In Latest Book, Ayaan Hirsi Ali Says Reform Is The Best Weapon Against Radical Islam

In her latest book, Somali-born author and activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, known for her controversial views on Islam, argues that the religion is not a peaceful one and calls for "a Muslim Reformation."
Ali says she hopes Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation will show those she deems her harshest critics -- Muslims and Western liberals -- what she's been professing all along: that faith and modernity aren't compatible, and that the recent surge in extremist attacks in the name of Islam is an even greater indication that something more monumental must be done.
See below for an excerpt from Ali's new book.
Excerpted from HERETIC: WHY ISLAM NEEDS A REFORMATION NOW by Ayaan Hirsi Ali by arrangement with Harper, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers, Copyright © 2015 by Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Introduction: One Islam, Three Sets of Muslims
On ______, a group of ______ heavily armed, black-clad men burst into a ______ in ______, opening fire and killing a total of ______ people. The attackers were filmed shouting "Allahu akbar!"
Speaking at a press conference, President ______ said: "We condemn this criminal act by extremists. Their attempt to justify their violent acts in the name of a religion of peace will not, however, succeed. We also condemn with equal force those who would use this atrocity as a pretext for Islamophobic hate crimes."

As I revised the introduction to this book, four months before its publication, I could of course have written something more specific, like this:
On January 7, 2015, two heavily armed, black-clad attackers burst into the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris, opening fire and killing a total of ten people. The attackers were filmed shouting "Allahu akbar!"

But, on reflection, there seemed little reason to pick Paris. Just a few weeks earlier I could equally as well have written this:
In December 2014, a group of nine heavily armed, black-clad men burst into a school in Peshawar, opening fire and killing a total of 145 people.
Indeed, I could have written a similar sentence about any number of events, from Ottawa, Canada, to Sydney, Australia, to Baga, Nigeria. So instead I decided to leave the place blank and the number of killers and victims blank, too. You, the reader, can simply fill them in with the latest case that happens to be in the news. Or, if you prefer a more historical example, you can try this:

In September 2001, a group of 19 Islamic terrorists flew hijacked planes into buildings in New York and Washington, D.C., killing 2,996 people.
For more than thirteen years now, I have been making a simple argument in response to such acts of terrorism. My argument is that it is foolish to insist, as our leaders habitually do, that the violent acts of radical Islamists can be divorced from the religious ideals that inspire them. Instead we must acknowledge that they are driven by a political ideology, an ideology embedded in Islam itself, in the holy book of the Qur'an as well as the life and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad contained in the hadith.

Let me make my point in the simplest possible terms: Islam is not a religion of peace. For expressing the idea that Islamic violence is rooted not in social, economic, or political conditions -- or even in theological error -- but rather in the foundational texts of Islam itself, I have been denounced as a bigot and an "Islamophobe." I have been silenced, shunned, and shamed. In effect, I have been deemed to be a heretic, not just by Muslims -- for whom I am already an apostate -- but by some Western liberals as well, whose multicultural sensibilities are offended by such "insensitive" pronouncements.

My uncompromising statements on this topic have incited such vehement denunciations that one would think I had committed an act of violence myself. For today, it seems, speaking the truth about Islam is a crime. "Hate speech" is the modern term for heresy. And in the present atmosphere, anything that makes Muslims feel uncomfortable is branded as "hate."
In these pages, it is my intention to make many people -- not only Muslims but also Western apologists for Islam -- uncomfortable. I am not going to do this by drawing cartoons. Rather, I intend to challenge centuries of religious orthodoxy with ideas and arguments that I am certain will be denounced as heretical. My argument is for nothing less than a Muslim Reformation. Without fundamental alterations to some of Islam's core concepts, I believe, we shall not solve the burning and increasingly global problem of political violence carried out in the name of religion. I intend to speak freely, in the hope that others will debate equally freely with me on what needs to change in Islamic doctrine, rather than seeking to stifle discussion.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/24/ayaan-hirsi-ali-Muslim-reform-radical-islam-book_n_6928802.html?utm_hp_ref=uk&ir=UK

that will entail a war, religious reform always does.

really there is nothing wrong with the koran any more than the bible, where it really stuffs up is all the crazy sheiks and the 'traditions' that have been added... much like any of the big religions really, it is I believe a side effect of being an Institution as opposed to treating the teachings as a philosophy.

veya_victaous wrote:that will entail a war, religious reform always does.

really there is nothing wrong with the koran any more than the bible, where it really stuffs up is all the crazy sheiks and the 'traditions' that have been added... much like any of the big religions really, it is I believe a side effect of being an Institution as opposed to treating the teachings as a philosophy.

