy. He would rather bow to a Saudi king than show any interest in respecting our most loyal allies, the British, by sending back the bust of Winston Churchill or giving Gordon Brown a cheesy gift. Or snub Israel by denying Bibi a state dinner, and touring the Middle East without stopping in Israel. Or sit there while a petty dictator like Ortega goes on a 45-min rant against America while he astonishingly thanks the man for not blaming him for things that happened when he was three years old. While I do believe we need to respect other cultures’ differences and other nations’ sovereignty, America is not like Libya or Sudan. As I alluded to earlier, theres a fine line between a belief in pluralism for the sake of peaceful coexistence, with common values underpinning this agreement, and full blown multiculturalism which makes it harder to defend your own culture and values since hey, America is not any better than anyone else.
// Jun 7, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Dragonlady, Chekote, et al:The problems most liberals, myself included, have with the concept of American exceptionalism is that it suggests that Americans themselves are inherently and irrevocably culturally superior.America is only as great as its people make it. On balance, its people have made it a very great country, but the record is not without its flaws. Since there are many episodes in this country’s history that do not reflect greatness, it cannot be that its people are inherently and irrevocably culturally superior. The very notion of inherent and irrevocable cultural superiority denies the fact that greatness requires vigilence, sacrifice and hard work. We have seen what happens when the country abandons those principles. To a great degree, the current financial crisis is proof. Instead of finding satisfaction in the old ways, many liberals seek continual improvement. I don’t know if this makes liberals culturally superior to conservatives, but it probably explains why we have been on the right side of most of the big cultural issues in this country’s history and conservatives have been on the wrong side.Being particularly aware of this mixed history, we are not inclined to think that greatness happens naturally and, therefore, tend to reject the concept of American Exceptionalism.
nealjking // Jun 7, 2009 at 3:21 pm
It’s important to remember that Obama’s primary audience for this talk were international Muslims, not American citizens.When talking to people who may be opposed to you, you don’t get anywhere by denying all validity to their perceptions: They’ll just assume you’re blind, deaf or lying.Instead, you have to validate some of their perceptions and then seek common ground. That’s not “apologizing”, that’s connecting. Having connected, you are then in a position to influence the next steps.That’s what I think Obama was doing.
sinz54 // Jun 7, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Spartacus:I doubt that many American conservatives believe that American exceptionalism stems from any uniquely American “cultural superiority.” Indeed, Phyllis Schlafly, Robert Bork (“Slouching Toward Gomorrah”), Brent Bozell and other social conservatives are strong critics of modern American culture. And Mark Steyn believes that the general decadence and nihilism of modern American culture weakens us vis-a-vis radical Islam.What these conservatives and I do say, however, is that America possesses an exceptional *combination* of historical pluses: The work ethic of the English-speaking world (heir to the British Empire); the philosophical heirs to the Age of Reason; the Declaration of Independence, which set forth a radical philosophy of man and government on which this nation was built; the oldest, most successful Constitution of any democracy on earth today; and (with a few exceptions, unfortunately) a general welcoming attitude toward legal immigrants of many ethnicities, who have poured into America to contribute their work and ideas. Finally, this pluralism has enabled Americans to channel passions into positive and peaceful political channels. For the most part (Timothy McVeigh, the Civil War and the turbulence of the 1960s being rare exceptions), we haven’t settled our political differences in America with suicide bombs and AK-47s, or armies and civil wars.You say, “Instead of finding satisfaction in the old ways, many liberals seek continual improvement.” If it weren’t for the heritage I described, “continual improvement” would be much more difficult–or impossible. We got the foundation right, and it’s a better foundation than most of the rest of the world has or can even aspire to.Americans are not racially superior–as a multiethnic society from many cultures, how could they be? But they are the heirs to a revolutionary society based on some of the best political thinking on earth in the last 500 years. Jefferson’s and Lincoln’s ideas have stood the test of time. Marx’s and Hitler’s have not. And the jury is still very much out on the European Union. Care to compare the European Constitution to America’s?
