A Review of Heretic by Ayaan Hirsi Ali

I recently read Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Before I read the book, I had never heard of Hirsi Ali, but apparently she is a prominent critic of Islam (I intend to read her autobiography, as her backstory seems interesting). The book caught my eye, as the idea was obviously fairly unusual, and I hoped that the author might have some interesting ideas to put forward in a tactful and thoughtful manner. Unfortunately, I found this was not the case.

My feelings towards this book changed several times as I was reading it, and I've waited several days to write a review, so as to let my thoughts on the book solidify. After a lot of reflection, I stand by my initial reaction. The few intelligent discussion points this book brings up were ultimately consumed and overshadowed by angry tirades and blatantly illogical arguments. I couldn't escape the feeling that this book was written with the specific intention of stirring the pot, making people angry, and creating a bestseller. It quite unsettles me that this book was front and center the last few times I walked into the bookstore, and that there are so many reviews on Goodreads commending the author for being "courageous" and "inspiring".

I consider myself fairly well informed when it comes to politics, religion, and current events. However, there are millions of people out there a lot smarter than me who could argue my thoughts a lot better, and I wouldn't call myself qualified enough to argue the specifics in regards to Islam. However, in regards to the book, Hirsi Ali contradicts herself quite a bit within its pages. She talks of a difference between Christianity and Islam as being the former's progression away from a literal interpretation of their holy book, while Islam, she states, continues to do the opposite. How, then, can she single out specific lines and verses within the Quran when she has just said the only difference between doctrines is the method of interpretation?

This sort of cherry picking facts is present throughout the book. She picks specific verses she wishes to criticize and ignores others. This is hardly unusual, given the argumentative nature of the book. What frustrated me, however, was the overbearing tone in which the book was written. Hirsi Ali condescends to the dissenting reader, appealing only to a very specific demographic (a fact she herself acknowledges). She calls out Western Liberals for branding any critic of the religion as an "Islamaphobe", which is, in some cases, a fair statement. Critical thinking should not be shut down, simply because we don't wish to offend people, and the media and government often go overboard with political correctness. The problem lies in the fact that, so often, ignorant and racist individuals shout with the loudest voices, overpowering those able to make rational and informed arguments. Hirsi Ali seems like a reasonably intelligent woman, and I would not be so critical if the tone and method of her argument did not, ultimately, provide fuel to the fires of ignorant and hatred. She claims to seek rational and reasonable discourse, yet the angry tirades she continually goes on will only serve to invigorate uninformed individuals who think they know what they are talking about.

Hirsi Ali states at the beginning of the book that she won't subdivide Islam. This pretty much defeats her argument from the start. When speaking about a religion that is some fourteen hundred years old, arguably the world's single most diverse faith, how can you not subdivide? It is ignorant and uninformed to make such sweeping generalizations. When discussing the problems in Islamic doctrine, one simply CANNOT compare western Muslim communities in the oppressive Saudi regime, or radicalized groups such as ISIS or Boko Haram. Again, this is an example of Hirsi Ali contradicting herself, as she specifically draws attention to the fact that Islam is decentralized, with many different sects and groups, unlike an organization such as the Catholic church.

I think that Hirsi Ali believes such sweeping generalizations justified because of her personal experiences. I have not read her autobiographies (though I think I will in the future), but her tale is undoubtedly sad and, yes, many young Muslim girls are not afforded the opportunity to escape. Unfortunately, this leads to her book being incredibly tinted by her own anger, to the detriment of her rational arguments. She simply cannot seem to separate her own experiences from her argument, and thus she does not come across as the informed individual she purports to be.

Hirsi Ali claims this book is attempting to insight discussion within the Muslim community itself. I don't really see how she can reasonably hope to accomplish this goal. In terms of addressing western liberals, she hits her target audience. But given that she herself states that change can only come from within the community, how can crafting a western bestseller achieve this change? Everything about the book's surface appearance, from the title and author photo to it's inflammatory tone, seeks to make it a bestseller (I'm sure she's making a nice profit off of her crusade for change). Yet I can hardly see it being widely read in the middle east, where she argues change is needed, and where most of her anecdotal evidence comes from. Pissing off western lefties (such as myself) is a noble goal, but it's hardly going to get people in Pakistan and Iraq having serious discussions.

As I've said, she does have some good points. Talks about the problems with literal interpretation of the Quran, the prevalence of Sharia law in the middle east, the appeal of radical groups and the use of the religion as a political tool. These are all very serious issues, and I found myself agreeing with some of what she had to say on the subjects. If she had focused on these arguments rather than contradictory ones, as well as scaled back her personal rhetoric and been a bit more subtle with her cherry picking, the book might have been a success.