What do you think is going on at the moment ever since the Arab spring Veya.
Is what happened in the west when religious control started to lose its grip on power

I know but the Muslim reformists have no 'new world' to conqueror/colonise to escape and grow.
don't know how that will effect things

veya_victaous wrote:I know but the Muslim reformists have no 'new world' to conqueror/colonise to escape and grow.
don't know how that will effect things

My view is the Arab Springs came to early because it was mainly youth. Given another generation things could easily have changed with more support. Now the ultra conservatives hold the reigns of power and thus are going to crack down on any Liberalist views.

agree that seem fairly likely

Exposing Anti-Islam Author Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Latest Deception

One of America's most prominent Islam bashers has a long history of making things up.

While promoting her new book, Heretic, on a March 23 episode of "The Daily Show," Somali-born author and anti-Islam activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali made a staggering claim: “If you look at 70 percent of the violence in the world today, Muslims are responsible,” she told host Jon Stewart.

Stewart did not demand any evidence and Hirsi Ali provided no citation. However, she made a strikingly similar statement in a March 20 essay previewing her new book for the Wall Street Journal: “According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies,” Hirsi Ali wrote in WSJ’s Saturday Essay, “at least 70% of all the fatalities in armed conflicts around the world last year were in wars involving Muslims.”

I contacted the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), a leading British foreign policy think tank, to inquire about the source of Hirsi Ali’s statistic. According to IISS Media Relations and Communications Officer Kat Slowe, IISS did not explicitly state such a figure in its research.

“I have spoken to a number of our experts and they cannot identify where this statistic may have come from,” Slowe told me.

“Their best guess is that the journalist in question [Hirsi Ali] may have access/a subscription to the [IISS] Armed Conflict Database and may have calculated this statistic independently. There are some concerns that it could be misleading as, without Syria (near 200,000 total deaths, and almost half of last year’s global conflict deaths) the figure would look massively different (and of course, this conflict did not have its root in religion),” Slowe added.

Hirsi Ali’s AHA Foundation did not respond to my request for a citation on the statistic, nor did the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute that employs Hirsi Ali as a resident scholar. My email query to Hirsi Ali’s personal account at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, where she serves as a fellow, also went unanswered.

Around 24 hours after my initial query, Hirsi Ali publicly backed off her claim that Muslims are “responsible” for most of the violence in the world. “Depressing that 70% of fatalities in armed conflicts around the world last year were in wars involving Muslims,” she declared on her personal Twitter account.

Hirsi Ali linked to a survey of casualties in global conflicts by IISS’ Hanna Ucko Neill and Jens Wardenaer which made no reference to Muslims or religiously inspired violence. Apparently Hirsi Ali calculated the statistic on her own by using an IISS report that documented fatalities in conflicts in territories from eastern Ukraine to sub-Saharan Africa to the Middle East to Mexico, where drug gangs fueled widespread killing. The IISS's Slowe noted that year's surge in conflict-related deaths occured thanks to the fighting in Syria, explaining that Hirsi Ali's claim "could be misleading" because "this conflict did not have its root in religion."

Instead of responding to my question about her statistic, Hirsi Ali’s AHA Foundation forwarded my email query to the Washington Free Beacon, a right-wing publication with its own history of Islamophobic tall tales and hoaxes. In a currently un-bylined article about the query, the Free Beacon accused me of anti-Semitism.

History of fraud

Hirsi Ali’s highly suspect statistic is only the latest deception by one of the world’s most prominent opponents of Islam. While other anti-Muslim activists like Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller have marginalized themselves on the fringes of the far-right, Hirsi Ali remains a darling of the American mainstream media. In Heretic, a polemic recycling many of her past arguments against Islam, she calls for the emergence of a Muslim Martin Luther — the authoritarian 16th-century zealot who called for burning down the synagogues of Jews, whom he compared to a gangrenous disease. With the book's release, Hirsi Ali has been welcomed with open arms by the BBC, CNN’s Anderson Cooper, and a relatively accommodating Jon Stewart. ABC News has even run an excerpt from Heretic, while the New York Times Book Review hosted her for an interview filled with hardball questions about her favorite children’s books.

Hirsi Ali’s power to persuade lies in her dramatic personal story and the public persona she has constructed. She has marketed herself as a expert native informant who has emerged out of the dark heart of radical Islam and into the light of Western civilization. Her tale is an uplifting, comforting one that tells many Westerners what they want to hear about themselves and their perceived enemies. With anti-Muslim attitudes at their peak across Europe and the US, her sweeping critique of Islam as an endemically violent faith has enormous cachet. The only problem is that like her writings on Islam, much of what she has told the public about herself is questionable.

In May 2006, the Dutch television program Zembla thoroughly debunked the dramatic story Hirsi Ali had told to advance her career, concluding that Hirsi Ali had sold the Dutch public “a story full of obscurities.”

