JOHN TIRMAN: First
of all, welcome, on behalf of the Center
for International Studies. I'm John Tirman,
Executive Director, and we're glad you came
to this Starr Forum, the first one of the year. And I encourage you to
follow us on Twitter, if you do things like that,
or just look at our calendar every now and then to see
what events we have coming up. We usually have a good
dozen or so every semester. Two that are coming
up very soon, somewhat related to what we're
doing-- well, not so related. But, in any case-- first
of all, next Monday, September 21st at 5
o'clock in Building 4, Room 270-- I was
just telling somebody I've been here for
10 years and I still don't know where things are. So I had a hard
time finding this. But, in any case,
you know Building 4, Room 270 will be a
panel on, What now? The Iran nuclear deal. That includes Scott Kemp,
who is in engineering here, I believe-- Lisbeth Gronlund
from the Union of Concerned Scientists, Payam Mohseni
of the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, and
myself speaking about Iran and the nuclear deal. And then on October 1st
we will have Will McCants from the Brookings Institution,
former government State Department official, speaking
about his new book called The ISIS Apocalypse, the
History, Strategy, and Doomsday Vision of the Islamic State. It should be a good one. This book is getting
really rave reviews from people who know a
lot about these things, and that should be a good one. That is going to be at 5:30,
also in Building 4, Room 370. And you can find these events
listed, again, on our website. Today we're pleased to
have Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who is, as you know, a well-known,
controversial-- but also thoughtful-- critic of Islam,
and a promoter of women's rights. She has been, since her
going to the Netherlands from Kenya at the
age of about 22, I believe, she became an
activist in the Netherlands, pointing out, in her view,
the repressive features and the violent
tendencies of Islam. And, of course,
it has earned her a certain controversial
reputation. She came to the United
States several years later, was a Fellow at the American
Enterprise Institute in Washington, and now is
a Fellow at the Kennedy School of Government. She has most recently written
a book called Heretic-- which we have for
sale here-- Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now. So, please, what we
will do-- the format will be that she'll speak
for about 20 minutes or so. Then she and I will
be in conversation for about 20 minutes. And then we'll open it up. We'll have plenty of time
for audience participation in the form of
questions, I hope. And we have two
microphones for you to come to speak into because
this is being video-recorded and we want to make sure that
we capture your question. OK? So, without further
ado, please help me welcome Ayaan Hirsi Ali. [APPLAUSE] AYAAN HIRSI ALI: Thank you
very much, John, for your warm welcome. I would like to start
by sharing with you what an incredibly
amazing feeling it is to stand in
front of you, to be in an institution of learning
with the stature of MIT. I grew up in Somalia. My family went to Saudi
Arabia, Ethiopia, Kenya. It was an unfathomable, and it
still is unfathomable today, if you are from any one
of those countries-- or all of the other
countries-- to be able to be a student at MIT. To get into MIT you have
to jump so many hurdles. You have to prove to the
world that you belong to that teeny, tiny group. That chosen minority
that have made it. To be an educator, to be
a professor, a teacher, you have the
privilege of saying, I don't get to
teach just anyone. I get to teach the world's
best and brightest. And I have to start by telling
you how much I appreciate that. How much I'm humbled by that. So thank you for having
me, and thank you for granting me one hour of
your time to discuss my book Heretic with you. Heretic-- and the book before
that, Nomad, and the book before that,
Infidel, and the book before that, The Caged
Virgin-- it was all inspired by this big event
that took place 14 years ago. 9/11/2001. I was only 31 years old,
started my first job. A group of young
men, 19 in total, attacked the United States
of America in New York, in Washington D.C.
After the great symbols of what makes this country
great-- the economic symbols, the political symbol,
and defense symbols-- and that was done in the
religion of my parents. At that time, actually,
in my religion. In my faith. And that's 14 years ago. So for the last
14 years I've been trying to grapple
with trying to answer the same question
that many of you-- and, as students,
you are really young. I don't know where
you were 14 years ago. I don't know how old
you are 14 years ago. But, being in my early
30s, being female, having been exposed to
a free, liberal society such as the Netherlands
for at least a decade-- and, before that, having
lived in unfree societies that don't have the opportunities
that we have here-- I struggled to answer
the question, what is it that these 19 young men did? What do their actions have to do
with my religion, my morality? And I can imagine, if you
belong to the religion of Islam, every day-- as atrocity
after atrocity unfolds, and the people who commit
those atrocities claim the religion of Islam
as their motivation, as their inspiration, as
their tool of mobilization-- that you ask yourselves, what
is it that I have to do with it? What should I do? So 14 years ago, on
the individual level, even though it seemed extremely
difficult at the time, in a way it was easier to
look at what these people were saying, to check
it off against what was the doctrine, the
heart and soul of the faith that I grew up in,
and to say, yeah. Sure. What they've done
and what my religion says-- at least on
a scriptural level-- there is some consistency there. But what does it
have to do with me? I can just like really-- I went
to the University of Leiden I was working for a political
party, the think tank of it. I could have chosen
themes such as transport or social geography,
subjects that have nothing to do with
religion, society, politics. I didn't. I couldn't. And I went through a process of
trying to figure out not only-- the easy part was
to figure out what it was that the 19
men did, and what it had to do with my religion. The hard part was
trying to figure out why these-- in my context
it was the Dutch elite, but the other European
elites, the American elites, our political leaders,
our academic leaders, our journalistic leaders--
why they kept on insisting, in the face of everything that
are seeing, that it had nothing to do with Islam. And Heretic, the book,
is a child of that. It is trying to answer
the question, why? Why do we say the Islamic
State is not Islamic? That Al-Qaeda is not Islamic? That Al-Shabaab, the
country I was born in, Somalia, that that
is not Islamic? I'm going to take a shot poll. If you think that
the Islamic State has something to do with
the doctrine of Islam, please raise your hand. If it has anything
to do with Al-Qaeda, please raise your hand. If it has anything
to do with the people who are manifestly
Muslim in the sense that they wear head scarves,
and are really good people, and are at MIT, and are
contributing to society but are Muslim, and
that they have nothing to do with Al-Qaeda or
ISIS, raise your hand. So as liberal, intelligent,
rational societies, why is it impossible
for us to distinguish between what is the
doctrinaire versus what individual human beings do? So the central
question in Heretic is, I accept that the
violent extremism, and the non-violent
extremism that feeds the violent
extremism, that it all has to do with Islam if
it is manifestly Muslim, and if it's well-argued. But then how can we tell the
difference between Muslims? There are 1.5, maybe
1.6, billion Muslims. One fifth of humanity. Is there any way of categorizing
them that is intelligent and that can tell the difference
between who we can ally with against those
who are violent and those who inspire violence,
and those who don't and who want to get on with life? And I think there is a way. And a way to do
that is by taking an interest in what the people
we've come to call extremism say about themselves,
about their objectives, about what inspires them. What is it that they take
within this 14 and a half year-- 1,437, 38,
years-- of doctrine and of civilization, of
culture, of tradition? What is it that they
take and that they use as a tool to
inspire, to mobilize, young people to their cause? Who are they? What should we call them? In Heretic, I've decided to
call them the Medina Muslims because they start with the
founder of Islam, Muhammad, and the foundational
document, the Quran, and they pick, very
clearly and exclusively, everything that happened after
the emigration of Muhammad from Mecca to Medina. The figure of Muhammad-- in
Medina, he was a warrior. He was a lawmaker. He was a philanderer. He was a politician. He established an
empire before he died, and after he died those who
followed his example destroyed empires and took them over. And that lasted well
into the 18th century. If you want to
follow that example, you want to hark
back to that glory, then you belong to
the subsets Medina. But opposing that
group is what I have come to call, in
Heretic, the Modifiers. Individuals from
within Islam-- who grew up in Muslim
households, like I did, with the Islamic tradition--
who are saying there are things that
Muhammad said and did, there are things in the Quran,
and in this long tradition, that we object to