dragonlady // Jun 7, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Spartacus, no one is suggesting an American is automatically superior to an Arab Muslim. Of course America has made mistakes–we are not afraid to go through painful self-examination. But what conservatives have a problem with those not seeing American greatness, is that this perspective glosses over the blood and treasure America has spent over trying to ensure a more just and civilized world. You are exactly right that we did not come to this easily, and many sacrifices were made. This country has fiercely struggled with the moral question of slavery, civil rights, and equality. We’ve sent our sons over to Europe twice, to fight totalitarianism. You may recall as we celebrate this anniversary of D-Day that we’ve lost thousands of men to secure a beach head to fight fascism. Then after that war, we rebuilt those societies. Then we waged an ideological struggle with another totalitarian regime, the Soviet Union, for 50 years. Now people in eastern Europe can finally live freely. We intervened in Bosnia to stop ethnic cleansing. We ejected a dictator who invaded another country in the Middle East. In Afghanistan and Iraq, we try to distinguish between civilians and insurgents, even though our enemy has no compunction to do the same for us. Every time some natural disaster has fallen upon another nation, we have rushed aid and expertise to help its victims. These were not liberal vs conservative policiesPresidents from both parties pursued what they felt was just with the support of the majority of American people. So I think Americans have earned the right to be proud of their heritage and propose a few ground rules for what it means to participate in a civilized world. If you do not think our culture is better than any other, what gives you the moral authority whatsoever to even propose peaceful co-existence? Why is tolerance superior to intolerance? Why should the Arab world not succumb to the ideology that forcefully converting one to Islam is superior to say, religious freedom and respect? Realizing that weve made mistakes, and trying to progress in culture is fine. But if youre not even going to defend your own culture, others more sure of themselves will certainly be knocking at our doors, ready to impose their own.
balconesfault // Jun 7, 2009 at 6:28 pm
dragonlady: “perhaps the One will solve it”Are you trying to parody yourself?
// Jun 7, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Sinz:When I wrote of “cultural superiority” I was not speaking of popular culture, which was the object of Bork’s and Schafly’s criticism.I’m speaking of some of the same cultural components that you described – work ethic, entreprenueralism, strong constitution, immigrant-friendly, etc. My point is that those features of our culture are not self-generating; they require vigilence and hard work to maintain and adapt to an evolving society.Consequently, when people suggest that we are a country of freedom that’s based on a strong constitution – well for much of our history most people (women and minorities) were denied the right to vote. It’s only b/c of all the hard work, mostly by people on the Left facing strong oppostion from the Right, that many of our constitutional freedoms have been extended to everyone.So these cultural components that I’m talking about produce greatness only when they’re combined with hard work and a determination to be great. Some times the people have been determined to be great and they put in the hard work; other times it’s been different. By no means is greatness or exceptionalism inherent or irrevocable.
// Jun 7, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Dragonlady,I’m not sure I’ve interpreted your last post correctly, but you seem to be suggeting that if we acknowledge some of our shortcomings or if we do not subscribe to the notion of American Exceptionalism, then we are not defending America.I don’t believe defending America means we must deny our shortcomings, nor do I believe it is an attack on America to identify some of those shortcomings. A failure to do either will impede progress at home and undermine our credibilty abroad.On so many issues, it seems conservatives spend a lot of time denying the shortcomings, while accusing those who identify them as being unpatriotic or even hateful of America.
Chekote // Jun 8, 2009 at 6:15 am
“tend to reject the concept of American Exceptionalism.”Exceptionalism does not mean perfection. Please name another country that was responsible for liberating millions around the world? Please name another country that has donated as much food and aid around the world? About 50% of the food distributed by the UN is donated from America. Thanks to American leadership the slaughter in Kosovo was stopped. Look what is happening in Darfur. That’s what happens when America does not take a leadership role. This country is great. Nobody has ever claimed it was perfect.
Chekote // Jun 8, 2009 at 6:20 am
As far as cultural superiority, yes I do believe that some cultures are superior to others. I regard a culture that believes in equal rights for all regardless of gender, race or ethnicity superior to one that oppresses based on gender, race or ethnicity. If all cultures are equally “good”, the why strive for progress. Why wasn’t the antebellum plantation culture allowed to persist?