Born Ayaan Hirsi Magam, she migrated to the Netherlands in 1992, changed her name to Hirsi Ali, and lied to Dutch authorities about her past. Contrary to the story she told the government, she arrived in the Netherlands not from war-torn Somalia, but from Kenya, where she lived in a secure environment and under the protection of the United Nations, which funded her education at a well-regarded Muslim girls’ school. Though she told immigration authorities and the Dutch public she had fled from civil war in Somalia, she left that country before its war broke out. Indeed, she did not live through a war there or anywhere else. Thanks to her fabrications, Hirsi Ali received political asylum in just five weeks.

Hirsi Ali told astonished audiences on Dutch talk shows that her supposedly devout family had forced her to marry a draconian Muslim man, that she had not been present at her own wedding, and that her family had threatened to kill her for offending their religious honor. However, Zembla told a drastically different story. Hirsi Ali’s brother, aunt and former husband each testified that she had indeed been present at her wedding. It turned out that Hirsi Ali’s mother had sent her brother to a Christian school, not exactly an indication of Islamic fanaticism.

“Yeah, I made up the whole thing,” Hirsi Ali admitted on camera to a Zembla reporter who confronted her with her lies. “I said my name was Ayaan Hirsi Ali instead of Ayaan Hirsi Magan. I also said I was born in 1967 while I was actually born in 1969.”

Hirsi Ali’s claim of honor killing threats also appears to be empty; she remained in touch with her father and aunt after she left her husband. In fact, her husband even came to visit her in the Dutch refugee center where she lived after leaving him. Even though he had paid her way to Europe on the grounds that she would join him in Canada, Hirsi Ali’s husband consented to the divorce she sought. (Watch the full Zembla program on Hirsi Ali.)

Fabrications that toppled a government

In 2003, just a decade after gaining political asylum in the Netherlands, Hirsi Ali was elected to the Dutch parliament on the ticket of the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy. VVD leadership knew that the story Hirsi Ali told on her immigration forms was a gigantic lie — she had told them as much — but covered up the fraud and even advanced it to propel her career.

“She’s witnessed five civil wars in her youth, and has fled with her family many times. She’s made of iron and steel,” the VVD’s Neelie-Smit Kroes said of Hirsi Ali at the time, reciting claims her party knew were false.

A year after joining the Dutch parliament, where she said she attempted to ban Islamic schools in the Netherlands, Hirsi Ali teamed up with Dutch director Theo van Gogh to produce a documentary called Submission. The film portrayed violence against women in Muslim communities as a logical result of Islamic belief, relying on actresses to portray abused women and featuring semi-nude, niqab clad women with Quranic verses scrawled across their torsos. Van Gogh, a filmmaker and columnist who had taken to calling Muslims “goat fuckers,” was gunned down and stabbed to death soon after the film’s release by a Dutch Islamist radical. Before fleeing the scene, the killer pinned a note to van Gogh’s body threatening Hirsi Ali with death. Hirsi Ali’s persistence in the face of the episode helped earn her hero status across the West, particularly in post-9/11 America, where Time magazine named her one of its 100 Most Influential People in 2005.

Zembla’s revelations of Hirsi Ali’s lies in May 2006 interrupted her ascent and threw the Dutch government into chaos. No one was more damaged than her friend and close party ally, Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk. Nicknamed “Iron Rita” for her ruthless anti-migrant crackdowns and her demagogic appeals to xenophobia, Verdonk was shamed by the revelations of Hirsi Ali’s deceptions. When she announced her intention to strip Hirsi Ali of her citizenship, however, she was skewered in parliament and forced to relent.

Days after Zembla aired its exposé, Hirsi Ali announced her plans to leave parliament and take up a position with the American Enterprise Institute, the Washington-based think tank that housed many of the neoconservatives who helped orchestrate the U.S. invasion of Iraq. In the immediate aftermath of the furor she caused, Verdonk introduced the so-called “Law on Integration,” one of Europe’s harshest anti-immigrant bills. Only one member of the Dutch House of Representatives opposed it. However, the governing coalition soon collapsed because of the scandal Hirsi Ali’s deceptions inspired. With a new coalition seated in February 2007, and without Verdonk and Hirsi Ali in power, the government was able to adopt a more tolerant approach to immigrants.

Winning a Harvard fellowship, defending Breivik

Upon her relocation to the US, Hirsi Ali was embraced by a coalition of liberal interventionists, neoconservatives and “New Atheists” like Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Bill Maher. With extended appearances on the Christian Broadcasting Network of Pat Robertson, who blamed homosexuality for the 9/11 attacks, self-proclaimed feminist Hirsi Ali won droves of fans among the Christian right. Despite her views on Islam, which she called a “destructive, nihilistic cult of death,” or perhaps because of them, she received a fellowship from Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.