on ethical grounds. On moral grounds. On grounds of modernity. We cannot go back in history. We can only go forward. Therefore, even though
we will continue to admire the
figure of Muhammad, we will not follow
him, not take him as a moral guide in
the 21st century. And in between these
two forces within Islam, the Medina Muslims and the
Modifiers, or the reformers, is this large swathe
of people who just want to go about their business. They don't want to
debate or dialogue. They don't want to waste time
fighting this or the other. They're completely--
they're just getting on with their lives. They call themselves Muslim. And what they highlight
in their daily lives is the example of this figure,
this icon, of the prophet Muhammad-- but then
in his years in Mecca. They say, we're all good people. You are good people. Everybody is a good person. At least, that's where we start. We pray. We fast. We may not pray. We may not fast. It doesn't matter. But we just get on with that So they emphasize
the Mecca experience, but emphasizing the Mecca
experience in your life means-- like my mother, and my
grandmother, and my father-- that you don't really immunize. You don't inoculate
your children against this lure of
the Medina Muslims. And what the Medina
Muslims do is they build on what the
American Muslims put forth. Which is, if you are a
Muslim, and you believe, you have to respect the
prophet Muhammad 100%. You have to obey him 100%. Never question him. Never question the Quran. So when you are a
teenager growing up in a Mecca household,
and you are asking yourself-- excuse
my language-- what the F is this life for? What is it all about? Why am I here? Eat, sleep, reproduce. Eat, sleep, reproduce. Is that what we-- how are
we different from animals? What's the point? What's the point? What's the point? The Medina Muslim
is willing not only to give you a point
but a purpose. And not only a purpose but
the means to the purpose. And if the means to the
purpose is something that's against your conscience,
like take someone else's head off-- in my case,
as a 15-year-old, it was just your friendships
with non-Muslims-- give them a condition. Either they become a Muslim
or you end the friendship. So it kind of starts
on that level, and it can take you to
something much more serious. The Medina Muslim
is not inhibited. He'll appeal to the heart
and soul of the doctrine, of what Muhammad did in Medina. And the millions and
millions and millions of Muslims like my mother
and my grandmother, who couldn't even read the
Quran-- they had no idea what Muhammad said-- but who
do believe, and believe very strongly and
fundamentally-- and who say to their
children, this is who we are, that's our identity, this
is what we believe in, Muhammad and the Quran are
perfect-- you find yourself, as a child of a Mecca
Muslim, struggling to answer those
questions for yourself. Before the Arab Spring I
thought it was all over. I thought the Medina Muslims
would win because there was no force balancing that. There was no one else
appealing from within Islam to the impressionable,
young people. And if you look at
the demographics of the Muslim world
today, you will see that it is a young world. 80, maybe 70% are
under the age of 30. So just imagine how
young that population is. And that youth that's not
only seeking material things like jobs, and gadgets,
and cars, and you name it, but who are also seeking answers
to moral and ethical questions are finding before them
agents of Medina Islam. And the Medina
Muslims are not only the Islamic State of Iraq and
Syria, it's not only Al-Qaeda, it's not only these
renegade groups. They are also states. Saudi Arabia is one of them. That's the Sunni part. There is Iran. So it's an entire
movement, governmental and non-governmental, that's out
there to provide easy answers to one fifth of humanity. Now I have seen that there is,
indeed, after the Arab Spring-- Winter , as we call it-- that
there's this third force. The Reformers. The Modifiers. People from within
who are struggling to give an answer to the same
questions, and who are saying, no. Please do not go with
the Medina Muslims. And the point of
Heretic is not to say that the United States of
America, or the free world, will reform Islam. I don't think it's their job
of the US to reform Islam. But if, within Islam,
a reformation-- defined as a transformation that
is an abrogation of Muhammad's conduct in Medina, and the
Quranic creed in Medina-- if that is taking
place, then it's in our interest to aid that. It's in our interest to
review our partnerships and our alliances. If you have ever heard of
the bloggers in Bangladesh, or the bloggers in Saudi
Arabia, or the bloggers in any part of the Muslim
world-- very young, very well educated--
who are arguing that the separation of
religion from politics is something that they
are willing to invest in, that they want their
children to grow up in a society that
separates the two, and that those bloggers are
attacked with meat cleavers and killed. And we're seeing these signs. Or that a blogger like
Raif Badawi in Saudi Arabia is thrown into prison--
sentenced to 1,000 lashes-- this because of the
clergymen in Saudi Arabia, because he attacked them. Power is concentrated
in their hands, and they abuse that power. He attacked them, and
he has a following. And the response from the
state is throw him in prison. They wanted to kill him. There was some international--
because we live in a time of international,
or rather, communication
technology revolution-- we were able to agitate. And world leaders were
willing to step in and talk to the Saudi authorities and
to say, this is wrong for you to do. So from the death penalty
he went to 1,000 lashes. From 1,000 lashes he got 50. And maybe with the new king he
might face the death penalty again. That's the type. This is just to
demonstrate, to illustrate to you the kind of
struggle for freedom-- freedom of conscience,
freedom of religion, the separation of
religion from politics-- that 21st century,
contemporary Muslims have to go through to achieve
what we take for granted here at MIT and in the rest of
the United States of America. And now I'm so happy to sit
here, take your questions, and yours, too. Thank you. [APPLAUSE] JOHN TIRMAN: Very well said. I have a few
questions, but I want to start with the most
difficult one first, I suppose. And that is, when I read
Heretic, and listening to you speak, your views seem to have
moderated from a few years ago. When you, for example,
described or said that violence is
inherent in Islam. It's destructive. It's a destructive, nihilistic
cult of death, and so on. Have your views
evolved over the years as you've become more exposed
to different views, criticisms, and so on? AYAAN HIRSI ALI: So I think
it's important to say, what has evolved? Has the doctrine changed? Have the verses in
the Quran changed? There are nihilistic, death
cult-ish verses in the Quran. There is the conduct
of Muhammad in Medina that is manifestly violent. And people are still
inspired by it. And the world is
destabilized by it. Has that changed? No. But, as I said in my brief
remarks, what I am seeing today is that, if you look at
the majority of Muslims, it's not only fanatics
versus apathetics. There's this third group. And that's very interesting,
and it's very exciting. And before the Arab
Spring-- I call them the heretics because
that's what we are called-- but before the Arab Spring
I saw individuals scattered over the planet, each
having their own thoughts and grumbling
about the tradition that they were raised in. But during this
Arab Spring period I'm seeing women
organizing, gays organizing, people of science organizing. So I'm seeing an emerging
group of young people that may or may
not be organized. If you take a small country like
Tunisia, they are organized. If you put that sort of
worldwide global mat, they're not organized. We are not organized. We want to change, but we don't
know how to find one another. We don't know how
to organize yet. We're struggling with
all the obstacles, and it's not only obstacles
from the Al-Qaeda or ISIS person who says, if you don't
believe what I believe in, I'll kill you. And so then I have to run
around and raise money to protect myself. But it's also the states. So an example is Raif Badawi,
whom I've just mentioned. If, within Saudi Arabia,
you have voices like his-- and there are more, and
I'm in contact with them-- their complaint is, but
there's this incredibly wealthy, powerful state
that's against us. And so my views have
modified because the evidence has changed. There are so many young people--
educated, brilliant, brave-- who are saying, we don't
want to live like this. We want change. We want tolerance. We want equality
between men and women. We don't want to kill our gays. But we have this terrible,
oppressive, powerful government that's sitting on us. And every time we open
our mouths we get killed. And how can we outsmart them? And so my job, living
in a free country-- the most powerful, the freest
country on the planet-- is to say, well,
in that case, let's find a way we can empower you. Those who truly want change. And some of them are Muslim. Some of them are clerics. Some of them are not Muslim. It doesn't matter. It's all about the fact
that they seek change that is liberal and tolerant. It's about life and
not about death. It's about the rule
of law, and not about arbitrariness,
and corruption, and authoritarianism. JOHN TIRMAN: I take
that to be an accurate assessment at some level. But I also wonder about others
in many predominantly Muslim countries who are also
