|
The Role of Journalism Today
By Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Posted: Tuesday, June 19, 2007
American Enterprise
Institute
The first time that I was at a gathering like this one, it was
November 2005 at the Krasnapolsky hotel in Amsterdam; not quite like
this one, though, because there is only one National Press Club. I
was invited to a session on media coverage of Islam, and Submission
was shown. Submission is a 10-minute film I made with Theo van Gogh.
As many of you know, he was killed for it by a Muslim.
I found myself in the odd position of defending freedom of
expression, free press, and the rights of women against Arab-Islamic
journalists and commentators. I found it odd because the Western
journalists whose conference it was were either quiet, mumbled
something about free expression, or approached me after the session
and whispered into my ear that I had done a good job. I noticed the
embarrassment they felt at defending the very right from which they
earn their bread.
I noticed the same sense of uneasiness in early 2006 among Western
journalists, academics, politicians, and commentators on how to
respond to the cartoons of Muhammad in Denmark. In fact, many
seriously defended the assertion that Denmark had to apologize for
the cartoons. This attitude was repeated in the fall of last year
when the Pope quoted a Byzantine emperor who wrote that the founder
of Islam spread his religion by the sword, and the New York Times
urged the Pope to apologize.
It is not the end of history. The 21st century began with a battle
of ideas, and this battle is about the values of the West versus
those of Islam.
Tony Blair, a leader I admire, wrote in the first issue of this
year's Foreign Affairs magazine that what we were facing after the
11th of September was a battle of ideas, a battle of values. In his
article, Blair began by incisively outlining the most crucial
conflict of our time, but then lost the line of his argument in
inconsistency when he came to clarifying the parties involved in the
war of values. He backpedaled against his argument and declared that
the Koran is a great book, ahead of its time and good for women.
Why are Westerners so insecure about everything that is so wonderful
about the West: political freedom, free press, freedom of
expression, equal rights for women and men, gays and heterosexuals,
critical thinking, and the great strength of scrutinizing ideas--and
especially faith?
It is not the end of history. The 21st century began with a battle
of ideas, and this battle is about the values of the West versus
those of Islam. Tony Blair and the Pope should not be embarrassed in
saying it, and you should stop self-censoring. Islam and liberal
democracy are incompatible; cultures and religions are not equal.
And perhaps most important of all, Muslims are not half-wits who can
respond only in violence. The Koran is not a great book; it is
reactionary and full of misogyny. The Byzantine emperor's analysis
of Muhammad was correct: he spread his faith by the sword.
From this perspective journalists like all the rest of us face the
unpleasant reality of taking sides or getting lost in the
incoherence of the so-called middle ground. The role of journalists
serving the West, who understand what this particular battle is
about, will be to inform their audiences accordingly.
As I travel from country to country to testify from experience and
observation that Islamic dogma creates a cult of death, a cage for
women, and a curse against knowledge, I get both support and
opposition. Europeans and Americans ask:
But what about the good Muslim living next to me? What about the
different schools of thought in Islam? Is there no difference
between the Muslims of Indonesia and the ones in Somalia, or the
Muslims in Saudi Arabia and those in Turkey? Can we really
generalize? What about the women who voluntarily wear the headscarf
and the burqa and are happy to relinquish their freedom as their
faith requires? If we give Catholics and Protestants and Jews their
schools and their universities, isn't it only fair to give Muslims
theirs, too? If generations of Jews, Italians, and Irish have
assimilated, is it unreasonable to think that Muslims will
assimilate too, eventually?" Isn't it more fruitful to engage in
debate with your opponent and convince him through dialogue to take
back his declaration of war than to attack him? Isn't it obvious
that military attacks, such as those in Afghanistan after 9/11 and
in Iraq, create more terrorists, and therefore more people who are
determined to destroy the West than there would be if we had
dialogue with them?
These questions are legitimate and deserve serious answers. Let's
make a moral distinction between Islam and Muslims. Muslims are
diverse. Some, like Irshad Manji and Tawfiq Hamid, want to reform
their faith. Others want to spread their beliefs through persuasion,
violence or both. Others are apathetic and do not care much for
politics. Others want to leave it and convert to Christianity, like
Nonie Darwish, or become atheist, like me.