As she rose in prominence among America’s intellectual elite, Hirsi Ali’s history of lying tumbled conveniently down the Orwellian memory hole. In promotional material for her best-selling 2007 memoir, Infidel, Hirsi Ali’s publishers at Simon & Schuster have pushed the discredited claim that “Hirsi Ali survived civil war.” More recently, conservative pundit Peggy Noonan glossed over the reasons behind Hirsi Ali’s flight from the Netherlands, writing, “Ayaan Hirsi Ali got death threats and eventually fled to America.” Few, if any, American outlets have noted that Hirsi Ali left the Netherlands as her public credibility collapsed and her anti-immigrant party fell into crisis.

With support from across the American ideological spectrum, Hirsi Ali sharpened her rhetoric against Muslims. In a candid 2007 exchange with Reason Magazine, she declared that the religion of Islam had to be “defeated.” “Once it’s defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful,” Hirsi Ali stated. “It’s very difficult to even talk about peace now….There comes a moment when you crush your enemy.”

Junketed to Berlin in 2012 to receive the Axel Springer Honorary Award from the right-wing German publisher, Hirsi Ali appeared to blame liberal defenders of multiculturalism for the killing spree committed by the Norwegian extremist Anders Breivik, claiming they left Breivik with “no other choice but to use violence. (Breivik cited Hirsi Ali’s work in his 1,500 page manifesto explaining his plans to commit a series of terrorist attacks across Norway.)

“[T]hat one man who killed 77 people in Norway, because he fears that Europe will be overrun by Islam, may have cited the work of those who speak and write against political Islam in Europe and America – myself among them – but he does not say in his 1500 page manifesto that it was these people who inspired him to kill. He says very clearly that it was the advocates of silence. Because all outlets to express his views were censored, he says, he had no other choice but to use violence.” (Her words were met with an extended standing ovation.)

When Brandeis University canceled plans to award Hirsi Ali an honorary degree in April 2014, it appeared that her increasingly vitriolic tirades against Islam and its adherents had caught up with her. But then came the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris, a seemingly clarifying moment that Hirsi Ali and fellow anti-Islam activists seized on as confirmation of their darkest prophecies. Two months later, she released Heretic.

Having rebranded herself a brave “reformer” following in the footsteps of the Selma marchers, Hirsi Ali has found her way back into the mainstream limelight. While American media demonstrates an endless appetite for her polemics about Islam, holding her to account remains taboo.

Editor's Note: Cat Slowe's official title with IISS has been clarified -- her official title is Media Relations and Communications Officer.

http://www.alternet.org/media/anti-islam-author-ayaan-hirsi-alis-latest-deception#.VRcnWtvcd7o.twitter

Well I have never seen a long critique of a book without actually saying anything about the book itself and instead of showing debating off views in the book this writer did the old fashion find one point and go off a couple of others with the view to digilitimizing her.
That has to be the most dishonest journalism going.
A critique of the book itself might be a start if you write an article with a title about her book. I am sure being as he is a writer himself he would know that is poorest tactic you can do when giving an analysis of a book failing to address any of its content.
That is what you call own goal Journalism and has by his poor attacks, no doubt has brought this to an even bigger audiance who will now go out and buy her book.
Is funny, where a lefty appeaser will attack a woman fighting for equal rights for women, where this writer just try to dehumanize her.
Says it all really.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali did some fine work in setting up her foundation calling for protection of Muslim women from FGM etc. and we have all said here in the past that what goes on is disgusting. She has been widely commended for that and rightly so.

She's a very opinionated women who was once named in Time Magazine as one of the top 100 people in the world who influence people.

She also has some very extreme views about Islam which not everyone shares in that she goes too far in stating that she wants to end it and wipe it out completely rather than reform it.

Can't believe she holds these views just because she married a Scotsman.

Lol. Why anyone would let her influence them when everything she has said about her past that she blames for her views has been proven to be a lie, which she has admitted to, is beyond me.

As you say Irn, she did some good work about FGM, as have many others. But it’s spoilt with her extreme hate and preaching that that inspired Breivik who said in his manifesto that she should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
And her views of Netanyahu make her more than suspect:

Ayan Hirsi Ali: Bibi Netanyahu deserves Nobel Peace Prize for Gaza campaign
The public intellectual and controversial atheist thinks the man waging war on Gaza is a paragon of peace

During an interview published on Friday by Israel HaYom, the Sheldon Adelson-backed Israeli daily, public intellectual and author Ayan Hirsi Ali claimed that Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for waging ongoing military campaign by the IDF against Hamas militants in Gaza.

Asked whom she admired, Ali — who once called Islam a “nihilistic cult of death” — included Netanyahu on a list featuring her husband, Harvard professor Niall Ferguson, as well as former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Princeton professor Bernard Lewis. Ali said she admired Netanyahu “[b]ecause he is under so much pressure, from so many sources, and yet he does what is best for the people of Israel, he does his duty.”