protesting or fighting what they consider to
be corrupt governments. Governments that are
aligned with the United States or governments that
are in some way repressive-- sometimes very harshly so--
non-democratic and so on. But they really have chosen the
path of Jihad or of violence. So is it about religion? Is this urge to
protest, urge to change the state, several states,
is it about religion? Or is it about a
long-time repression of social, economic rights? Or even minimal economic
growth, for example, among other possible causes? AYAAN HIRSI ALI:
Again, I'll give you-- and I do like talking about my
mother, who's extremely pious, my grandmother who
is extremely pious, and who understand that human
beings fight for a better life. There are millions and millions
and millions of Muslims who are just like that. They may be pious. That's what we call religious. So there is this religious
dimension to Islam. People pray five times a day. They want to go to the Hajj. They want to fast in
the month of Ramadan. They want to get
together because their religious identity
brings them together, and it's creates cohesion and
they look after one another. I don't have any
trouble with that. But Islam is not just
a religious narrative or a religious institution. It is also, and perhaps more
strongly, a political system. And it's that
political system that has a vision and a
purpose for how humanity ought to live with one another. Who is bad? Who is good? Who is a believer? Who is an infidel? Establishing Sharia law. The place of women. The place of men. What should be done
to gays and others? That political system that
dictates every aspect of life, that I think we all
have problems with. Now, there are two
approaches to it. There's the approach that says,
do not dignify these people with the tradition of Islam. Since Islam is 14
centuries old or more, why give it to groups like ISIS? I think, up to a point,
that makes sense. But, as a strategy,
if that doesn't work, then I think maybe
now it's time to say, don't dignify them by taking
over the entire inheritance. Because those of us who
don't want what they're doing are incapable of rejecting
parts of that tradition, or putting parts of
that tradition to rest. That's my definition
of a reformation. When an idea doesn't
work, and it doesn't work, and it doesn't work,
put it to rest. JOHN TIRMAN: And
you have proposed that the United
States, and possibly some others in the
west, particularly, could play a role in
helping reformers. AYAAN HIRSI ALI: I do. JOHN TIRMAN: Do you want
to elaborate on that a bit? AYAAN HIRSI ALI: Yes. I think the big complaint-- 14
years ago when 9/11 happened, and, I think, the average
American developed an interest for Islam and the
Middle East and why were we attacked, who are they,
why are they after us-- if you read all of those publications,
what you will see that keeps coming back is
American foreign policy has been an ally
to those dictators. An authoritarian, whether
they're a royal family or whether they
are a strong man. And that is true. And I think what a lot of us in
2001 up to now were saying was, we should stop. We should rethink this. We should reset this. We don't want to ally with
a dictator like a Gaddafi, or like a Saddam
Hussein, or you name it. Do you know of a
democratic leader that-- we have some
favorite dictators like the King of Jordan and
the King of Saudi Arabia. But if you look at our policies,
at least in the last 50 years, and within any of
these countries you were trying to fight for
something that in value system is a win-win for those
societies and for us, we've either overlooked it or
we've aided the bad guys. And 9/11, that has
come home to roost. And in re-thinking that
and resetting that, we've decided to listen
to the opposition. The local opposition. And here's what we found. We found movements like
the Muslim Brotherhood. But the Muslim
Brotherhood, like all the other Islamist
organizations-- even though they do not
use violence immediately like Al-Qaeda or like
ISIS-- their vision for what society should look like
is still oppressive. It violates the human rights
of individuals, of women, of gays, of
religious minorities. For one year in Egypt we've
seen a Muslim Brotherhood government. And, immediately after,
40 million Egyptians went back to the
streets and said, we want back a dictatorship. So, for the United
States, it's very tricky to say, we don't want
to support the dictator, the military dictator. But we also don't want
to go with a movement like the Muslim Brotherhood. What do we do? And what I'm seeing--
again, and I repeat this, I say this in the book, I
say it to every audience-- is, we're seeing an emerging
group of young people who do want the separation
of religion from politics. Who are preaching a
narrative of tolerance to women, to gays, to
religious minorities, to Jews, to the
rest of the world. They want to live and let live. And they're there. We no longer have
to go and impose what we believe in on them. There's this group
of people who share these basic, liberal ideas. We need to find them
and empower them. JOHN TIRMAN: I would say
that's a little bit easier said than done. AYAAN HIRSI ALI:
That's absolutely true. JOHN TIRMAN: Partly because--
there was a very interesting exchange in Foreign
Affairs, actually, with Ayaan leading off with an
essay like this on this topic. And then-- AYAAN HIRSI ALI: McCants. --Will McCants, by coincidence
our next Starr Forums speaker, responding. And one of the points he makes,
I think, is worth pondering. And that is that-- two things. One is that any support from
the United States to dissenters in these countries,
among others, is a disadvantage for them. And possibly a
lethal disadvantage. And, secondly,
although I would-- this is not his point exactly. I would expand on it. The idea, I think you
mentioned, that we had done this with-- what
is the noise over here? OK. Let's turn off our phones. The idea that
supporting dissidents during the Soviet period
was a decisive difference in ending the Cold
War and bringing down a Soviet communism, I
think, is a stretch. There were-- one can hypothesize
many, many different influences on the end of the Cold War. Supporting some dissidents may
have been a positive thing. But it's hardly decisive in
the end of the Soviet Union. So there's a question of
effectiveness on the one hand, and effectiveness as a
safety for the dissidents on the other. AYAAN HIRSI ALI: So
let me first address-- I've read Will's
piece and I, please, invite you to read A Problem
from Heaven in the last issue of Foreign Affairs. But, number one,
the statement that if the United States of America
or any other western country helps-- or is seen
to help anyone from the inside who is
making change-- then they are rejected. I think that that
is blatantly false. I think that that's what
the establishment is trying to tell us. And here's some evidence for it. George W. Bush went into Iraq. He went into Afghanistan. And I have this scene. I was a member of parliament
in the Netherlands. I was threatened by a Jihadi. And I was being taken from
hiding place to hiding place. And one of the
hiding places I was taken to was a military
base in Amsterdam. And I look out. Nobody knows I'm there. I look out of the window and
I see a long line of women, covered in hijabs, standing. And then on the other side, men. And I say to one of the
gentleman who's protecting me, wow. What a hiding place
to choose for me. What's going on? And they said, it's
the Iraqi elections. And you had to see the
thousands of Iraqi refugees living in the Netherlands who
were so animated by the fact that they could take
part in an election. They didn't have to. This is in November. No, it's in January. It's in January. It's extremely cold
in the Netherlands. They're standing in the cold
for hours and hours and hours just to vote. And you have seen
those pictures. Any time anybody
like a Will McCants, who sits behind
a desk, tells you that Arabs and Muslims are
not interested in freedom? It's not true. Don't listen to the elites. Don't listen to the
people at Brookings. Listen to the men and
women, the young children, who want that freedom. Another little bit today,
unfolding before our very eyes, thousands and thousands
and thousands of people come into Germany. They're screaming,
Germany, Germany, Germany. Does it sound like the Germans? I bet you if, in the US,
we opened an opportunity for Syrian refugees to come in,
they would say USA, USA, USA. I bet you if the United
States of America and the rest of
the free world puts their lot, their
destiny, with those who are desperate-- for the
women who are being raped, who are being sold into slavery,
who the government of Saudi Arabia demands that every woman
has a male guardian-- if you can just lift that
yoke off her, do you think women are going
to say, I hate America? No. But the people who think
that they speak for them will tell you, and will tell
Will, that they hate America. It depends on who you listen to. You are a gay guy
and you have to hide who you are because you're going
to be thrown from a rooftop, and the world's superpower
comes to be on your side? And you're going to
say, I hate America? Really? It's just not true. But the narrative that we are
told by our chosen partners and allies, that if
we held those people inside their communities who
want freedom that they will hate us, makes us comfortable. Because it gives us the moral
high ground-- we want to help, but they don't want our help. So we don't want to do anything. We promised to pull out of Iraq. We pulled out of Iraq,