Directly comparing herself to Johnathan Swift in "A Modest Proposal" was, for me, the final nail in her coffin, as her writing continually falls short of Swift's informed intellect and wit. Hubris betrays her, as her self confidence is ultimately empty. I think this is the root of most of my problems with the book. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not as smart, nor revolutionary, as she thinks. Moreover, she is a disillusioned woman with a few good points, overshadowed by a condescending and, at times, whiny tone, complete with sweeping generalizations and contradictory arguments.

Boston Bombings and the Death Sentence

I’ve been thinking a lot recently about Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s sentence. The infamous Boston Marathon Bomber was sentenced to death a few weeks ago, with the trial drawing a lot of the attention from the media and the public, as anyone who has turned on the TV or looked at the news over the last year will know. I always find myself feeling slightly uncomfortable watching coverage of these kinds of high profile trials for a number of reasons.

The media always loves a spectacle. The more terrible things in the world are, the happier FOX and CNN are. Some networks, of course, are worse in this regard than others, but even the most unbiased news networks enjoy a spectacle simply because their viewers enjoy one. It’s simple logic. We get endless reports about the heroics of the rescue services involved, stories from the survivors, and interviews with the teary eyed family members of the dead, speaking of how they can finally have peace now they’ve achieved justice.

Now, I’m being cynical, but it is an undeniable fact that the public, you and I included, feeds the cyclical nature of the news. Even now, only a few weeks after the sentencing, the amount of coverage has dropped drastically in lieu of other more pressing news stories, and it will remain this way until some other revelatory event happens. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, his older brother, and their victims will be forgotten again by the bloodlusting public for a time. People react to these cases very emotionally, whether in anger at the act itself or elation at the sentence. Yet, as soon as it isn’t flashed in their faces every waking moment, the emotions slip their mind. I don’t blame people for this (the average individual has far too many worries on their hands to be concerned with the sentencing of some terrorist). However, the more I think about it, the more I find myself wondering: does this not lend a false air to their cries for justice?

The argument can probably be made in relation to any major news story from terrorist attacks to natural disasters, and I am not saying it’s ever going to change. However, surely if such emotive reactions were sincere then they would last a little longer, with more depth? I suppose this is beside the main point of this essay, which I am getting to, but I think it is very important to consider the manner in which we are affected by a sensationalist media, one that loves to stoke the fire.

And here, I reach the problem I set out to write about: Tsarnaev’s death sentence.

I am not a supporter of the death penalty and never will be. My reasons are long and varied, but they effectively boil down to a belief that the death sentence is institutionalized murder. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure there are some people out there who could not be rehabilitated, would waste taxpayer money in the prison system, and the world could generally do without. However, I think these people are surely few and far between, and it is impossible for a bureaucracy weed these individuals out. How can a society hope to uphold civil rule of law when its government is exempt from the same rules?

The media attention, people’s overly (empty?) emotional reactions, and my pre-ingrained biases in regards to the death penalty all combine to leave me incredibly uneasy over this case. I simply can’t help but feeling have not seen the results of a trial, but that of a witch hunt. Tsarnaev’s trial represents an entire nation in search of vindication. This is an incredibly dangerous president to set, and we see the same mentality in the biases present throughout the west concerning Muslims and Middle-Easterners.

Now, I’m all for patriotism and I am certainly all for justice. However, it is an incredibly slippery slope once we, the public and the government, begin making examples of certain individuals in the way that America seems to have done with Tsarnaev. This is a problem present throughout western nations, not just the United States; in Canada, as much as any other country, we are so brainwashed into a fear of the “terrorist threat” that we allow bills such as C-24 and C-51 to be passed.

As we have seen with the Tsarnaev trial, people are scared and they are angry; scared and angry people tend to lash out.

And, finally, I come back to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev himself. The boy was only nineteen at the time of the attacks, barely more than a kid. By all accounts, he was a caring, good natured kid, who idolized his older brother. He was not the mastermind in this plot, simply a pawn. This does not excuse his horrific actions, but it does provide some context for them. We’ve all been there: confused, young, alone, tired of constantly putting up a façade and hoping for a chance to do something meaningful with our lives. His older brother’s radicalization provided Dzhokhar an opportunity to do something meaningful, and, for better or worse, he took it.

I guess I’m just trying to say that evil acts do not make evil people. This was a confused – probably depressed and lonely – young man who was presented a way to do something meaningful. I don’t mean to say he should not be punished, but can’t we show at least a minute amount of compassion, the slightest bit of understanding?

