You are here:   Columns >  The Outsider's Diary > Facing Up To The Fanatics
Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Says we need to look at the bad parts of Islam (Gage Skidmore CC BY-SA 2.0)

Six years ago Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali were on opposite sides of a debate in New York titled “Islam is a religion of peace.” I was on Ayaan’s side in arguing “not so much” and the audience ended up by triumphantly agreeing with us. Not least among the debate’s memorable aspects was that it was conducted so freely. For once we dived straight into all the tricky stuff — Muhammad’s personal life, the Koran, and so on. Three years later Ayaan and Maajid discussed the same matter on another stage in America and found some common cause. Six years later they were sitting here in London for a one-on-one discussion as colleagues in the same fight against the fanatics.

The audience included Islamic clerics, making the evening’s final appeal from Ayaan all the more pertinent. We don’t study Nazism without studying the teachings, writings and beliefs of Hitler, she pointed out. We don’t teach our children about Communism without reference to the writings of Karl Marx. Likewise, she stressed, you cannot understand Islam or Islamism without looking at the teachings, behaviour and writings of Muhammad. Including the bad bits. Admittedly the venue was once again very well guarded, but nobody stood up and started screaming. Here was an actual discussion. There are problems in the tradition and rather than skirt around them or pretend they are not there, it is better for everyone — Muslims and non-Muslims — to face up to them.

Afterwards I found myself reflecting on how people’s minds change. It never does happen just there and then, with someone saying, “Yes — I see, I was quite wrong and you’ve changed my mind.” But over time the bits of your own argument that have become unsupportable simply crumble away, usually without you even acknowledging it.  But one thing of which I am quite certain is that in order to stand any chance of change or progress on the subject of Islam, the facts and opinions have to be confronted frankly.  Our decent desire to be polite, combined with our indecent concessions to fear, make the possibility of reform less likely. But for one night at least one saw the fruits of progress in action.


View Full Article
May 20th, 2016
12:05 PM
Dear Bob My Pal. The shift of position was predictable, stemming from the highly problematic emergence of the Quilliam Foundation, funded by the Home Office and thereby too closely open to influence by other sections of the UK Government apparatus.The critiques offered of the organisation, and of Nawaz, have been remained consistent, largely focusing on questions of legitimacy, authenticity and effectiveness. Nawaz, as an individual, is not a credible figure, with a personal history likely to alienate rather than engage. His continuing shift to an ever more strident criticism of 'Islam' (because it is, of course, singular in expression, and interpretation) simply reflects this fact. There is scope for engagement with respect to radicalization, and all forms of political and religious extremism. Much of it actually takes place outside the spotlight and beyond the vanity projects of self-appointed media 'experts'. The same is true of critical engagement with Islam, across the wide range of expression that it offers.

April 14th, 2016
3:04 PM
One can only hope the Guardian goes the same way as the Indie. Murray as the intellectual and Tommy Robinson as the working class hero and Pat Condell as the biting subversive black comedy truth teller to Power. 3 British heroes. The UK needs more of them if it is going to shake off the shackles of left-wing fascism.

Graeme Thompson
April 8th, 2016
4:04 PM
Douglas Murray is one of the pleasures of life.

April 6th, 2016
1:04 PM
I am not always fan of his, however, Rod Liddle, would certainly enlivened the Independent's fortunes had he been appointed editor in 2010. With regard to Maajid Nawaz, his ever-shifting movement towards secular western liberalism are hard to reconcile with his Islamist doublespeak in 2006-07 after his prison release. Quilliam feels like a business looking for funding streams surfing the prevailing winds of change as they blow. Maybe the best people to fight the case for western liberal values are people who've always believed in them.

April 5th, 2016
11:04 AM
Anonymous. so a "shift of position" indicates "final failure". And "work outside the UK", where he says Muslim extremism is less bad, indicates "expensive failure", because in the UK he is "unable to engage" owing to his "shift of position" which has rendered his expertise "alleged". Would I be right in guessing that to you any "shift" must be all of: logically false, dishonest, meaningless? I wonder what your "scope for a critical engagement" is.

March 29th, 2016
3:03 PM
Douglas. Whilst there is undoubtedly scope for a critical engagement with Islam, Maajid Nawaz's apparent shift of position does not reflect a victory of truth. It merely indicates the final failure of an individual with no credibility whatsoever, unable to meaningfully engage in his chosen field of alleged expertise. It is quite telling that Nawaz has increasingly sought to situate his work outside the UK whilst stating, '(...) by comparison with America, Britain has a disproportionately large problem with Muslim extremism' [1]. Despite all the hype, and without questionable funding streams, the Quilliam Foundation would be held to exemplify an expensive failure. 1. Harris S, and Nawaz, M, (2015). Islam and the Future of Tolerance, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Post your comment

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.