“I really think he should get the Nobel Peace Prize,” Ali added. “In a fair world he would get it.”

http://cached.newslookup.com/cached.php?ref_id=453&siteid=2371&id=7527163&t=1407168960

She said that while the world was being shown picture of babies with their entrails hanging out as a result of his barrage of bombing on a people enclosed by wire who can't escape.

risingsun wrote:As you say Irn, she did some good work about FGM, as have many others. But it’s spoilt with her extreme hate and preaching that that inspired Breivik who said in his manifesto that she should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
And her views of Netanyahu make her more than suspect:

Ayan Hirsi Ali: Bibi Netanyahu deserves Nobel Peace Prize for Gaza campaign
The public intellectual and controversial atheist thinks the man waging war on Gaza is a paragon of peace

During an interview published on Friday by Israel HaYom, the Sheldon Adelson-backed Israeli daily, public intellectual and author Ayan Hirsi Ali claimed that Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for waging ongoing military campaign by the IDF against Hamas militants in Gaza.

Asked whom she admired, Ali — who once called Islam a “nihilistic cult of death” —  included Netanyahu on a list featuring her husband, Harvard professor Niall Ferguson, as well as former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Princeton professor Bernard Lewis. Ali said she admired Netanyahu “[b]ecause he is under so much pressure, from so many sources, and yet he does what is best for the people of Israel, he does his duty.”

“I really think he should get the Nobel Peace Prize,” Ali added. “In a fair world he would get it.”

http://cached.newslookup.com/cached.php?ref_id=453&siteid=2371&id=7527163&t=1407168960

She said that while the world was being shown picture of babies with their entrails hanging out as a result of his barrage of bombing on a people enclosed by wire who can't escape.

Nobel peace prize for Netanyahu. Good grief!!!

Her husband isn't much better:

Niall Ferguson and Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Right-Wing Power Couple

Earlier today we learned about homophobic Harvard professor Niall Ferguson's blistering attack on John Maynard Keynes. Keynes was wrong, according to Professor Ferguson, because he was gay and talked about faggy things like poetry with his ballerina wife. Homosexual economists, according to Oxford-educated Ferguson, are naturally inclined to advise loading up on debt because they are, by definition, childless.

Several years ago Ferguson left his wife of 20 years and mother of his three children to marry the darling of the neoconservative right Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Ferguson and the serial liar Hirsi Ali are a perfect match, since both have made brilliant careers pandering to right-wing think tanks (Hirsi Ali is a Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute). Now the "politically incorrect" historian Ferguson and the glamorous "Islam Expert" Hirsi Ali are a much sought-after power couple in the Washington dinner party circuit.

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/04/1206895/-Naill-Ferguson-and-Ayaan-Hirsi-Ali-Right-Wing-Power-Couple

Don't they sound utterly delightful!

Extreme hate?
This coming fro two left wing extremists who back two groups in Fatah and Hamas, both at odds with Liberal values that endorse inequality through religiously inspired laws to become a state, where neither recognize the existence of Israel and its people.
That is what is defined as extreme hate, where again neither of these left wing extremists can actually prove what is wrong with any of her views on Islam.
Claiming she inspired Brevik to kill innocent children has to be the most idiotic and hate filled claim the extreme left can come outwith again proving how disingenuous some of the left are
They again fail to view any part of the book and yet again attempt the most disingenuous way to critique the book by attacking the author. That is left wing extremism for you.

Brasidas wrote:Extreme hate?
This coming fro two left wing extremists who back two groups in Fatah and Hamas, both at odds with Liberal values that endorse inequality through religiously inspired laws to become a state, where neither recognize the existence of Israel and its people.
That is what is defined as extreme hate, where again neither of these left wing extremists can actually prove what is wrong with any of her views on Islam.
Claiming she inspired Brevik to kill innocent children has to be the most idiotic and hate filled claim the extreme left can come outwith again proving how disingenuous some of the left are
They again fail to view any part of the book and yet again attempt the most disingenuous way to critique the book by attacking the author. That is left wing extremism for you.

Well if these reports are accurate it does appear that she wants not just to reform Islam but wipe it out altogether. That's pretty extreme by any standards.

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:Extreme hate?
This coming fro two left wing extremists who back two groups in Fatah and Hamas, both at odds with Liberal values that endorse inequality through religiously inspired laws to become a state, where neither recognize the existence of Israel and its people.
That is what is defined as extreme hate, where again neither of these left wing extremists can actually prove what is wrong with any of her views on Islam.
Claiming she inspired Brevik to kill innocent children has to be the most idiotic and hate filled claim the extreme left can come outwith again proving how disingenuous some of the left are
They again fail to view any part of the book and yet again attempt the most disingenuous way to critique the book by attacking the author. That is left wing extremism for you.