Dzhokhar Tsarvaev’s sentence saddened me, but it did not surprise me. I’ve been trying to work out my thoughts in order to write this piece for a while now. I suppose I expected it, but hoped for a different outcome to the trial. Many people reading this (not that anyone actually reads this blog) will probably not understand where I’m coming from, so I was hesitant to voice my thoughts, lest I not articulate them clearly. These sorts of cases continually inspire a “you’re either with us or against us” mentality, that extends even to these at home discussions.

That said, I hope I’ve articulated my thoughts clearly. Anyone reading this, I’d be interested to know what you think! Message me on facebook or comment on here. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not? I value all kinds of feedback, and I love debate and discussion.

As always, thanks for taking the time to read my rambling!

Bill C-24

I recently found out about Bill C-24.

Here is a Globe and Mail article explaining Bill C-24, and here is the government's take on Bill C-24. Basically, it boils down to an increased ability on the part of the federal government to confiscate and restrict Canadian citizenship. Anyone holding duel citizenship and anyone who has emigrated from another country can have their rights stripped, with little to no oversight.

For anyone interested, here are a few other articles and links for information on C-24:

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=832299 

http://www.ourwindsor.ca/news-story/4605503-immigration-experts-say-bill-c-24-discriminatory-and-weakens-citizenship/

https://bccla.org/2015/06/its-official-second-class-citizenship-goes-into-effect/

http://www.sfu.ca/education/cels/bilingual/bilingual-corner/bill-c-24.html 

This bill is, frankly, incredible. As someone who feels very strongly about certain issues and discussion points, immediately this raises red flags for me. However, I also have a personal stake in the discussion. My entire family holds duel citizenship and because of that we are "second class" citizens? My mother is Canadian, born a bread. My father has spent seventeen years married to a Canadian woman, and became a citizen himself last year. My sister and I have had duel citizenships since we were born. I've spent almost half my life in this country, and my sister even more than that.

And now the door is opened for us to potentially have our rights stripped?

Bill C-51 is bad enough, but C-24 is blatantly discriminatory and xenophobic in a way that has the potential to affect anyone in their day to day lives. For a country that was founded by immigrants and, to this day, advertises itself as a multicultural haven, Canada sure seems to be trying to wheedle out any kind of diversity in its population. Citizenship and Immigration Minister Chris Alexander defended the bill by saying that citizenship is a "privilege, not a right". This is a dangerous precedent to set, besides being downright wrong. If you are going to enfold someone into your country, it should be on an equal basis. If anything, make a firmer entry process, but once a person is in... that's it, there should not be potential for eviction.

I am a second class citizen, with the potential to be ejected from the country at a moment's notice, simply because I happened to be born on a different lump of rock on the other side of a giant puddle?

This bill disgusts me. Are people so brainwashed by the semi-mythical threat of terrorism that they actually buy into this? I could write a whole essay on my opinion about terrorism, but, effectively, it amounts to this... terrorism is not a threat to the average person. You and I aren't going to get blown up on our way to the Seven Eleven across the street. The average person--especially somewhere like Canada--is more likely to drown in their bathtub than be killed by "Jihadi Terrorists." We don't see any anti-bathtub laws, do we?

Okay, I'm being facetious. But the point stands that terrorism really is not a valid threat. With a few exceptions, there have been very few terrorist attacks against western nations, particularly in Canada, and the vast majority of those threats were home brewed. People are afraid of terrorism because that is how the media and the government tells them to be. A population in fear is far more submissive.

This is a link to a petition to try to stop Bill C-24. I am begging you, anyone who reads this post, please sign the petition. Not for me, but for yourselves, as people who believe in and are willing to uphold the principles of democracy, something the current government is simply failing to do.

"Future Library"

I heard about the Future Library a few months back, and thought it was quite an inspired idea. Basically, every year a different author is selected to write a manuscript that will be placed in a time capsule and opened in the year 2114; the manuscripts will remain unread by the public until they are all published in that year. One thousand trees have been planted near Oslo, near where the manuscripts are to be kept, and will provide the paper for the books to be printed on.

I think this idea is beautiful.

I tend to be a cynic who thinks the worst of people and human society in general, but the optimism in this idea strikes me quite profoundly. It assumes that humanity will still be around in a hundred years, in some form, and it assumes we will be in a state to publish books and reflect on what would, by then, be history.

The more I thought about it, the more I thought about the people involved. Margaret Atwood, the first author to be selected, will be long dead by the time anyone reads her book. She will never know what people think of her book, never see the reception it receives. The pioneer behind this idea, Katie Paterson, will--unless some kind of medical miracle happens between now and 2114--almost certainly also be dead by the time her idea comes to full fruition.

