Scan barcode
branch_c's review against another edition
4.0
A forceful and eloquent statement by an accomplished thinker and writer whose background and experience clearly qualify her to speak on this subject. Her message, in short: "Islam is not a religion of peace." (p. 3), and any who disagree with that should read this book (as well as the Qur'an and the hadith) to see the evidence for this message.
This is not to say that most Muslims are not peaceful. But that is to their credit, and demonstrably in spite of the teachings of Islam. It is this majority group, referred to by Hirsi Ali as "Mecca Muslims", who are "one of the primary audiences for this book." (p. 17). Because if Islam is to be reformed, it is this group that will produce the leadership to do it. As Hirsi Ali says, "Muslims around the world cannot go on claiming that 'true' Islam has been 'hijacked' by a group of extremists. Instead, they must acknowledge that inducements to violence lie at the root of their own most sacred texts, and take responsibility for actively refining their faith."
However... I am not sure that the content of this book can really be said to be targeting Muslims. Hirsi Ali talks about her own Muslim upbringing and provides interesting details about Islam, including the historical Muhammad and the creation of of the Qur'an. This is all fascinating info for a Western audience, but surely most of the "Mecca Muslims" already know this stuff.
The book will be certainly be appreciated by a like-minded audience of atheists such as myself, and for most books, I wouldn't expect anything more. But this topic is self-evidently of critical importance to the world, so what's needed is a way to interest the right audience in this topic.
So to any moderate Muslims reading this review: I ask you to give the book a chance. Get past Hirsi Ali's enumeration of what you already know about Islam, and consider the points she's making in favor of reform. She comes from a realistic point of view that the solution to the world's problem with Islam must come from within. She suggests a feasible way to subject the Qur'an to the same kind of critical analysis that has been performed over centuries on the Bible, and to "abrogate" the verses that inspire violence and oppression in the name of Islam. I would hope that peaceful Muslims would welcome this sort of project, when the alternative is ever-escalating violence that threatens all of us, faithful and heretic alike.
As I said in my review of the Qur'an:
"Religion is fading fast, but not fast enough. Similarly bad ideas are found in Christian writings as are found in Islamic writings, and yet Christians have decided over the years to start ignoring those parts and focus on the 'good' ones. Yes, that makes them hypocrites, and it means their religion is in slow but inexorable decline, but it also allows them to coexist with rational people. It's time for Muslims to start being similarly hypocritical if they want to live in modern society with the rest of us."
This is not to say that most Muslims are not peaceful. But that is to their credit, and demonstrably in spite of the teachings of Islam. It is this majority group, referred to by Hirsi Ali as "Mecca Muslims", who are "one of the primary audiences for this book." (p. 17). Because if Islam is to be reformed, it is this group that will produce the leadership to do it. As Hirsi Ali says, "Muslims around the world cannot go on claiming that 'true' Islam has been 'hijacked' by a group of extremists. Instead, they must acknowledge that inducements to violence lie at the root of their own most sacred texts, and take responsibility for actively refining their faith."
However... I am not sure that the content of this book can really be said to be targeting Muslims. Hirsi Ali talks about her own Muslim upbringing and provides interesting details about Islam, including the historical Muhammad and the creation of of the Qur'an. This is all fascinating info for a Western audience, but surely most of the "Mecca Muslims" already know this stuff.
The book will be certainly be appreciated by a like-minded audience of atheists such as myself, and for most books, I wouldn't expect anything more. But this topic is self-evidently of critical importance to the world, so what's needed is a way to interest the right audience in this topic.
So to any moderate Muslims reading this review: I ask you to give the book a chance. Get past Hirsi Ali's enumeration of what you already know about Islam, and consider the points she's making in favor of reform. She comes from a realistic point of view that the solution to the world's problem with Islam must come from within. She suggests a feasible way to subject the Qur'an to the same kind of critical analysis that has been performed over centuries on the Bible, and to "abrogate" the verses that inspire violence and oppression in the name of Islam. I would hope that peaceful Muslims would welcome this sort of project, when the alternative is ever-escalating violence that threatens all of us, faithful and heretic alike.
