Of course there are repressive Islamic societies that perpetrate horrific human rights abuses. But to pretend that this is the certain and only interpretation of Islam is to deny the voices of millions of peaceful and kind Muslims around the world...

With all due respect, Miwome, I don't think you can simply assume that peace and kindness among Muslims are the norm.

In The End of Faith, Sam Harris cites a Pew study from 2002 that was conducted worldwide and asked, among other things, whether suicide bombing against civilians was justified if carried out in defense of Islam. In almost a dozen predominantly Muslim countries, substantial majorities answered yes. (The only two countries where decisive majorities said no were Turkey - an island of secularism compared to most of the Islamic world - and Uzbekistan.)

Given that there are a billion Muslims worldwide, even a small minority who openly supported suicide terrorism would be a serious problem. But these results are far more disturbing and suggest that Islam itself, as it is currently believed and practiced, constitutes a major impediment to world peace. Millions of Muslims do not support violence and terrorism, of course, and theocratic Muslim dictatorships have caused at least as much suffering for their own people as they have for the West. But this data is real, and we can't say that it shouldn't be considered just because we find the result unsettling. This is a problem we need to confront and solve if Islam is ever going to overcome its violent nature and join the rest of the modern world.

This is not to say that anyone here is about to go on a crusade. I simply urge caution; the perspective I'm seeing here is very one-sided and simplistic.

I think it's demeaning and untrue to say that a certain perspective being offered on Islam is "one-sided and simplistic" when it is held by many people who actually were or even still are Muslims and who are deeply and intimately familiar with Islamic faith and culture. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is one.

Another is Taslima Nasrin, who's said, "I don't find any difference between Islam and Islamic fundamentalists. I believe religion is the root, and from the root fundamentalism grows as a poisonous stem. If we remove fundamentalism and keep religion, then one day or another fundamentalism will grow again. I need to say that because some liberals always defend Islam and blame fundamentalists for creating problems. But Islam itself oppresses women. Islam itself doesn't permit democracy and it violates human rights."

There's also Salman Rushdie - a former Muslim himself, which is often forgotten - who wrote an editorial on November 2, 2001 titled "Yes, This Is About Islam". The atheist and ex-Muslim Ibn Warraq has also said that the West needs to stop trying to "protect" Islam: "We're not doing Islam any favors by shielding it from Enlightenment values."

Islam is a complex religion with 1,500 years of history that has included near-constant debate about what Islam really is and what it means to be a Muslim.

Yes, there was once much debate and freethinking among Islamic cultures. That is no longer the case. Since the Middle Ages, that has ceased to be so, and obeying tradition and authority has been seen as the only acceptable mode of conduct for a Muslim - the famous maxim is "the gates of itjihad [independent reasoning] are closed". (Hence, efforts like Irshad Manji's Project Itjihad to restore that open, questioning spirit.)

To be clear, there isn't anything intrinsically anti-intellectual or anti-humanist about being a Muslim. Christianity was once the same way, until it went through an Enlightenment that curbed (if not eliminated) most of those destructive tendencies. Islam today is very much where Christianity was a few hundred years ago, and for the same reason, it needs an Enlightenment of its own. Islam just can't join the modern world until that happens. I can see it happening one day, but it's not just going to be a matter of rooting out a few extremists. Islam itself needs to undergo some major changes before it can believably claim to have left its violent past and present behind.

Of course there are repressive Islamic societies that perpetrate horrific human rights abuses. But to pretend that this is the certain and only interpretation of Islam is to deny the voices of millions of peaceful and kind Muslims around the world, and to further the divisions that have contributed to two wars (this century), frequent smaller conflicts, the displacement of millions of people, and more.

I find much of this thread disturbing--poverty is "not entirely caused" by Islam? Islam does not cause poverty anymore than Christianity or Zoroastrianism. Indeed, lately, citizens of more secular nations like Egypt have been turning to Islam in larger numbers in the face of unabated poverty and lack of opportunity. For them it is a refuge, not a cancer. The implication, furthermore, that "tolerating" certain practices can lead to others is more or less harmless in some applications (tolerating terrorist cells --> terrorist attacks), but can easily be adapted to "tolerating Islam leads to human rights abuses/war/terrorism/theocracy--let's stamp it out!" This is not to say that anyone here is about to go on a crusade. I simply urge caution; the perspective I'm seeing here is very one-sided and simplistic. Islam is a complex religion with 1,500 years of history that has included near-constant debate about what Islam really is and what it means to be a Muslim. Just as it would be stupid to note the interpretation of Islam that emphasizes social justice and be blind to the radical fundamentalists, it is demeaning to take only the radicals and leave behind their wiser counterparts.