and there is ISIS. Islamic extremism was there
before we pulled out of Iraq. But it gets an opportunity to
conquer and to take over power because we created a vacuum. So let's not listen
to the people that Will is listening to. Let's listen to the
people on the street who are seeking our help. Genuine help. JOHN TIRMAN: So can
we say that you're in favor of opening the gates to
America of the Syrian refugees? AYAAN HIRSI ALI: I
am in favor of that. JOHN TIRMAN: OK. AYAAN HIRSI ALI: But in
order to open those gates we have to have an exchange. And it has to be honest. And it has to be rational. If you are a Syrian
today, and you are fleeing the oppression
of the shadow of Bashar Al-Assad-- authoritarianism,
and that form, that level, of obscene cruelty--
and you don't want to go and stay with
the Islamic states-- which is putting on your
doctrinal oppression-- then, welcome to America. But on condition that
you understand what America is about. And that would be the exchange. Welcome. Take advantage of
all the opportunities that we can offer. But you are not going to oppress
your daughters and your wives. You are not going to
be intolerant to gays. You are going to
accept what we believe and what has made America great. And there's no
time-- I have been a refugee-- there is no
time that an individual is more motivated to change
his mind and his values than at the time when you're
fleeing that type of disaster. And so it's not about opening
borders and not opening borders. It's not about capacity
and non-capacity. It's not about jobs. And I know that we are
comfortable with those topics. It's about values. It's about clashing values. And anybody who's prepared
to accept our values, we should set the
doors wide open. AUDIENCE: Here, here. JOHN TIRMAN: I want to go
to the audience in a moment, but I do want to give you an
opportunity to briefly tell us about the AHA Foundation, what
you're doing on women's issues. AYAAN HIRSI ALI: OK. Well, it's exactly what we've
just been talking about. The AHA Foundation deals with
a silent epidemic in our midst. Because we have immigrants
who not only brought their values and their
culture, but who are also confronted in the
United States of America with the temptations for women. That these women, young
women, want to go to school. They want to have boyfriends. They want to wear makeup. They want to wear
fashionable clothes. And their families
and communities are saying, that's haram. Or forbidden. And some of these families
are not only saying it, but they are conspiring
to stop young women from going to school. They're sending them to
the countries of origin. They're forcing
them into marriage. They're taking
away their freedoms even though they are enjoying
the freedoms of religion and conscience and all that. And so what the AHA
Foundation tries to do is, well, since
we are all here, it's not only about
nurturing these, in my view, extremely misogynistic
and extreme cultures. It's about the
individual human being. It's not about
group versus group. If the idea of America is that
all individual human beings are born equal and are free,
then we have to commit to that. And there are thousands--
and that's only, really, the tip of the
iceberg-- of young women who are denied
their basic rights. And they're the
ones who come to us. And we want you to help in
every which way you can. Many of them, in fact,
are seeking scholarships. JOHN TIRMAN: Very good. So we will now open it up
for some questions from you. And I would appreciate
if you would come down to the microphone to
ask your question. And we're going to
begin over here. And if you would
identify yourself I think it would be helpful. If you have an affiliation
with MIT and so on otherwise. Please. AUDIENCE: Hi. My name is Nichole Mossalam. I am a very active member
of the Greater Boston Islamic community as well as
a supporter of the MIT Islamic community, and the
greater student body. I've been in this area
for about 2 and 1/2 years, and I just want to give a
little background about myself so that you understand
my question. I've read your book Infidel. And, in reading that, it gave
me a little insight into you. And I sensed that we are
somewhat kindred spirits in that our experiences
may be different, the isolated
experiences themselves, but I grew up,
when I was younger, homeless with my mother. And my mom would
give me her food that we would get from
a dumpster sometimes. Or we would sleep in
the back of a truck. I grew up with a
stepfather and a father who were drug addicts,
alcoholics, and abusive. So I grew up with
abuse in the home. And I know how this can
affect our outlook on life. And we search for answers. I think there is a key
difference between you and I, though. And whereas this
topic does touch on religion, please, I ask your
forgiveness for bringing faith into this. But I pray that that difference
between us will disappear, in that I sensed
in you a searching. A hunger to connect
with the higher power. With God. With Allah. With Jehovah. With Yahweh. Whatever you want to call him. But I sensed that search
in you, and I had it, too. And that's what pulled me up and
brought me to where I am today. And I'm very thankful
for where I'm at because I have many
friends, regardless of faith, regardless of
political affiliations, are not here today. Who fell victims to guns
and violence, to drugs. So this is not a problem
unique to any faith. It is not a problem unique to
any geographical situation. So this is my concern
with what you have to say, that you give an
oversimplification of very complicated issues. It's not as easy as saying
they hate us for our freedom because that's not it. I have a husband from Egypt. I've been to Egypt. I've seen what these people
have to say about us. I work in the community. I've been privileged to
help with the construction of the first Islamic
women's shelter in the New England area. AUDIENCE: Can I ask
a question, quick? Is she giving a speech or
is she giving a question? AUDIENCE: I want the
audience to understand. JOHN TIRMAN: She'll
be done in a moment. AUDIENCE: I'm not
interested in that. AUDIENCE: So basically
what I'm coming to is in your
oversimplification, I think you're overlooking
some very critical facts. That Muslims who believe
in the prophet Muhammad, and in everything that
the Quran has to say, and as someone who is a
convert-- so I can compare different faiths--
all faiths share bad backgrounds or evil people. But these are
individuals who believe in the entirety of Islam,
and these are the ones that I see in the forefront
every day working to change. ISIS, Al-Qaeda, the foreign
policy that created them, the situation that created
all of these bad things, how can you overlook these? How can you divide and
classify individuals? Even with the CBE program
we're seeing this problem. You cannot classify people. They're trying to understand
what radicalizes an individual, and they don't know. Go and talk to the experts, the
professors, the researchers. They don't know. So how can you ignore
this very critical piece of people like myself who
work with law enforcement to make sure that our
communities are safe? To build homeless shelters
for women who are at risk? AUDIENCE: You know,
there might be people that have questions, actually. You're dominating this. JOHN TIRMAN: OK. OK. AUDIENCE: Yes. Thank you. Thank you. AUDIENCE: So how does this piece
figure into all of your data and into your conclusions? AUDIENCE: One comment--
she is a convert. She has no idea what
she is talking about. JOHN TIRMAN: OK. OK, listen. That's enough. That's enough. You've made your views known. We have a guest. [AUDIENCE MEMBERS SPEAKING IN
BACKGROUND] AYAAN HIRSI ALI: Thank you. Thank you. I'm really sorry about that. I'll keep my answer brief. You described how it
is awful to grow up in with, say, abusive culture. Drugs, domestic violence. In a free society we
can debate that freely. Drugs, good or bad, how
much of that do we allow? What is addiction? Which type of family
culture allows for that? What do religions, faiths,
et cetera, say about it? In the United
States of America I can start a debate
or a discussion about Christianity
and the way it deals with all of these issues. And any of you will take
any kind of position. The same with Judaism, with
people who have no faith, like atheism. With Buddhism, et cetera. There is only one faith--
that's the faith of my father and mother, the
faith that I grew up in-- that is so
defensive as to say, whatever it is that we
do within our tradition, it is and has to be
someone else's fault. It has to be external. We have nothing to do with it. It's perfectly OK for us to have
a discussion on whether Jesus Christ is relevant. To inspire people who
are homeless to get out of their situation or not. If you bring the prophet
Muhammad into the equation, you start to run
into very defensive. Last night I was at Harvard. Sam Harris and my
friend-- my friend Sam Harris and my other
friend [? Magit ?] and I were discussing
that there's only one religious icon. If you draw a stick figure
and you call that Muhammad, it's only one group of people
who will riot predictably. That doesn't mean all
Muslims will riot, but a large enough group will
riot to attract attention. That doesn't apply to
the rest of humanity. And if, in the religion
of my father and mother, the religion I grew up
with, we are committing so much violence-- not
only against people who don't believe in Islam
but within Islam-- if you look at, now, the bloodshed between
Sunnis and Shiites and the way that religion is
brought into it, how can you just stand back