As I said in my review of the Qur'an:
"Religion is fading fast, but not fast enough. Similarly bad ideas are found in Christian writings as are found in Islamic writings, and yet Christians have decided over the years to start ignoring those parts and focus on the 'good' ones. Yes, that makes them hypocrites, and it means their religion is in slow but inexorable decline, but it also allows them to coexist with rational people. It's time for Muslims to start being similarly hypocritical if they want to live in modern society with the rest of us."
arensb's review against another edition
5.0
In [b:The End of Faith|29501|The End of Faith Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason|Sam Harris|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1408542906s/29501.jpg|2399497], Sam Harris looked at the 9/11 terrorists who said they wanted to achieve paradise by killing themselves in the name of Islam, and advanced the crazy idea that maybe we should seriously consider the idea that maybe they actually believed what they said, and killed themselves to get to paradise, with the 72 virgins and all the rest.
In [b:Heretic|18669183|Heretic Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now|Ayaan Hirsi Ali|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1422810041s/18669183.jpg|26496114], Ayaan Hirsi Ali does something very similar. We in the west, and especially we liberal thinkers, human-rights advocates, and we who abhor racism and bigotry and try to get along with everyone, tend to think that yes, we're all basically the same: we want a comfortable life for ourselves and our children, we want a new iPhone or a better job. And while we practice different faiths and traditions, it's all basically the same thing with different names.
Hirsi Ali argues that no, there are significant differences between Islam as it is practiced in places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and religion (especially Christianity) as it is practiced worldwide, especially in first-world countries. For instance, Muslims tend to place much more importance on the afterlife than on this life; due to the way Islam developed, as both a religion and an empire, there is no inherent separation of mosque and state, no analogy to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's". And in Islam, the time when the Prophet lived was a golden age to which all should aspire to return; this means that morality is effectively stuck in the 7th century.
The first part of the book is a presentation of aspects of Islam, and of the culture of Muslim countries, that westerners might not be familiar with. This includes an overview of several varieties of Islam, as practiced in different countries: her native Somalia, Saudi Arabia, and Kenya.
Hirsi Ali's central thesis is that Islam is due for a reformation, similar to Martin Luther's Reformation, that helped curb the abuses of the Catholic church, and shook up Christendom and allowed it to advance into the future. She spends several chapters listing aspects of Islam that need reform, such as fatalism and concentration on the afterlife; jihad; the practice of reprimanding people who stray from the straight and narrow; and others.
She uses poignant examples to make her points, many of which will already be familiar to western readers: the Charlie Hebdo shooting, Boko Haram's abduction of schoolgirls, and so on. But of course, a collection of anecdotes doesn't prove anything, so she buttresses her arguments with statistics and analyses.
Many of Hirsi Ali's detractors dismiss her as a mere Islamophobe, and this is easy to do, since she makes a lot of the same claims that Islamophobic right-wingers make, e.g., that there's something inherently wrong with Islam. But she's not: instead, she is presenting an uncomfortable truth.
Her arguments are, as far as I can tell, sound, and backed up by facts. Crucially, she never advocates for a military solution: rather, she calls for support for Muslim dissidents and voices of opposition, like Malala Yousafzai; as well as vigilance: as much as liberal westerners try to get along with other people and cultures, we need to be careful not to tolerate intolerance, either.
Ultimately, this is an optimistic book, since it argues that Islam can be reformed and taken back from the extremists; in fact, that this may already have begun.
In [b:Heretic|18669183|Heretic Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now|Ayaan Hirsi Ali|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1422810041s/18669183.jpg|26496114], Ayaan Hirsi Ali does something very similar. We in the west, and especially we liberal thinkers, human-rights advocates, and we who abhor racism and bigotry and try to get along with everyone, tend to think that yes, we're all basically the same: we want a comfortable life for ourselves and our children, we want a new iPhone or a better job. And while we practice different faiths and traditions, it's all basically the same thing with different names.