Netherlands and France are supposed to be the worst at dealing with this

Yeah, they're supposed to be, according to a bunch of Americans who have never lived there and keep reciting this supposed truism to one another.

Here's a different perspective: European Dream.

Basically, as long as you insist on the rule of law, equality, basic human rights and the rest and don't back down if you are accused of being racist or unfair to Islam, you will do fine. Otherwise the word "appeasement".

That said, I almost felt like some of her conclusions in the end oversimplify the highly nuanced portrait she paints with her own life story. She seems to imply that Islam is the one thing that keeps countries like the ones where she grew up from being like Europe. But in her story she points out other important differences such as poverty and unrest which aren't entirely caused by Islam, nor would they be easily solved even in the absence of Islam.

Also, I agree with Dominic Self that you can't just take the situation in the Netherlands and assume that it represents all of Europe. Different European countries vary widely in terms of their policies and attitudes towards immigrants.

Where I see people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali doing the most good is in what she started out doing, advocating on behalf of the rights of Muslim women in immigrant communities in Europe.

Her argument is that European governments, fearful of being perceived as racist, gave Muslim immigrants wide latitude and trusted that they would assimilate on their own. Instead, these immigrants have built separate enclaves where they live in isolation, recreating their culture just as it exists in their home countries - in other words, forced marriages, female genital mutilation, segregated schools, honor killings, anti-free-speech riots, and many other evils.

I don't think this should be taken as being universally true, though. Speaking from a British left-wing perspective - and yes, Brits tend to be deeply confused about whether we're European or not - the multicultural model expressly does not mandate 'assimilation'. As long as there is a common acceptance of the law - which clearly honour killings, forced marriages and genital mutilation contravene - immigrant groups should not feel that they have to abandon their own culture in favour of 'ours'. And whilst there are always extremists, the majority of British Muslims would be appalled at the very suggestion that they favour some sort of fundamentalist way of life. Never forget that the bombers who blew themselves up in my home city of London in 2005 did so in crowded Tubes and buses used by everyone from all walks of life, including many Muslims. It was an attack on multiculturalism itself, not Islam versus the rest, and it failed to turn us against each other as the terrorists would have wanted.

I guess all I'm trying to do is to plead with people not to think that Europe needs to adopt some sort of macho 'anti-Islam' pose. Often it is just based on racism or fear of immigrants, and perpetrated by people who certainly aren't coming from an atheist perspective. ("Britain is a Christian country and I want it to stay that way...") Again, I'm talking about the UK and I don't doubt the veracity of what you're saying about the Netherlands. But certainly over here the very worst thing we could do would be to turn our back on Muslims, not least because it would be an absolute gift to extremists and radicals. Naturally, this doesn't impede action against illegal and repulsive acts, and it doesn't stop atheists having intellectual debates with Muslims as they would with members of any religion. But there should always be a respect of the right of individuals to express an unfamiliar culture within legal boundaries.

The Wikipedia entry seems to hint that the book was ghostwritten, though, but the cited source doesn't have much to say on the matter... does anyone know more about this? Or does "ghostwriter" just mean something like "assistant translator" in this context?

I would also argue that such tolerance could be a society's own worst enemy. For example, could the tolerance of radical/fundamental islam foster the development of terrorist cells?

That's precisely this book's point, hb. Her argument is that European governments, fearful of being perceived as racist, gave Muslim immigrants wide latitude and trusted that they would assimilate on their own. Instead, these immigrants have built separate enclaves where they live in isolation, recreating their culture just as it exists in their home countries - in other words, forced marriages, female genital mutilation, segregated schools, honor killings, anti-free-speech riots, and many other evils. This is wrong, and we should not tolerate it. We should only tolerate those cultures and practices which respect the rights of all individuals to live in peace and determine their own destiny. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali herself says: people are equal, cultures are not.

Tommy: I think her argument is that Muslim women can't take the initiative to improve their society themselves, not while they're trapped inside it. Too many of them remain passive and ignorant in a culture that's cowed them with the fear of hellfire and taught them they are valuable only as property. Even the ones who do speak out tend to suffer violence and murder, which in Islam is still viewed as an acceptable way of controlling the behavior of others. If we're going to change this, the change won't come from inside the system; it needs to start with outsiders who see it for what it is and raise the call for revolution. I think Ayaan Hirsi Ali is in as good a position as anyone to do that.