Well if these reports are accurate it does appear that she wants not just to reform Islam but wipe it out altogether. That's pretty extreme by any standards.

First point on the thread:

In her latest book, Somali-born author and activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, known for her controversial views on Islam, argues that the religion is not a peaceful one and calls for "a Muslim Reformation."

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:Extreme hate?
This coming fro two left wing extremists who back two groups in Fatah and Hamas, both at odds with Liberal values that endorse inequality through religiously inspired laws to become a state, where neither recognize the existence of Israel and its people.
That is what is defined as extreme hate, where again neither of these left wing extremists can actually prove what is wrong with any of her views on Islam.
Claiming she inspired Brevik to kill innocent children has to be the most idiotic and hate filled claim the extreme left can come outwith again proving how disingenuous some of the left are
They again fail to view any part of the book and yet again attempt the most disingenuous way to critique the book by attacking the author. That is left wing extremism for you.

Well if these reports are accurate it does appear that she wants not just to reform Islam but wipe it out altogether. That's pretty extreme by any standards.

First point on the thread:

In her latest book, Somali-born author and activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, known for her controversial views on Islam, argues that the religion is not a peaceful one and calls for "a Muslim Reformation."

Didge, I think you had better read this interview that she held with Reason. I'll draw you attention to this part in general as it reflects how she really feels....

Reason: Don’t you mean defeating radical Islam?

Hirsi Ali: No. Islam, period. Once it’s defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It’s very difficult to even talk about peace now. They’re not interested in peace.

Reason: We have to crush the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims under our boot? In concrete terms, what does that mean, “defeat Islam”?

Hirsi Ali: I think that we are at war with Islam. And there’s no middle ground in wars. Islam can be defeated in many ways. For starters, you stop the spread of the ideology itself; at present, there are native Westerners converting to Islam, and they’re the most fanatical sometimes. There is infiltration of Islam in the schools and universities of the West. You stop that. You stop the symbol burning and the effigy burning, and you look them in the eye and flex your muscles and you say, “This is a warning. We won’t accept this anymore.” There comes a moment when you crush your enemy.

Reason: Militarily?

Hirsi Ali: In all forms, and if you don’t do that, then you have to live with the consequence of being crushed.

Now that attitude and belief is something you have fought tooth and nail against ever since I have known you on these forums. You have fought the posters that are mostly now elsewhere and if you are coming out in support of this then you are jumping right into the cradle that they occupy.

Here's the full interview - it's awful.

http://reason.com/archives/2007/10/10/the-trouble-is-the-west/singlepage

Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Convert To White Supremacy
March 29, 2015 in Feature

By Hakeem Muhammad

In Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s recent op-ed, From Selma to Tunis: When Will We March Against the Segregation of Our Own Time, the Somalian ex-Muslim activist posits that segregation within Western liberal states is a phenomenon of the past. She asserts that racism impacting African-Americans has lessened, and that “a different group is [now] the victim of comparable legal discrimination that imposes segregation on them”: women in the Muslim majority world.

Ali’s entire political thought uses every tool in the arsenal of the White supremacist power structure: the myth of a post-racial America and the myth of American exceptionalism (i.e. “America treats women well; the problem is ‘over there’ in the Middle East”).

Ali’s celebration of the end to legal discrimination in the liberal Western world and promotion of the narrative of American exceptionalism obscures and conceals the systemic anti-black, anti-women violence that is structurally, physically, and psychologically present throughout the USA and further allows for its perpetuation.

Oppression of Women in “Liberal” States

When Black American women (such as Assata Shakur, Sister Souljah, Tynetta Muhammad), including converts to Islam discuss through speeches and books their oppression in living within a classic liberal state, they challenge the post-racial myth promoted by the likes of Ali.

In marked comparison to the royal treatment Ali receives, for these Black American women, the classic sapphire trope emerges, a narrative portrayal of the “angry Black woman” (in which Black women are seen as always complaining, with their issues never being taken seriously) is reinforced.

Black scholar Bell Hooks identifies capitalism, White supremacy, and patriarchy as three interlocking systems of oppression. Indeed, it is this oppressive paradigm which controls the narratives of women’s oppression that people listen to, sympathize with, and gain support for, and which is abandoned and neglected.

An illustrative example is when Black activist, political prisoner and exile, Assata Shakur states,”I am more concerned about the rise of the prison industrial complex that is turning our people into slaves again,” it hardly breaks through to the mainstream. Stories such as her’s, highlighting oppression under “enlightened” secular Neo-Liberal law garner minimal, if any, media attention.

In contrast, Ali’s story of oppression (exposed as filled with deception and lies) gets enough attention that she is lauded as a hero precisely because the values that she promotes are in line with the dominant White power structure.

