Infidel: Conclusion

In the end, Hirsi Ali's legitimate questioning and objections with regard to her experience of Islam lead her too far to the other side. She hated the oppression of women in Islam, so she embraced feminist philosophies. She took her experience of Islam to be indicative of a problem with all organized religions, and thus embraced a supposed non-religious view a la Freud et al. And this overreaction brought her further from the truth.

But there are answers to her questions. There is truth; there are absolutes. They are from one Source, and one Source only. That Source is perfect, consistent and true. He is more powerful, more mighty, more holy than Allah in all the glory she previously attributed to him. And His Word allays all the fears and silences all the objections raised by Hirsi Ali with regard to Islam and organized religion in general. I hope to work this out in a series of blogs on what the Bible has to say about a few of these fears and objections.

Infidel: On Religion

Hirsi Ali's many nagging questions about the truth of Islam eventually led her to atheism. It's interesting that as she describes giving up on religion, she makes this statement:

From now on I could step firmly on the ground that was under my feet and navigate based on my own reason and self-respect. My moral compass was within myself, not in the pages of some sacred book. (p. 281)

Hirsi Ali, like everyone else, can not go into some sort of religious vacuum. We can't empty ourselves of religion. Humans come with a sense of morality, eternity, and the existence of God built in. God's Word says:

He has also set eternity in the hearts of men. (Ecclesiastes 3:11)

So Hirsi Ali is not really giving up on religion; in the place of one god, she sets up another. Where she once worshipped at the altar of Allah, she now worships at the altar of earthly reason and "self-respect". She closed the Qur'an - "some sacred book", only to open Spinoza, Locke, Kant, Mill, Voltaire, Russell, and Popper - the Qur'ans of humanism. She professes the ridiculously oxymoronic creed of relativism: "There are no absolutes." And so the religious vacuum is filled.

Infidel: Logical Disconnect

While working for a think tank of the Dutch Labor Party, Hirsi Ali delved into the patterns of immigration, integration and assimilation in Holland. She recognized a real problem with the way the Muslim immigrants were withdrawing themselves into closed communities and disproportionately taxing the welfare system and committing crime. And she noticed that this pattern of living was being propogated by independent Muslim schools. And so she suggested abolishing Article 23 of the Dutch Constitution, which permits faith-based schools (p. 280).

This is a clear example of Hirsi Ali throwing out the baby with the bath water. Were all faith-based schools guilty of the same things? This seems also to be a point of inconsistency in Hirsi Ali's logic. Much of her research indicated that there was a particular problem with Islam and Muslims. She acknowledged this fact. She passionately wanted to show that the Muslim situation was different than others. Yet, in the case of faith-based schools, she attributes the particular problems of Muslim schools to all other faith-based schools by seeking to abolish the provision under which they were established.

Infidel: On 9/11

All of Hirsi Ali's questions regarding Islam came to a head after 9/11. She read many articles, watched many TV commentaries, searched the Internet regarding the attacks. She writes of her surprise at the naivety of much of the commentary:

[Analyists' articles were] about Islam being a religion of peace and tolerance, not the slightest bit violent. These were fairy tales, nothing to do with the real world I knew. (p. 270)

Were the 9/11 attacks carried out because poverty was pushing people to terrorism?

But Africa is the poorest continent, I knew, and poverty doesn't cause terrorism; truly poor people can't look further than their next meal. (p. 270)

Had the attacks brought to light a wave of Islamophobia in Holland?

None of this pseudointellectualizing had anything to do with reality. (p. 270)

Were the attacks carried out because of America's "blind" support of Israel?

This was belief, I thought. Not frustration, not poverty, colonialism, or Israel: it was about religious belief, a one-way ticket to Heaven. (p. 270)

Hirsi Ali's conclusion:

...most people think that Islam is about peace. It is from these people, honest and kind, that the fallacy has arisen that Islam is peaceful and tolerant. But I could no longer avoid seeing the totalitarianism, the pure moral framework that is Islam. It regulates every detail of life and subjugates free will. True Islam, as a rigid belief system and a moral framework, leads to cruelty. The inhuman act of those nineteen hijackers was the logical outcome of this detailed system for regulating human behavior. (p. 272)

Leaving aside the question of free will, it is clear who this enemy of Western society is. President Bush knew America was at war after 9/11, but to this day it seems he doesn't really understand who this enemy is - he still refuses to believe that this is about Islam and Islamic society.