and say religion has nothing to do with it? I'm so glad that your
Egyptian husband was so wonderful to you, and
that he has helped you and lifted you up. But I want to bet you that's
not because he is Egyptian or because he is Muslim. But what you share,
above all religions, is humanity and compassion. And I, like you, should
fight against any pollution of vast compassion--
human-to-human compassion-- with such irrationalities
as religion. Thank you. [APPLAUSE] JOHN TIRMAN: OK. We'll go here because you were
waiting, and then over here. AUDIENCE: OK. What's up. My name's [? Hijam ?]. I'm a former grad
student at the Media Lab. I can't believe I have to say
this, but I'm very American. I'm more American than
anybody else here. Like, straight up. I mean, thank you. Thank you. That's what I'm talking about. OK. But I do have to say that there
was actually a lot of things that you said that did make
sense to my rationality. In the sense that we
should let in refugees. We should let people
like, really, really get to experience the American
immigrant experience where we have freedom for
people who are gay. People who, like,
we have freedom for people of all sexualities. We have people who are both
men, women, black, white, all these things-- and
including religion. There is one thing,
though, that you did say that really
takes the wind out of the breath of-- and I'm also
a Muslim, by the way-- that takes the breath away from a lot
of the Muslims here, especially the United States. Who from, fundamentally,
our religion really get these
values, and really mesh with the American
values because a lot of American values were based
on a lot of eastern values at the same time. So a lot of stuff really meshes. But there is something
you say that really takes the wind out of our breath. When you talk
about Mecca Muslims versus Medina
Muslims and you say that this group of
reformers is really trying to win over
these Meccan Muslims. When you have these
few things that you think are key to
reforming Islam, you mention one of
them being that we need to change our
view of the Quran, or change our view of the
prophet, peace be upon him. And I can tell you, for
sure, that that alienates like 98% of Meccan Muslims. And that's the same group
that you're fighting for. I'm wondering how important
to your statement of reform is the concept that the
Quran has to change? And is it so important that
it alienates all the Muslims that you're trying to help? AYAAN HIRSI ALI: Well,
let me ask you a question before you leave
the mic because you brought the Mecca versus
Medina versus Modify. If there is something
that Muhammad did, like exhort you to be
good to the orphans, do you think that's
a good thing? Do you think you should
be good to the orphans? AUDIENCE: Most definitely. AYAAN HIRSI ALI: I'm
not saying you'd do it, but in attitude it's inspiring. You wouldn't think of orphans
if you're not an orphan. AUDIENCE: Sure. AYAAN HIRSI ALI: But
if Muhammad also says, cut the head of the infidels. Would you do it? AUDIENCE: Well, first
of all, Muhammad doesn't say cut the head of-- AYAAN HIRSI ALI:
No, there's no well. That's a yes or no. AUDIENCE: But you know what? I got a simple
answer for you, OK? I'll give you a very
simple answer for you, OK? Straight up. This is very much how-- AYAAN HIRSI ALI: No. AUDIENCE: --it's
very clear to me. Very simple. AYAAN HIRSI ALI: I'm
not going to take that. If Muhammad says cut the
head of the infidels off. It's-- AUDIENCE: All right. AYAAN HIRSI ALI: It's 2015. AUDIENCE: OK. AYAAN HIRSI ALI: Do you
cut off people's heads? Yes or no? AUDIENCE: Whoa. Hold up. AYAAN HIRSI ALI: If
Muhammad says it or-- AUDIENCE: I have a
response, people. Relax. AYAAN HIRSI ALI: --Allah says
it, or the Quran says it. Yes or no? OK. AUDIENCE: No. OK. AYAAN HIRSI ALI: This is
to the MIT institution. And not only MIT,
but this is what, as institutions of education,
we are failing to do. We have brilliant young people
coming from all over the world, and we are failing to give
them this basic difference between what's right and wrong. If you don't know
the difference-- AUDIENCE: No, but, first
of all, he didn't say that. AYAAN HIRSI ALI: What
do you want to say? AUDIENCE: He really
didn't say that. He didn't say, but the
head off the infidels. Second, if you want to, say,
construe things that are, say, like, oh, there's violence
in the Quran and everything like that-- AYAAN HIRSI ALI:
Would you do it? AUDIENCE: --I could say this. The Jedi are also
very violent people. You know what I mean? But they do fight for good. AYAAN HIRSI ALI: Would
you do any of that? AUDIENCE: Would I do what? Be very clear. I'll give you my exact
response and everyone can hold me accountable for it. AYAAN HIRSI ALI: Do you
follow Muhammad's example in everything he did? AUDIENCE: Yeah. Well, I try to. Like, I literally
really, really try to. AYAAN HIRSI ALI:
That's disturbing. AUDIENCE: I mean,
but I do invite you to come talk because
we are talking about this. AUDIENCE: Your
girlfriend or your wife. AYAAN HIRSI ALI: Next. AUDIENCE: I would never. First of all, I
don't have a wife, but I would love to have one. Second-- JOHN TIRMAN: Be careful
what you wish for. AUDIENCE: I would
never beat her. You have to understand. But real quick, we
are inviting people to come to talk about
this same topic. You're totally welcome to come. Anybody else is as well. AYAAN HIRSI ALI:
How old are you? AUDIENCE: I'm 26. AYAAN HIRSI ALI: 26. I'll forgive you
because of your youth. Next. JOHN TIRMAN: Thank you. Let's go over here. [APPLAUSE] AUDIENCE: Hi. So-- JOHN TIRMAN: Wait a second. We're going to go between. Back and forth. So we're going to go over
here for this gentleman. AUDIENCE: Thanks
for your remarks. My name is Adrian
[? Cizantric ?], MIT grad student. I have a question for
you about your views on different movements
within Islam in the west. One thing that I
have found personally to be both remarkable
and disturbing is to see how so many
acts of violence, the perpetrators of
whom have invoked Islam as their motivation-- like the
shooting of the Charlie Hebdo staff, like various
attacks across Europe-- I'm from Europe-- like
things here in the US. How they have been
perpetrated by people who actually grew up in
liberal, western countries for some or all-- AYAAN HIRSI ALI:
Like that gentleman. AUDIENCE: Indeed. For some or all of their lives. And if you see some
growth in reform movements in traditionally,
[? majority ?] Muslim countries, what are the dynamics that
you see in the west that give rise to some people
going that way? And what is it we can do, within
the west, to counteract that? Thank you. AYAAN HIRSI ALI: Well,
the gentleman I just had an exchange with who said
he was very American, more American than the
rest of us, but he started to get into some
form of cognitive dissonance about what he would
and wouldn't do if Muhammad were to ask of him. The interesting thing is that
you are in the same room, and you don't seem
to communicate. Or, at least, you seem to think
you know one another well. Now, when I say you, I
don't mean the two of you as individuals. I mean in general. You think you know. Somebody arrives dressed
like I am, comes to class, leaves on time, does his
homework, passes his exams, therefore all noses are
facing in the same direction. And when that
individual suddenly starts to behave
in a different way, you say, oh, I thought
I knew that guy. He was normal. Wasn't he just that nice guy
who was sitting next to me and who was very
affable and social? And wasn't he even
just like taking drugs? I mean, think of the
younger Tsarnaev brother. We all think we know them. But what we are doing, even
though we are living right next to one another, sitting
right next to one another, is we have found,
in the west, a way of avoiding the
super-sensitive, perhaps intimate, moral discussions. Moral conversations. Don't even take it to the
level of a discussion. Just start with a conversation. But it's not happening. So you invite some speaker
from outside, like me, and you pose the
question and he is there and he poses the question. And, hopefully, we
think-- at least we hope-- that
this type of format then starts the conversation
between all of you. And the conversation I'd
like you to think about is, if you think of yourself
as an American-- more American than the rest
of us-- and you think of yourself as an
American, then why can we not have an honest debate? Especially if we want to
welcome Muslims into our midst and think of them
as fellow Americans? Why can we not have
a situation where our fellow Muslim
citizens are not treated to the same
experience that we've put-- any other ideology,
Christians, Jews, communists, you name it, any idea. Isn't this what America does? Test every idea? Why exclude the Muslims? JOHN TIRMAN: MIT
does, but I'm not sure about the rest of America. AYAAN HIRSI ALI: I
really think it does. AUDIENCE: Hi. JOHN TIRMAN: Go ahead. AUDIENCE: All right. So I am a Christian
here at MIT who's been blessed to have many
wonderful Muslim friends. And what I've found is that
as we pursue truth and pursue these things, the best
context to do it in is friendship and grace. And so I would like
to ask you, do you think it would be
of value to you to surround yourself with
Muslims who are immersed in the rich, classical
Muslim tradition as you think about these ideas of reform
to both help you gain a better hearing and also to
maybe show you, maybe, where you don't have the
complete understanding? And then also, on
top of that, I think, like [? Hasham ?] said, it
would be an honor to have, and a great experience,