It’s no wonder Ali’s demographic consists largely of New Atheists like Sam Harris, Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins whose racist views emanate from the very “enlightenment” that Ali constantly promotes with blind zeal.

Ali’s conclusion reiterates her claim that racial discrimination in Western liberal states has been done away with and posits “liberal enlightenment” as the antidote to structural violence against Muslim women. A narrative that completely contradicts the reality of many Black women.

The reality of racial discrimination is not limited to Blacks but is also witnessed in the contemporary experience of long marginalized and oppressed Native-American women.

Native American women on reservations have been raped and receive no justice.

“We have serial rapists on the reservation — that are non-Indian — because they know they can get away with it,” … Asetoyer was talking about the loophole that prevents tribal authorities, who have jurisdiction over crimes committed on Indian territory by Indians, from having any authority over non-Indian male abusers. That’s despite the fact that non-Indian men account for an estimated 80 percent of rapes of Indian women … the astronomical rate of abuse of Indian women is well documented by the federal government.

Charon Asetoyer, executive director of the Native American Women’s Health Resource Center has stated, “It’s immoral that the Congress of the United States would stand there and say that Indian women are less than their White counterparts.” Native American victims of rape have been given little, if any, justice in the supposedly enlightened judicial system of the United States.

While Ali seeks to portray the liberal West as a role model for women’s rights—opposing the “backwards” Islamic world—such a portrayal is, as we can see, vastly inaccurate. Though the oppression of women, especially minority women is a systemic social problem in the US, less media attention has been given to it than to the stories of oppression of Middle Eastern women.

Not only have Native Americans throughout history been systematically dehumanized, raped, tortured, killed, and herded into reservations—with White settlers taking away their basic rights to land, voting, etc.—but this behavior still exists under the liberal law that Ali extols as a panacea for all the world’s ills.

In fact, some Native American women scholars such as Sandy Grande consider the modern-day attempts to assimilate Native Americans to liberalism as a continuation of the cultural genocide that began because of the differences between the worldviews and cosmology held by White settlers (not to mention sheer greed for land and “glory”).

Selma to Soweto: Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Post Racial/Post-Apartheid Myth

Ali asserts that the number of individuals oppressed by Islam “is vastly larger than the number that was affected 50 years ago by segregation and apartheid.” Despite Ali’s dogmatic New Atheism (which is purportedly based on rationality and empiricism), no credible evidence for her claim is given.

Ali portrays apartheid as a problem of the past, in reality, the Whites in South Africa still control the majority of the land, wealth, and other South African resources, while the much greater population of Blacks continue to be disproportionately impoverished and incarcerated.

The Native Law Act passed in South Africa confined the Native Black population to 7% of the land. In a 2013 study, Cherryl Walker and Alex Dubb determined that, “Whites as a social category still own most of the country’s land.” Thus, the end of de’jure racism has not signaled the end of structural racism.

Concerning America, Ayaan Hirsi Ali states: “the president was right to push back against the idea that nothing has changed since 1965.”

Instead of citing a politician with an agenda, Barack Obama, Ayaan Hirsi Ali would do better to look into the works of Obama’s professor at Harvard University, Derick Bell, who highlighted that while the legal system of racism may have changed, structural racism merely changed its modus operandi.

Even after the Fair Housing Act and Brown Vs. Board of Education, African-Americans continue to face racism from housing realtors and continue to be confined to impoverished and segregated schools. In a study on the impact of the Fair Housing Act passed in Chicago to outlaw racial discrimination, sociologist Douglass S. Massey notes that, due to practices such as redlining, racial steering, and block-busting that developed in the Post-Jim Crow era, “the level of Black-White segregation has hardly changed.”

In an empirical study titled, “The Prison Boom & Lack of Black Progress,” University of Chicago economists Derek Neal and Armin Rick examined Black and White income inequality, unemployment rates, and the increasing number of Black men in Chicago who are in prison. Neal and Rick concluded that: “the Great Recession has left most black men in a position relative to White men that is really no better than the position they occupied only a few years after the Civil Rights Act of 1965.”

The Raw truth

Yet, rather than addressing the de facto racism that has emerged as White supremacy hidden under a different guise, Ali prefers to focus on the “new segregation” of Islam. In her sloppy quoting of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., she cynically seeks to co-opt the African-American freedom struggle which is on-going and continuing, exclusively for her own Islamophobic ends.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not a hero following in the legacy of the Civil Rights Movement as she pretends. The raw truth is that Ali left Islam and effectively converted to White supremacy. Ali’s entire political thought uses every tool in the arsenal of the White supremacist power structure: the myth of a post-racial America and the myth of American exceptionalism.