Hirsi Ali argues that no, there are significant differences between Islam as it is practiced in places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and religion (especially Christianity) as it is practiced worldwide, especially in first-world countries. For instance, Muslims tend to place much more importance on the afterlife than on this life; due to the way Islam developed, as both a religion and an empire, there is no inherent separation of mosque and state, no analogy to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's". And in Islam, the time when the Prophet lived was a golden age to which all should aspire to return; this means that morality is effectively stuck in the 7th century.
The first part of the book is a presentation of aspects of Islam, and of the culture of Muslim countries, that westerners might not be familiar with. This includes an overview of several varieties of Islam, as practiced in different countries: her native Somalia, Saudi Arabia, and Kenya.
Hirsi Ali's central thesis is that Islam is due for a reformation, similar to Martin Luther's Reformation, that helped curb the abuses of the Catholic church, and shook up Christendom and allowed it to advance into the future. She spends several chapters listing aspects of Islam that need reform, such as fatalism and concentration on the afterlife; jihad; the practice of reprimanding people who stray from the straight and narrow; and others.
She uses poignant examples to make her points, many of which will already be familiar to western readers: the Charlie Hebdo shooting, Boko Haram's abduction of schoolgirls, and so on. But of course, a collection of anecdotes doesn't prove anything, so she buttresses her arguments with statistics and analyses.
Many of Hirsi Ali's detractors dismiss her as a mere Islamophobe, and this is easy to do, since she makes a lot of the same claims that Islamophobic right-wingers make, e.g., that there's something inherently wrong with Islam. But she's not: instead, she is presenting an uncomfortable truth.
Her arguments are, as far as I can tell, sound, and backed up by facts. Crucially, she never advocates for a military solution: rather, she calls for support for Muslim dissidents and voices of opposition, like Malala Yousafzai; as well as vigilance: as much as liberal westerners try to get along with other people and cultures, we need to be careful not to tolerate intolerance, either.
Ultimately, this is an optimistic book, since it argues that Islam can be reformed and taken back from the extremists; in fact, that this may already have begun.
paulap's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
3.25
This was very interesting and confronting, especially for westerns that see any criticism of Islam as Islamophobia. I did not agree with everything she said, but i am glad I read it and I think it is a valuable conversation.
talkology's review
4.0
This is definitely a book to be read with your critical thinking hat on, and pages to be turned wearing your protective gloves. Ayaan expresses some ideas which cause controversy among people, muslim and non-muslim alike. However, I found a lot of the arguments worth discussing and the book worth reading.
It is unfortunate that some of Ayaan's arguments are painted with a sweeping brush of generalization and it is a shame that she does not differentiate between different schools of Islamic thought. Despite this I think the conversation she proposes around Islam is important to have. My reading of this book contributed to a bunch of really interesting conversations on this topic with the people around me.
It is unfortunate that some of Ayaan's arguments are painted with a sweeping brush of generalization and it is a shame that she does not differentiate between different schools of Islamic thought. Despite this I think the conversation she proposes around Islam is important to have. My reading of this book contributed to a bunch of really interesting conversations on this topic with the people around me.
iggymcmuffin's review
1.0
Hirsi Ali says in the introduction that she is writing to the so-called peaceful "Mecca Muslims", who make up the "clear majority" of Muslims, in order to convince them not to be violent. It seems she is forgetting that they're already peaceful for the most part, and so any argument she makes is simply going to fall flat. She also thinks for some reason that these Muslim moderates never speak out against the violence, which is demonstrably factually wrong.
She argues against the understandings of the "Medina Muslims", the militant fundamentalists that make up 3% of the Muslim population, as if they had the one true doctrine of Islam. On one page she'll talk about the tremendous diversity of Muslim scholarship and interpretation and then on the next talk about how Islam is entirely uniform and how it forbids interpretation (as if interpretation was avoidable forbidden or not).
Worse her distinctions between so-called Mecca Muslims, Medina Muslims and Modifying Muslims obscure important details through the process of abstraction. For example, within the Medina Muslims there are undeniably groups of fundamentalists that do not get along with each other and think the other Median Muslims have got it all wrong. For example:, Al Quaeda, ISIS and Boko Haram all have different goals, different targets, and very different origins. It's highly misleading to lump them together as part of a single group.