to have someone like you join the Friday night
Muslim discussion group, which I've enjoyed being
a part of, at times, here at MIT given
you're so close? AYAAN HIRSI ALI:
I do, but I have to come back to what I said
to the other gentleman. Ultimately, people
like me who are brought in in
forums like this is to help along the
discussion-- hopefully, the conversation-- that
takes place between you. Because you go to
school together. You live together. You belong to the
same community. So when I travel around the
US and around the world, my job is to sort
of help that along. But, yes, I do go to
these conversations. And, again, like I
said, in the last couple of years I am seeing very
young, very verbal-- he's not the only one--
individuals who are born into Muslim households
who are asking questions. And it's very brave to do so. It's not brave at all to say,
oh, the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him,
he's a great guy and I believe in following
in his direction. The really controversial
thing, and the brave thing is to be a Muslim and
to say, I do follow and I do understand some
of what he did and I'm inspired by what he did. But there are other things
he said and did that really make me uncomfortable. That's the conversation
you want to start. If you want to stop
young people from going to the Islamic states,
that's the conversation you want to start. I am happy to start it because
I see it, and I have protection. But if I'm a 14,
15, or 16-year-old I don't know if
I can start that. [APPLAUSE] AUDIENCE: You talk
about a clash of values, but what kind of
values are they that kill hundreds of
thousand peoples in Iraq, leave a vacuum for ISIS to
fill, that call Muslims to jihad in Afghanistan, that leads
to Al-Qaeda and eventually to 9/11? To kill three million
people in Vietnam? Even Richard Dawkins agrees
that secular ideologies have killed far more people over the
last century than religion has. So don't we need-- there's
no guarantee that even if you get rid of religion
and turn to atheism that it's going to lead
to a more peaceful world. So don't we need
to reform ourselves and our own foreign policy
in our own domestic society before we can
possibly even begin to talk about Muslims or
anyone else reforming? [APPLAUSE] AYAAN HIRSI ALI: What I
said to that lady earlier-- who is married to
an Egyptian man-- that what connects us, more
than anything else, more than whether you're an Egyptian or
an American or this or the other or whatever religion,
it's our humanity. Now, if you look at the
array of philosophies that humanity has come up with
since inception to now, what you see is that
some philosophies are better than others. And some philosophies
are worse than others. If you look at the Declaration
of Independence, the American Constitution, and the
tradition of-- what? America's 200-- it's not
even yet 240 years old. What we have is a system
and a setting where you can stand here, and we can
all stand here, and reflect on what we did for the last
10 years, the last 20 years, last 30 years, and come to the
conclusion we made mistakes. We shouldn't have done this. And try and improve on it. What you get, if
you say that we're going to have only the
sharia philosophy or divine law in general-- but,
in the subject of today, it's Islamic divine
law-- what you get is a static
law that violates not only the rights of
10,000 or 20,000 people, but large swathes of humanity. If Islamic sharia were to
be implemented according to the wishes of ISIS-- and
ISIS is not, according to me, a product of US policy--
ISIS is a product of Islam. It's the child-- it is the
heart and soul of Islam. I'm sorry. That's what it is. What we need,
however-- we're not going to agree because
you're an American. We're not going to agree. What needs to-- AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]
an American-- AYAAN HIRSI ALI:
What needs to happen to Islam is for that
third category of Muslims that I have spoken
about to come and say, this is our heart and soul. How can we change it? How can we change it? You are so lucky to sit
here and bash the United States of America
and our president is not going to come after you. Our Secret Service
is not going to come. You can go home. You can go to bed. You can shop about. You are free. You take it for granted. But you are, and
you can criticize American foreign policy--
and American foreign policy should be criticized. I criticize it all the time. But are you willing, do
you have the courage, to take on Islamic extremism? [APPLAUSE] JOHN TIRMAN: We're
short on time. So you have to be-- AUDIENCE: Great, thank you. Hi, my name is Rian. I'm a Boston resident. You've come up with
some great labels. Mecca Muslims. Medina Muslims. I think you need to
look at American Muslims because I'm an American Muslim. I'm a Bostonian. [APPLAUSE] AUDIENCE: And I just
came back from Jerusalem. I studied at the Shalom Hartman
Institute, one of the finest Jewish institutions
in the world, and I studied Genesis and
Exodus and Deuteronomy. And there's a lot of
violence in those texts too. So there's violence
all across texts that need to be taken into context. So here's my question to you. You want Islam to be
safe from extremism, yet you define Islam
to be extremist. You set up a catch-22, right? In the past, you've said
we're at war with Islam, and at wars there are
winners and losers. If I'm paraphrasing
correctly, right? You said that we need
to defeat Islam, period. Not radical Islam. All of Islam. And then you went on to say
that once Islam is defeated it could mutate into
something positive. So as an American
Muslim who wants to see changes to improve
my faith, how can I look to you-- who have
said all of my faith has to be defeated-- and say
that you're legitimate in terms of what you're saying? Because you would rather
not see my ideology, or me, exist in your own words. Can you talk a little
bit about that? AYAAN HIRSI ALI: Yes. I would say to you-- [APPLAUSE] AYAAN HIRSI ALI: --that
you've got to snap out of this victim mentality. You have got-- in the
categories of Medina, Mecca, and Reformer-- if you are
sincere about reforming, recognizing what it is
about Islam that inspires groups-- not look like
the Islamic State. The Islamic state, Al-Qaeda,
Al-Shabaab, the Taliban. I mean, in the name of Islam
societies are being upset. People are being uprooted. Economies are being destroyed. Masses and masses of
women are being raped. If you, for any reason,
you think that all of that is not worth your
attention but that you're worried about the
image of Islam, then I think you've lost
me as your audience. Because I care
about-- listen, let me finish-- about human
life, so if you are sincerely interested in acknowledging
that there is something within Islamic doctrine
that needs to change-- and, in the context of
being an American Muslim, in other words, you're free,
you're not in Bangladesh, you're or not in Saudi
Arabia, you're not in Sudan, sharia law is not
going to be subjected to you-- you have the
opportunity to not only highlight what those
changes should be but go about organizing and
changing those, then you can. I know other American Muslims
like [? Sildee Jasser ?] who are doing exactly that. And I work with them even though
I am no longer a believer. Now, on the-- you said
Islam needs to be defeated. The idea-- AUDIENCE: No, that
was your comment. AYAAN HIRSI ALI: Yes. AUDIENCE: Yes. AYAAN HIRSI ALI:
The idea, and this is what the agents-- in every
ideology you have agents, you have resources, and you
have people who go along. But the agents, the leaders,
the idea that they are spreading is that not only do we need
to believe in exactly the way they believe but we have to
submit to their world view. And so they have
declared war on us. It doesn't matter if-- AUDIENCE: Who is they? I'm Muslim. I haven't declared war on you. AYAAN HIRSI ALI: The Medina
Muslims, whom in my book Heretic I completely specify
that category of Muslims. We have the brands, like ISIS,
like Al-Qaeda, like Al-Shabaab. They have not only declared
war on fellow Muslims for not believing exactly
the way they believe or not worshipping exactly
the way they worship, but also for those of us
who do not believe. And so in that type of conflict
where they say you have to die or you have to believe in
the way I want to believe, it's called war. And, in an ideal situation,
I think those of us who are defending life, those
of us who are defending liberty, those of us who are
defending the rule of law better defeat them because
they're all about death, about rape, and
about subjugation. And you're welcome
to come on our side. Thank you. AUDIENCE: But, you know, that's
not who you talked about-- [APPLAUSE] AUDIENCE: --in your interview. [APPLAUSE] AUDIENCE: Hi, I'm Brian Aull. I'm a member of the
Board of Chaplains here at MIT, representing
the Baha'i faith. And I want to ask you, is there
not a third possibility here? So you divide the
Muslims into, let's follow Muhammad in every
aspect because he's the good guy by definition. AYAAN HIRSI ALI: Medina. AUDIENCE: On the
other hand, there's that say, well, let's follow
Muhammad some of the time because some other times,
in some cases, what he did was reprehensible. AYAAN HIRSI ALI: Yeah. AUDIENCE: Maybe is there
not a third possibility? And that is that the actions
that he took in Medina, in particular becoming the
soldier, was in fact defensive? At that point in time,
the Muslim community was marked for extermination
by the Meccan clan lords. And the taking up
of arms by Muhammad and the Muslim community