// Jun 8, 2009 at 8:42 am
Chekote:Unless you’ve watered down the term “Exceptionalism” to mean nothing more than a country that has performed great deeds in its past, I’m not sure your post addresses the points I made. Of course, America has done many great deeds. No one is arguing that. But, “Exceptionalism” must mean more than the past performance of great deeds, otherwise we would also hear the phrases “Canadian Exceptionalism” and “British Exceptionalism” and “French Exceptionalism” because those countries have also performed great deeds.We don’t hear those phrases b/c “Exceptionalism” means more than that. As I said initially, it usually suggests an inherent, irrevocable and inevitable cultural superiority. Well, the great deeds that this country has performed were not inevitable occurrences due to our inherent nature. If that were the case, we would have already intervened in Darfur. The fact that we haven’t done anything to stop the genocide in Darfu only proves my point that our leadership and good deeds are not sure to happen without a struggle, which, with respect to Darfur, is currently being won lost.Nothing great about America or any other country is assured.
// Jun 8, 2009 at 8:49 am
Chekote: With respect to your comment about our culture being superior to some other cultures, again it seems you have watered down the phrase “American Exceptionalism.”Of course, our culture is objectively superior to some other cultures. But the term “American Exceptionalism” implies that our culture is superior to ALL other cultures. I am not aware of any compelling evidence that our culture is superior to ALL other cultures.You’re right in stating that equal rights for all citizens is a measuring stick for a society, and by that measure the U.S. lagged many other Western countries for a very, very long time. And even today, we do not provide equal rights to those seeking a same-sex marriage. One day, we will protect same-sex marriage, but other socieities are going to provide equality in that area sooner than the U.S.
dragonlady // Jun 9, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Spartacus, you are missing my point. I stated upfront we painfully examine our own mistakes. Its the nature of an open democracy and politically pluralist society. What Im saying is the belief in American exceptionalism is related directly to the belief in political pluralism on the international stage which means we aim to settle disputes peacefully since we agree upon common values. And by American exceptionalism, I define this as this country having a unique place in history since were the first modern democracy, and that the values we hold dear (freedom, self-determination, rule of law, etc) have endured through the test of time. And as I pointed out in my last post, weve shed blood to protect those values not only for ourselves, but others as well. It does not mean we think we hold the absolute truths to everything. But pluralism is different than multi-culturalism (the belief no one culture is better than anyone else since all cultures have problems. Therefore, all values must be held up as equal). For pluralism to take root, you must lay down a few ground rules to make co-existence possible because civilized nations at least agree that co-existence and tolerance is preferable over war and conquest. Yes, there will be disagreements, but its understood other nations will generally pursue their interests peacefully by negotiating in good faith. You wont avoid all violent clashes, but you strive to reduce the intensity and number of them. In multi-culturalisms case, you ultimately undercut peaceful co-existence because you cannot defend that tolerance (i.e., religious freedom) is better than intolerance (i.e., converting people to religion forcefully) since you’ve already given up the moral high ground by stating all cultural values are equal. This is happening in Europe now–their embrace of multi-culturalism has warped the very nature of democracy (i.e., sharia law in Great Britain). If you do not believe in American exceptionalism, you then do not think we should promote religious freedom or democracy thru even peaceful means.
dragonlady // Jun 9, 2009 at 6:50 pm
2nd part of my post: A multi-culturalist (i.e., moral relativist) would say because women have not always been free in America, we have no place to tell other nations how to treat their women. While women in this country have fought for equal opportunity and equal pay, this is NOT the same as fighting against honor killings or female genital mutilation. To try and compare these two situations and say it is the same condition is absolutely absurd. One is clearly morally preferable to the other in my view. I view multi-culturalism/moral relativism as anti-reason, and ultimately nihilistic. Also, proponents of American exceptionalism do not advocate that we force our system of governance on other countries unless vital national interests are at stake, which usually occurs when others grossly violate the ground rules (i.e., AQ) which then at that time, the gloves come off. And conservatives do not have a problem with admitting this country’s mistakes, or showing some humility abroad, provided one doesnt weaken our own position in the process. But we do have a problem with the POTUS having to say something negative about America every time he opens his mouth overseas precisely because it weakens our negotiating hand. What other nations’ leaders say these sorts of things about their own country over and over? Like by apologizing to Iran and saying they should have nuclear energy? Who in their right mind thinks Iran follows the ground rules like say, Brazil? Obamas multi-culturalist view will ultimately undercut his own goals. But not before perhaps, he succeeds in convincing us were not exceptional. And in this case, you are right. American exceptionalism is by no means assuredwe will be reduced to excusing values of the lowest common denominator. I think he envisions himself as the One who will expiate our past sins by scolding us in front of everyone else, and leading us to redemption if we enact his vision which is to literally give this country no unique or special status.