At times she implies that Islam has successfully resisted change for 1400 years and is a true reflection of the 7th century beliefs, which is absurd. If there was any doubt about what she meant she makes it clear when she says that Islam is a "static religion", unlike Christianity. But that's a load of crap. Islam is syncretic just like any other major religious tradition, adapting itself to deal with different and changing cultural contexts. It's rather disturbing that Hirsi Ali doesn't seem to realize this simple fact.
She states very clearly in the introduction that religious doctrine is the number one primary reason for the various crises in North Africa and the middle east. To emphasize the fact that these are failed states that have been bombed into none-existence is secondary. To privilege a working government, social security, economic well-being, and person freedom as more important factors than religious doctrine is to give too much credit to "exogenous forces." This despite the fact that, in later chapters, Hirisi Ali admits the Islamists and Muslim Brotherhood types were largely kept in check before these governments failed, and that effective militaries and police forces work to keep chaos from breaking out. Forgive me, but that sounds like a working government is the primary factor, making for quite the contradiction.
The vast majority of her examples are from the Middle East and North Africa, which is something of a selection bias. She also ignores Muslim majority countries like Albania, Turkey, and Morocco. She ignores India completely, even though in terms of Muslim populations it's #3 in the world. She also really struggles to find examples from South East Asia. The one time she does mention Indonesia she used it as an example of increasing Muslim violence against Christians, but the numbers she used were suspiciously old, from 2010 (throughout much of the rest of the book she uses up to date examples from as late as 2014), and from an odd source, The Christian Post. I looked those numbers up on Human Rights Watch and the violence has either decreased or stayed the same from the time she cited and she ignored this information. She also suppresses the fact that the violence against minorities in Indonesia is also largely against minority MUSLIMS, that happen to be the wrong kind of Muslims, like the Ahmadiyyas. Yes violence against the Christian minority still takes place and is concerning, but she badly overplayed the example, stretching it beyond the breaking point.
Hirsi Ali's best points come in the first ten pages of the book where she argues against people characterizing Islam as a religion of peace, or saying things like "no real religion advocates for violence". She's right. Unfortunately for her the rest of the book falls down due the glaring inconsistencies, historical inaccuracies, and the fact that it is targetted towards the virtually non-existant violent mostly-peaceful Mecca Muslims.
In the end Hirsi Ali laments how The West ignores or dismissed Muslim reformers because they are "not representative", while simultaneously lamenting and ignoring Muslim reformers as being not representative of Islam. This is precisely what happens when you agree that the fundamentalists have the one "true" faith.
She argues against the understandings of the "Medina Muslims", the militant fundamentalists that make up 3% of the Muslim population, as if they had the one true doctrine of Islam. On one page she'll talk about the tremendous diversity of Muslim scholarship and interpretation and then on the next talk about how Islam is entirely uniform and how it forbids interpretation (as if interpretation was avoidable forbidden or not).
Worse her distinctions between so-called Mecca Muslims, Medina Muslims and Modifying Muslims obscure important details through the process of abstraction. For example, within the Medina Muslims there are undeniably groups of fundamentalists that do not get along with each other and think the other Median Muslims have got it all wrong. For example:, Al Quaeda, ISIS and Boko Haram all have different goals, different targets, and very different origins. It's highly misleading to lump them together as part of a single group.
At times she implies that Islam has successfully resisted change for 1400 years and is a true reflection of the 7th century beliefs, which is absurd. If there was any doubt about what she meant she makes it clear when she says that Islam is a "static religion", unlike Christianity. But that's a load of crap. Islam is syncretic just like any other major religious tradition, adapting itself to deal with different and changing cultural contexts. It's rather disturbing that Hirsi Ali doesn't seem to realize this simple fact.