was an act of self-defense at that point in history. So a third possibility,
which is another way of justifying a reformation--
which I agree with-- is to say, I follow Muhammad when the
context is appropriate. I don't imitate what he did
in Medina because that's not the context we're in. That was then. This is now. AYAAN HIRSI ALI: So
then you get into this. First of all, the
statement Muhammad only acted and only
waged defensive wars-- that's half true. He did wage defensive wars. But he waged offensive wars,
and he waged more offensive wars than defensive wars. So if you say, just from
a strategic perspective, how can we, as Muslims, not
put ourselves in a position where we' are arguing about
the conduct of Muhammad? We all follow Muhammad,
but we're only going to say defensive,
defensive, defensive. Aside from it not being
historically true, groups like ISIS--
all the groups that we are facing
that are causing this mayhem-- they do not
believe in defense of Jihad. They're waging offensive Jihad. Taking in the Azidis and
giving them the choice, convert or die. The Christians in
Iraq, convert or die. Taking their women as
slaves, taking the war, destroying heritage,
that's all offensive. And that's all in the example
of the prophet Muhammad. And so for some comfortable
Muslim here in the US to say, I disagree with
what ISIS does and I want to defend the
position of Muhammad, they're putting
themselves cognitively, intellectually,
morally, in a fix. And the only way for us to
help them out of that fix is to keep asking the question
and turning up the dial called cognitive dissonance. AUDIENCE: Hi. My name Saeed. I am from Boston. I just want to-- I'm actually
kind of lost because it's been a crazy evening. I just want to-- AYAAN HIRSI ALI: There's
always Google Maps. [LAUGHTER] AUDIENCE: Yeah. I mean, you're laughing and
this is a very serious issue. This is a difference
between you and us. And I just want to actually
to ask the young folks that are here at MIT that-- I'm
actually a Boston public school teacher. And before you just--
you do a misleading, here, I just wanted
to ask you a question. How many of you guys,
through history, that read that Hitler killed
six million Jewish people? Can I see hands? Right. So we all agree on that, right? How many of you guys know there
is an organization called, in America, white
organization called KKKK that believe that black
people should not exist? Can I see hands? So I'm looking at
this crowd right here. The only person that did
not raise her hand is Ayaan. [AUDIENCE CHATTER] AUDIENCE: All right. I mean, no. I'm just absorbing. I'm just absorbing. I'm just saying what
I just saw, right? This is a straight up, right? We're keeping it real, right? AUDIENCE: No. No. No. JOHN TIRMAN: OK. All right. AUDIENCE: My question
is-- I'm going to answer-- JOHN TIRMAN: Do you
have a question? AUDIENCE: Yes. I do have a question. JOHN TIRMAN: OK. Right now. We're running short on time. AUDIENCE: My question
is, do Hitler and KK represent all white people? Or Christians? AYAAN HIRSI ALI: Hitler does
not represent all white people. The KKK do not represent
all white people. The prophet Muhammad does not
represent all Muslim people. But, and here
goes, everybody who believes in what Hitler said or
is inspired by his ideology-- and we hold him
responsible for that, morally or otherwise-- everybody
in the United States of America who is pro KKK is held
responsible for believing that. And if you believe in
the prophet Muhammad's moral conduct after
Medina, then you are responsible for
what you believe in, and the outcome
of those beliefs. [APPLAUSE] AUDIENCE: Hi, I'm a grad
student here at MIT. First, I would just like to
thank you for who you are. I read your book, Infidel,
back in high school. And you served as a beautiful
example of true moral courage and professionalism
in this world. So, personally, I'd
like to thank you for being that
example in my life. My question is in regards to
the refugee issue, currently. I have no experience
in the matter, so I'm going to defer to your
judgment and your experience. I'd like to know what your
opinion is on the view that these refugees sometimes
will not adhere to, or not necessarily adhere,
but open themselves up to the moderate way of
life in the western world. And some people fear the
potential ramifications, over a long-term,
where societies, based on these influx,
might become less moderate. So I'd like to know your
opinion on that matter. AYAAN HIRSI ALI:
Thank you very much. I think that the refugee
crisis-- and it's not just refugees. We're talking about in
the Middle East and North Africa, South Asia, blowing up. This is a human crisis. It's a humanitarian crisis. It's a civilizational crisis. And all along tonight
we've been talking about the crisis within Islam. But as that crisis unfolds
and large swathes of humanity flee the consequences of
that, what should Europe do? What should the
United States do? I think the morally right thing
to do is to offer a refuge. That's what it means. A refuge. People who are fleeing,
please do not allow-- don't let, if you
can help it-- don't let fellow human beings drown. Don't watch as fellow
human beings starve. Please don't let that happen. If you can help it, let them in. But as you do that, and as
we negotiate-- and we knew this problem was going to
happen years and years ago. And as we try to
understand, we have seen, over decades-- we
have an experience in Europe over decades. There's been a tension
between those coming, those fleeing bad situations,
and the host nations in Europe. There's been a cultural tension. And the European
leadership has been unwilling to address that
cultural and value tension. Given how big the numbers are
now, and they will get bigger-- and these tensions
are not letting up-- I think the honest thing to
do, and the open thing to do, is not only allow
people to come in but to also address
these tensions honestly. Like we said earlier
in the evening, if you bring in
with you a culture that is cruel to women,
forced marriages, child marriages--
all of these things that, within the
liberal societies, we have deemed
cruel, oppressive-- let's have a
negotiation about that. If you want to be one of us--
think of the people entering Germany now from Syria. If you want to be a
part of German society, then you have to be open
to what German values are and what German
culture is about. There has to be an
education in tolerance. And the obligation of the
German government and society is to, with the greatest
confidence in the world, disseminate and propagate
that those values are. And it's not only Germany. It's the rest of Europe. And once this
understanding is reached between the person
who's seeking help and the society
that's providing it, then what you're
going to see is-- it might sound a bit
hard-- but you're going to have a win-win
situation for those people who want to enter into that marriage
of wanting to live together. And those who don't, there has
to be a humane repatriation system put in place. It's doable. Europe can afford it. Europe has the capacity. But Europe has lost confidence
in what its values are. And that's the problem. AUDIENCE: Thank you. JOHN TIRMAN: OK. I'm afraid we've just got time--
we're officially out of time. So we're going to have
two more questions. I'm sorry to cut the others
off, but there it is. OK? Please. AUDIENCE: Hi, my
name is [? Ola. ?] I work at a research center at
Massachusetts General Hospital, and my question is two-part,
but I promise it's brief. The first question was, you
proposed a really interesting theoretical paradigm with three
different groups of Muslims, Mecca, Medina, and Reformers. AYAAN HIRSI ALI: [INAUDIBLE]. AUDIENCE: Yeah, And
then also the necessary conditions for reform in Islam. And so because we're at MIT
I have to ask this question. What consistent, like,
empirical methods did you employ when you
supported that paradigm? Were they historical? [APPLAUSE] AYAAN HIRSI ALI: Yeah. AUDIENCE: Were they
qualitative self reports with sociological or
psychological methods? Like what were they? Economic? What sort of methods did
you consistently use? AYAAN HIRSI ALI: Well,
and because we're at MIT and this is the kind
of wonderful discussion we can have before we get into
all the sentimental stuff, if you-- so we've all,
after 9/11, people-- like, the 19 guys. Let's start with the 19. What is it that
they left behind? Their works. Their letters. And then we found Bin
Laden and his writings. Who inspired Bin Laden? Ayman Al-Zawahiri,
other thinkers. All the way. It takes you to the
Muslim Brotherhood because Al-Qaeda is a product
of the Muslim Brotherhood. And so then you say, who
are the Muslim Brotherhood? They were established in
1928 by Hassan Al-Banna. What did Hassan Al-Banna say? So you go to the original
texts of all the intellectuals. Anybody who has an
intellectual output, and who has publicized it, and
these are publications that are recognized everywhere. And you don't read what other
people have said they said. You read the original works,
and you go through it. And, as you go
through it, you're going to come up with these
five things that have struck me. And it's not only
the Sunni-- we've come to call them
extremists because we like to label things-- but it's
not only the Sunni extremist intellectuals. It's also the Shiite
extremist intellectuals that, over and over again,
nearly every sentence is referenced with the
Quran and the Muhammad. They want to invite
you to follow in the footsteps of Muhammad. Sometimes they get push-back. For instance, is it moral for