Infidel: On leadership

In one of her discussions about the structure of Dutch culture, in stark contrast to the cultures of the African cultures in which she grew up, Hirsi Ali describes the family life of some dear friends who took her in. Among the first things she noticed:

Johanna's husband, Maarten, was not the boss of the household. The two of them talked things over together; they asked each other's advice... And Maarten helped with the housework. (p. 219)

This is a typical error in today's society. Either you're the head of the household, or you work cooperatively and jointly in running a household. It bears noting that Hirsi Ali makes this observation in contrast to the family and culture in which she was raised. There, being a leader meant doing things the things you wanted the way you wanted. But we need not and should not make leadership and cooperation mutually exclusive. A boss who seeks advice from his employees is no less a leader. In the same way, one can be the head of a family and at the same time be cooperative and self-sacrificing.

It is true that many husbands and fathers have used their headship for evil. But we cannot discard headship for that reason. Christian men are called to be heads of their families and leaders in their church communities. This is both a privilege and a great responsibility. God's Word says:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. (Eph. 5:25-27)

Christ's headship is not characterized by his power, authority, needs, wants, desires. It is characterized by giving up of oneself - it is first about service. That's the real way of headship and leadership. What a tremendous example we men have to live up to.

Infidel: On Structure

In the second half of her book Infidel, Hirsi Ali relates her experiences in Holland after having fled there to avoid an arranged marriage with a Somali Canadian. Her initial experience of Dutch culture was one of amazement and fascination. It was so unlike the cultures of the African countries in which she had lived.

One of the biggest differences she noticed was that Dutch culture was structured. If you put your garbage out on a particular morning, the government would come and pick it up (p. 189). Buildings and streets were clean. You could walk alone on the street and be safe. Traffic was controlled (p. 185). Policemen were not oppressors or demanders of bribes (p. 190). Buses were scheduled and punctual (p. 191). Men did not go crazy if women were not covered from head to toe (p. 195-196). Disadvantaged people were taken care of (p. 199). Family life was deliberately structured (p. 219).

All these things in Dutch culture are the outworkings not of Dutch culture per se, but of Christian culture. God is a God of order. The principles of cleanliness, order, service, self-control, and charity are all prescribed by God. These principles are written all over the laws God gave the Israelites through Moses. The laws of Western society are for the most part based on these same principles, and many constitutions still point back to the Word of God as their basis.

Ultimately, Hirsi Ali was not observing the difference between Somali or Kenyan or Saudi culture and Dutch or English or American culture, or even between Islamic culture and Christian culture, but between God's prescribed way and the self-serving way of fallen human nature.

Infidel: Wimpy Misogynism

The reason the new, pure Islam of the Muslim Brothehood requires absolute separation of men and women, and hiding women in the anonymous hijab? The men are scared of the women!

From Infidel:

As women, we were immensely powerful, Sister Aziza explained. The way Allah had created us, our hair, our nails, our heels, our neck, and ankles - every little curve in our body was arousing. If a woman aroused a man who was not her husband, she was sinning doubly in God's eyes, by leading the man into temptation and evil thoughts to match her own. Only the robe worn by the wives of the Prophet could prevent us from arousing men and leading society into fitna, uncontrollable confusion and social chaos.

The woman's form created to be arousing to a man? Check.
Deliberately leading men into temptation is sin? With you so far.
Wearing the hijab and social chaos are mutually exclusive? Whoa! Stop right there!

Women are so powerful that they must be covered up, and men are so weak that they can't be trusted to be responsible for their thoughts and actions. Going to this extreme is an easy way for men to avoid the nuisance of personal morality and responsibility. That said, I'm not sure the pendulum hasn't swung too far the other way in the Western world.