She states very clearly in the introduction that religious doctrine is the number one primary reason for the various crises in North Africa and the middle east. To emphasize the fact that these are failed states that have been bombed into none-existence is secondary. To privilege a working government, social security, economic well-being, and person freedom as more important factors than religious doctrine is to give too much credit to "exogenous forces." This despite the fact that, in later chapters, Hirisi Ali admits the Islamists and Muslim Brotherhood types were largely kept in check before these governments failed, and that effective militaries and police forces work to keep chaos from breaking out. Forgive me, but that sounds like a working government is the primary factor, making for quite the contradiction.
The vast majority of her examples are from the Middle East and North Africa, which is something of a selection bias. She also ignores Muslim majority countries like Albania, Turkey, and Morocco. She ignores India completely, even though in terms of Muslim populations it's #3 in the world. She also really struggles to find examples from South East Asia. The one time she does mention Indonesia she used it as an example of increasing Muslim violence against Christians, but the numbers she used were suspiciously old, from 2010 (throughout much of the rest of the book she uses up to date examples from as late as 2014), and from an odd source, The Christian Post. I looked those numbers up on Human Rights Watch and the violence has either decreased or stayed the same from the time she cited and she ignored this information. She also suppresses the fact that the violence against minorities in Indonesia is also largely against minority MUSLIMS, that happen to be the wrong kind of Muslims, like the Ahmadiyyas. Yes violence against the Christian minority still takes place and is concerning, but she badly overplayed the example, stretching it beyond the breaking point.
Hirsi Ali's best points come in the first ten pages of the book where she argues against people characterizing Islam as a religion of peace, or saying things like "no real religion advocates for violence". She's right. Unfortunately for her the rest of the book falls down due the glaring inconsistencies, historical inaccuracies, and the fact that it is targetted towards the virtually non-existant violent mostly-peaceful Mecca Muslims.
In the end Hirsi Ali laments how The West ignores or dismissed Muslim reformers because they are "not representative", while simultaneously lamenting and ignoring Muslim reformers as being not representative of Islam. This is precisely what happens when you agree that the fundamentalists have the one "true" faith.
johnmarlowe's review
4.0
“On _____, a group of _____ heavily armed, black-clad men burst into a _____ in _____, opening fire and killing a total of ____ people. The attackers were filmed shouting ‘Allahu akbar!’”
This is Ms. Ali’s first paragraph in her book and unfortunately the world does not have to wait many days to fill in the blanks again. I’ll admit to this book being one that “preaches to the choir” for me. Ms. Ali is one of the few people who intellectually advocates for the concept of reforming Islam. Why one of the few? Because, you will get yourself killed for challenging the notion that Islam and the Qur`an need reforming. And that’s a problem, as she says in the book. Early in the book, she says:
“Let me make my point in the simplest possible terms: Islam is not a religion of peace."
If she cannot even convince Jon Stewart of her thoughts in this book, one can see she has a long way to go. See this 20 minute Daily Show interview with her recently:
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/lhwhnp/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-ayaan-hirsi-ali
This is Ms. Ali’s first paragraph in her book and unfortunately the world does not have to wait many days to fill in the blanks again. I’ll admit to this book being one that “preaches to the choir” for me. Ms. Ali is one of the few people who intellectually advocates for the concept of reforming Islam. Why one of the few? Because, you will get yourself killed for challenging the notion that Islam and the Qur`an need reforming. And that’s a problem, as she says in the book. Early in the book, she says:
“Let me make my point in the simplest possible terms: Islam is not a religion of peace."
If she cannot even convince Jon Stewart of her thoughts in this book, one can see she has a long way to go. See this 20 minute Daily Show interview with her recently:
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/lhwhnp/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-ayaan-hirsi-ali
caidyn's review
3.0
2.5
On one side of this book, there are people shouting about how Islamophobic Ayaan Ali is. On the other side, people are agreeing with this book and the generalizations Ali makes. And, I don't agree with either of them. The Islamophobia that Ali has is justified. She's frightened of the extremists, not at the general population of Muslims. Hell -- and, I'll be honest -- I'm absolutely terrified of the extremists as well. I'm scared if their version of Islam. However, I also don't agree with the generalizations that Ali makes about how violent Islam is as a religion. Yes, it is violent, but I don't see her also condemning Jews and Christians for their religions. In Judaism, God reputedly told them to drive out all nonbelievers from the Promised Land, and isn't that what Israelis are doing? And, what about Christians? They're horribly violent and have a history of it.