Islam unreformed, as a set of beliefs, is hostile to everything
Western.
In a free society, if Jews, Protestants, and Catholics have their
own schools, then Muslims should have theirs, too. But how long
should we ignore that in Muslim schools in the West, kids are taught
to believe that Jews are pigs and dogs? Or that they should distance
themselves from unbelievers and jihad is a virtue? Isn't it odd that
everywhere in Europe with large Muslim organizations, demands are
made not to teach kids about the Holocaust, while in mosques and
Muslim bookshops The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is distributed?
And what about in Muslim lands, where Jews, Catholics, and
Protestants cannot have their own schools, or churches, or
graveyards? If Muslims can proselytize in Vatican City, why can't
Christians proselytize in Mecca? Why do we find this acceptable? If
Christians, Jews, and Atheists take to the streets in large numbers
to protest against their own elected governments in objection to the
war in Iraq, to the war against terror, why don't Muslims march in
equally large number against the beheadings of Western aid workers?
Why don't Muslims stand up for their own? Why are Jews and
Christians and Atheists in the West the ones fighting genocide in
Darfur? Why does it pass unnoticed in Muslim lands when Shias kill
Sunnis and Sunnis, Shias by the thousands? It doesn't add up, does
it? If you ask me, "What is the role of journalism today?" I would
urge you to look into these questions.
As a woman in the West I have access to education. I have a job, and
I can change jobs as I wish. I can marry the man of my choice, or I
can choose not to marry at all. If nature allows it, I can have any
number of children I want. I can manipulate nature and freeze my
eggs. I can have an abortion. I can own property. I can travel
wherever I want. I can read whichever book, newspaper, or magazine I
wish. I can watch any movie I want or go to the museum of my choice.
I can have an opinion on the moral choices of others and express my
opinion, even publish it. And I can change my mind as time goes by.
I can establish a political party or join an existing one; I am free
to change parties or give up my membership. I can vote. I can choose
not to vote. I can stand for election to office or go into business.
This is what makes the West so great.
This obsession with subjugating women is one of the things that
makes Islam so low. And the agents of Islam from Riyadh to Teheran,
from Islamabad to Cairo know that any improvement in the lives of
women will lead to the demise of Islam and a disappearance of their
power.
In Muslim lands, except for a very lucky few, women are denied
education, have no job, and are forced into marriage with strangers.
In the name of Islam, women are denied the right to their bodies;
they cannot choose whether to have children or how many to have.
They have no rights to abortion, and often they die trying to get
one. They cannot own property, trade, or travel without the risk of
robbery or rape. Most women (and men) live in state and religious
censorship on what to read (if they can read at all) and what films
to watch, and they have hardly any museums or art they can enjoy. Of
the 57 Muslim nations that are members of the OIC (Organization of
the Islamic Conference), only two are democracies. Both are frail
and corrupt, and both face the risk of being overtaken by the agents
of pure Islam. Turkey has a safety check in the shape of the army
and Indonesia none. In none of these countries--except for the usual
show-pieces to delude the West--are women allowed to establish their
own political parties, play a meaningful role in one, vote, or run
for office.
This obsession with subjugating women is one of the things that
makes Islam so low. And the agents of Islam--from Riyadh to Tehran,
from Islamabad to Cairo--know that any improvement in the lives of
women will lead to the demise of Islam and a disappearance of their
power. This is why, among other things, they are so desperate to
cage in women. This is why they also hate the West.
Please don't be fooled by the few shrill voices--in or out of the
veil--that enjoy the status quo and betray their fellow women.
If we do not understand the differences between Islam and the
West--why one is so great and the other so low--and we don't fight
back and win this battle of ideas in order to preserve our
civilization, in my view there is no point to your profession or
mine.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a resident fellow at AEI.
Related Links
Related book by Hirsi Ali: Infidel
Related book by Hirsi Ali: The Caged Virgin
Related event on women in the Middle East
Source Notes: Ayaan Hirsi Ali gave this presentation to the National
Press Club in Washington, DC, on June 18, 2007
AEI
|