These individuals, and those who will become involved in the project over the years, are placing their hopes solely in the art they produce, ignoring the insignificance of their own lives and allowing their creations to exist in their own rights. In the end, the 100 manuscripts of the Future Library will function as a yardstick by which to measure the progression of human writing and expression, reflecting the society and species as a whole.

Though I usually cringe when I hear people say phrases like this, I think that the Future Library represents the best of humanity. It represents hope and optimism and it represents art existing beyond a single individual. The idea struck a pleasant chord in the heart of this hardened cynic.


Here's the future library's website and a Guardian article on the project.


As a side note, I feel obliged to mention that I have only ever read one Margret Atwood (gasp!) though I've had the Handmaid's Tale on my shelf for a while. I'll get to it at some point. It's also ironic that I'm listening to Radiohead's OK Computer as a write this post. The album is somewhat of a contrast to the optimistic nature of the Future Library.

Also forgive any spelling or grammar mistakes. It's been a long day.

Maybe soon I'll work up the courage to start telling people about this blog and I'll get some readers other than my family. I've been working on rewriting some of my old short stories to post on here, under the "Writing" section, though I'm deathly insecure about them. Most of my writing has only been read by a select few individuals.

Alcohol Art

http://www.iflscience.com/chemistry/amazing-photographs-alcoholic-drinks-under-microscope

This is really cool. I like alcohol, I like art. Alcohol to make art (and not in the way you think)? Fantastic.

Science is cool

Writing Excuses

So I've been listening to the Writing Excuses podcasts a lot recently. It's a really cool little series, only fifteen minutes long, where a couple of authors discuss their approach to various aspects of writing and the creative process. They are certainly geared towards genre fiction - fantasy and science fiction particularly - just given the background of the authors, but the tips they give about drafting, planning, structure, etcetera are universally useful.

I found about the podcast via reading Brandon Sanderson, who is rapidly becoming one of my favourite authors, but I am ashamed to admit I haven't read any of the other three podcasters' books. I've had one of Dan Wells' books on my shelf for a while but I haven't gotten around to reading it, and I hadn't even heard of Howard Taylor or Mary Robinette Kowal until a few weeks ago.

Even without knowing the authors' works, though, the podcasts are still very helpful and enjoyable. If you're a writer looking for some tips, give them a go!

http://www.writingexcuses.com/

Alberta Elections

This week is really big for me: my first election. Where my friends were excited for their eighteenth birthday because they could now legally do all the same things they were already doing illegally, I was excited for voting (sad, I know). I think this picture nicely sums up my feelings about being eighteen (also because feel like cat photos are the sort of thing you obliged to do on the internet).

Anyway, I've always had a fairly active interest in politics and current events, and I'm certainly very opinionated. Finally being able to actively participate is a really exciting prospect. Naturally, I swing towards the left end of the political spectrum and am, therefore, naturally inclined towards the NDP and the Liberal Party. Living in Alberta, this makes me a minority. I actually really dislike party politics, and I think that continuously voting for the same party because "that's what I've always done" is closed minded and is the sort of mentality that leads to a situation like we've had with the Progressive Conservatives.

I don't care who you are--whether you're Liberal, PC, NDP, or the goddamn Marijuana Party-- no party should be allowed to hold a majority government for 44 years, at a municipal, provincial, or federal level. This very election, and, indeed, Albertan mindset as a whole, is a prime example of the dangers of having one group in power for too long. The PCs have had the run of the place for so long, they feel absolutely no accountability. It is the height of arrogance to complain about a lack of money only to call an election that costs nearly $30 million, especially when polls show that nobody wanted it. This was a blatant attempt to monopolize on the troubles of the only half decent opposition, and pure dirty politics.

The fact that the election is coming back to bite them in the ass is quite satisfying. I'll admit, I was expecting another PC walk in the park. I expected people to complain to one another in their living rooms but, on election day, vote exactly the same "because they always have." No one thought the Wildrose would hold out as well as they have and nobody was even thinking about the NDP as a serious contender. But Prentice overestimated his strength, and I underestimated Albertans' level of frustration. I don't usually like to admit that I am wrong, but I gladly do so here.

The Herald wrote a good article on how this campaign came back to bite the PCs in the ass: http://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/sleep-walk-campaign-has-turned-into-a-fight-to-save-a-dynasty

I really, really hope that the NDP gets in. I really, really hope that the PCs are sent packing (I actually even thought about voting Wildrose for a while, when they looked like the front running "opposition"). As I said, I don't like party politics. I will vote where I find myself intellectually and philosophically aligning. This Tuesday, I'm voting for the first time, and I'm voting NDP. Even if they don't succeed in unseating the Conservative dynasty, I am at least fairly confident of a strong opposition.

I'll end with this picture. I think it sums things up quite nicely.