I could only think: "Not all Muslims!" Much like how men say "Not all men!" about rape. It's that sort of generalization Ali makes. Some women make terrible generalizations about men, that they're all rapists and some just haven't acted on that instinct. Then, when men cry out about how not all men are like that, they condemn them for trying to speak out. And, women who say that are saying it because their fears of men have generalized based on their attack. Ali shows that spectacularly. Her fear of Islam has generalized, not to include the progressives and moderates as well.
Yet again, all I could think about was Dalia Mogahed's interview with Trevor Noah on The Daily Show. In case you don't want to watch the video, I'll give a brief summary here. Basically, she denounces what Ali makes you feel is how all Muslims are. That Islam is the catalyst to these awful things. However, Mogahed says that no, it's not. These people would do this no matter where they were. They would have these feelings and just use the language of the land to justify their actions. To me, that's like the KKK using Christianity as their justification. Or, Westboro Baptist Church doing the same thing.
Despite all that, it was a good book. Islam does need a reformation, or even there is one in progress as [a:Reza Aslan|14210|Reza Aslan|https://d.gr-assets.com/authors/1375702579p2/14210.jpg] makes in his book [b:No god but God: The Origins, Evolution and Future of Islam|25307|No god but God The Origins, Evolution and Future of Islam|Reza Aslan|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1388221846s/25307.jpg|4372]. It's just not the kind of reformation that we're looking for. I just couldn't agree with Ali's core premise of Islam being this huge evil when it's just not. I agree with Mogahed, they would use what justification fit best. I agree with Aslan, this reformation is already happening.
On one side of this book, there are people shouting about how Islamophobic Ayaan Ali is. On the other side, people are agreeing with this book and the generalizations Ali makes. And, I don't agree with either of them. The Islamophobia that Ali has is justified. She's frightened of the extremists, not at the general population of Muslims. Hell -- and, I'll be honest -- I'm absolutely terrified of the extremists as well. I'm scared if their version of Islam. However, I also don't agree with the generalizations that Ali makes about how violent Islam is as a religion. Yes, it is violent, but I don't see her also condemning Jews and Christians for their religions. In Judaism, God reputedly told them to drive out all nonbelievers from the Promised Land, and isn't that what Israelis are doing? And, what about Christians? They're horribly violent and have a history of it.
I could only think: "Not all Muslims!" Much like how men say "Not all men!" about rape. It's that sort of generalization Ali makes. Some women make terrible generalizations about men, that they're all rapists and some just haven't acted on that instinct. Then, when men cry out about how not all men are like that, they condemn them for trying to speak out. And, women who say that are saying it because their fears of men have generalized based on their attack. Ali shows that spectacularly. Her fear of Islam has generalized, not to include the progressives and moderates as well.
Yet again, all I could think about was Dalia Mogahed's interview with Trevor Noah on The Daily Show. In case you don't want to watch the video, I'll give a brief summary here. Basically, she denounces what Ali makes you feel is how all Muslims are. That Islam is the catalyst to these awful things. However, Mogahed says that no, it's not. These people would do this no matter where they were. They would have these feelings and just use the language of the land to justify their actions. To me, that's like the KKK using Christianity as their justification. Or, Westboro Baptist Church doing the same thing.
Despite all that, it was a good book. Islam does need a reformation, or even there is one in progress as [a:Reza Aslan|14210|Reza Aslan|https://d.gr-assets.com/authors/1375702579p2/14210.jpg] makes in his book [b:No god but God: The Origins, Evolution and Future of Islam|25307|No god but God The Origins, Evolution and Future of Islam|Reza Aslan|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1388221846s/25307.jpg|4372]. It's just not the kind of reformation that we're looking for. I just couldn't agree with Ali's core premise of Islam being this huge evil when it's just not. I agree with Mogahed, they would use what justification fit best. I agree with Aslan, this reformation is already happening.
More...