us-- if we attack the infidel or if we attack the
oppressor-- for us to then kill women and children? In order to answer that
question, each one of them will reference what, in
a situation like that, the prophet Muhammad
did or did not do. So, qualitatively, if you go
all through their work, what's going to jump out at
you are five key things. The references to the prophet
Muhammad and the Quran. The insistence on
life after death. Commanding right and
forbidding wrong. The utopia that we have
to establish sharia law, and only then-- and
not only locally. Not only in my household,
in my community, and my village and my town
and my region, but world-wide. And then, the means
to do that-- Jihad. These are the five things
that leap out at you. Read [NON-ENGLISH]
Read them all. That's what comes up. AUDIENCE: And the three-- AYAAN HIRSI ALI: All the
way to Twitter and Facebook. So if you want to persuade
the non-observing, drug addict Muslim who is a misfit, the
first thing you do is say, how did this man manage
to persuade this guy to do what he wants him to do? And he starts talking to
him about right and wrong. And the criterion
for right and wrong? The Quran and Muhammad. So if you believe
in that, then they start to manipulate
you from there. So it is a key, and I would
invite the MIT community to qualitatively
look at this thing, and what struck me as
I was looking at this and analyzing them,
I was asking myself, did other scholars
analyze the same texts? Yes, they did. What jumps out at
other officials? American foreign policy. But American foreign
policy starts to feature in these
texts much, much later. If you read them in the late,
I would say, 19th century, early 20th century,
it's about a vision of what the world should
look like if we went back to apply the recipe that
Muhammad supposedly applied in these glorious years. AUDIENCE: OK. The second part of my question,
I know at the beginning of Heretic-- sorry-- AYAAN HIRSI ALI:
Is that allowed? OK. But was that answered
to your satisfaction? And thank you, by the
way, for the question. It's very good. AUDIENCE: No problem. And it's only because at
the beginning of Heretic you bring up the
Brandeis example, and you talk about
the backlash you get from a lot of American Muslims. And I think we've
sort of seen that. And then I know that a lot
of American Muslim feminists have reacted strongly, saying
that you don't speak for them. So my question is sort
of, like, who is this for? Because it sounds like,
in the absence of maybe rigorous academic
methods that are beyond anecdotal-- and
with statements like, it's a nihilistic
cult of death-- like, is this a good faith effort at
a reform within a community? Or is this a 21st century
White Man's Burden? AYAAN HIRSI ALI: OK. Again, because
we're in MIT, if you are in the lab trying to
work on the cure for Ebola, do you go around
thinking, well, it might be for this
group or that group? Am I going to experiment on
this monkey or that monkey? Am I going to-- no. You are just trying
to struggle, like we all-- that's what
you do in academia. That's what you are paid for. To try and figure
out who is it that is using this particular
religion as a tool for power. Why are they doing it? And what is it within the
religion, or otherwise, that aids them to their success? From 9/11 we've been trying
to struggle with how can we diminish this problem? And the strategy that our
leaders and policymakers took, and I describe that in this
magazine, in my article, The Problem from Heaven, the
conversations in Washington DC is, is this Islamic? Is it not Islamic? If it's Islamic, what
the Hell do we do? If it's not, what is it? You see that people,
at the end, settle for a position that is not based
on truth but that is strategic. And the stars. It is the people
who are advising us that we are in conversation
with the Arabs the Muslims are saying, please do not dignify
the extremists-- or the people we've come to call extremists--
by calling them Islamic, because if you call them
Islamic you will empower them. If we adopt that position,
the problem will diminish. So now 14 years down
the road, the problem has gotten bigger, and
bigger, and bigger, and so it's time to
review that position. And in order to help review--
how can we review it-- you're not thinking about
when I write my book and when I give this interview,
how do I come across? You're really thinking
about how rigorous is this and what is the evidence for it? By saying Islam is a religion
of peace for the last 14 years, the problem hasn't diminished. It has exploded. It's time to change strategies. AUDIENCE: OK. So it's for American
foreign policy. JOHN TIRMAN: Sorry. AUDIENCE: I just got-- JOHN TIRMAN: I'm sorry. We have one more. One more question and then
we're going to have to wrap. AUDIENCE: Hello. My name is [? Tarek ?], and I'm
at MIT, at the Sloan School. My question is with regards to
the question of reformation. It seems to me that if a
reformation is to take place, it needs to capture,
or be able to capture, something that is truthful. Something that is of the
essence of the faith. It can't be made up. It has to be something
that's real and true in the Islamic tradition
in the same way as the Christian
reformation captured, I think a modern
Christian would say, that it captured the essence
of Christianity-- which is the message of love--
and was able to get rid of some of the violence. If that is the case, if
you accept that idea, what do you think
is good about Islam? What is the essence,
the truth, that has to be captured in order
for this reformation to occur? AYAAN HIRSI ALI:
So the reason why I make this distinction
between Mecca, Medina, and the rest is because,
over and over again, every faith, every creed, every
ideology has its figurehead. We are told that there is this
man, Muhammed, who lived back then, and this is his life. So you read the Seerah. You read the Quran. You read the traditions. If you look at his
activities and you analyze them, in
the period in Mecca he did say and do things
that, I think-- for people who want to stay within Islam
or who don't want to give up their faith-- they
can find everything that we define as
religion in the US. If it is social cohesion, if
it is helping other people, if it's periods of
meditation, it's all in there. The political part starts
to come about in Medina. So the question then is, is
it possible for good Muslims-- Muslims who are not seeking
to kill, annihilate, tyrannize, subjugate in the
name of their religion-- for them to form a fellowship
around the Mecca period. And, in doing so-- so, I
lived in the Netherlands. And so you had different
Protestant churches. There was the Dutch
Reformed Church. There was the Anglican. There when there was so many
different Protestant little groups. And so is it possible to form
a fellowship around the Mecca period? And, in doing so,
manifestly reject the Medina Period I
think that's possible because that's in human agency. That can be done. That can be allowed. What I have also seen
is people leave Islam. People get into this fix,
this cognitive dissonance, that I discuss in
Heretic, and that we've talked about a little, and
that gentleman there displayed so well. And what then happens
is a lot of them say, well, if this man is
supposed to be my moral guide, then I don't want to follow him. And then they start to
seek something else. And, interestingly,
right now what you see in Muslim communities
and in the Muslim world is both forces. People who are saying, no
Medina for me, but also, no Islam for me. AUDIENCE: I'm a Somali American. Can I ask a two-second question? JOHN TIRMAN: OK. AYAAN HIRSI ALI: If you
keep it to two seconds. AUDIENCE: Yes. My name is
[? Abdur Hamaniyusef ?]. I've lived in Boston
over 36 years. My question is,
Ayaan, do you engage in discussions with
the Somali people since you have written
your four books? I think it's the fifth
one or the fourth one. And, if not, are you open--
or have you been invited? Because what I know is that you
are highly, highly demonised in the community. So I'm not sure if you
are unable to do that, but I just wanted
to ask the question. AYAAN HIRSI ALI: I'm-- and
thank you for using the word demonized. AUDIENCE: For lack
of a better word. I think I could say
even worse things. But that's what they say. Yeah. AYAAN HIRSI ALI:
Demonized, villified, and all of the above. But through the
AHA Foundation we are seeing more and
more young Somali women who are faced with a lot of
what other American Muslim young women are faced with. And it's very basic. It's 5:00 PM. The family wants you to be home. I don't want to be home. I want to-- I'm 18 years old. I want to hang out with my
fellow 18-year-old friends. I want to wear makeup. I want to go to school. They're forcing
me into marriage. So we're seeing more of that now
as the Somali community grows bigger. I am in touch with,
and maybe I shouldn't say this, but Somali skeptics. So these are Somalis who
have decided they don't want to be a Muslim anymore. From my perspective, you will
understand that I obviously am a supporter of that. You know how it is with
just the way we look. I'm at the airport. There's a young woman
there who works there, and she recognizes
me as a Somali. She says, hi, are you a Somali? And she speaks to me in Somali,
and I speak to her in Somali. But there is no community. Come, Ayaan. You're one of us. We want to celebrate. You know, I haven't had
an invitation like that. But, if I do get
it, I'll show up. AUDIENCE: Thank
you, [INAUDIBLE]. JOHN TIRMAN: Thank you. Thank you, you've
been a good audience. [APPLAUSE]