As self-professed vanguards of “modern liberalism” turn their sights on Islam as the new big enemy, such actions only lead to more racism against Muslims (especially Muslim sisters) and cover up for deep structural and societal problems, rendering them invisible and/or trivial.

http://www.loonwatch.com/2015/03/ayaan-hirsi-ali-convert-to-white-supremacy/

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

First point on the thread:

In her latest book, Somali-born author and activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, known for her controversial views on Islam, argues that the religion is not a peaceful one and calls for "a Muslim Reformation."

Didge, I think you had better read this interview that she held with Reason. I'll draw you attention to this part in general as it reflects how she really feels....

Reason: Don’t you mean defeating radical Islam?

Hirsi Ali: No. Islam, period. Once it’s defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It’s very difficult to even talk about peace now. They’re not interested in peace.

Reason: We have to crush the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims under our boot? In concrete terms, what does that mean, “defeat Islam”?

Hirsi Ali: I think that we are at war with Islam. And there’s no middle ground in wars. Islam can be defeated in many ways. For starters, you stop the spread of the ideology itself; at present, there are native Westerners converting to Islam, and they’re the most fanatical sometimes. There is infiltration of Islam in the schools and universities of the West. You stop that. You stop the symbol burning and the effigy burning, and you look them in the eye and flex your muscles and you say, “This is a warning. We won’t accept this anymore.” There comes a moment when you crush your enemy.

Reason: Militarily?

Hirsi Ali: In all forms, and if you don’t do that, then you have to live with the consequence of being crushed.

Now that attitude and belief is something you have fought tooth and nail against ever since I have known you on these forums. You have fought the posters that are mostly now elsewhere and if you are coming out in support of this then you are jumping right into the cradle that they occupy.

Here's the full interview - it's awful.

http://reason.com/archives/2007/10/10/the-trouble-is-the-west/singlepage

That was back in 2007, how desperate are you?

Clearly that view has changed and I have no doubt why she hated Isalm before to want it dstroyed when it has affected her life so much.

Clearly heres later she wants it reformed.

This is why the left should bow their heads in shame, they seek to demonise everyone that have views they are at odds with and fail to actually take a proper critical look at the book itself.

Islam is full of bad ideas, so lets start asking you some serious questions Irn, as do you defend these bad ideas?

I mean did you see the article that sassy just posted that is utterly disgusting now claiming she is part of white supremacy. That has to be the worst racist drivel I have ever read under the guise of protecting Islam and real discrmination within some Muslim communities from criticism where even worse it takes a view of many being white supremacy.

This is what I mean by left wing extremism, they seek not to counter views, they seek to instill hate against people.

When are you going to grow some balls and denouce such poor tactics

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

First point on the thread:

In her latest book, Somali-born author and activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, known for her controversial views on Islam, argues that the religion is not a peaceful one and calls for "a Muslim Reformation."

Didge, I think you had better read this interview that she held with Reason. I'll draw you attention to this part in general as it reflects how she really feels....

Reason: Don’t you mean defeating radical Islam?

Hirsi Ali: No. Islam, period. Once it’s defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It’s very difficult to even talk about peace now. They’re not interested in peace.

Reason: We have to crush the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims under our boot? In concrete terms, what does that mean, “defeat Islam”?

Hirsi Ali: I think that we are at war with Islam. And there’s no middle ground in wars. Islam can be defeated in many ways. For starters, you stop the spread of the ideology itself; at present, there are native Westerners converting to Islam, and they’re the most fanatical sometimes. There is infiltration of Islam in the schools and universities of the West. You stop that. You stop the symbol burning and the effigy burning, and you look them in the eye and flex your muscles and you say, “This is a warning. We won’t accept this anymore.” There comes a moment when you crush your enemy.

Reason: Militarily?

Hirsi Ali: In all forms, and if you don’t do that, then you have to live with the consequence of being crushed.

Now that attitude and belief is something you have fought tooth and nail against ever since I have known you on these forums. You have fought the posters that are mostly now elsewhere and if you are coming out in support of this then you are jumping right into the cradle that they occupy.

Here's the full interview - it's awful.

http://reason.com/archives/2007/10/10/the-trouble-is-the-west/singlepage

That was back in 2007, how desperate are you?

Clearly that view has changed and I have no doubt why she hated Isalm before to want it dstroyed when it has affected her life so much.

Clearly heres later she wants it reformed.

This is why the left should bow their heads in shame, they seek to demonise everyone that have views they are at odds with and fail to actually take a proper critical look at the book itself.

Islam is full of bad ideas, so lets start asking you some serious questions Irn, as do you defend these bad ideas?

I mean did you see the article that sassy just posted that is utterly disgusting now claiming she is part of white supremacy. That has to be the worst racist drivel I have ever read under the guise of protecting Islam and real discrmination within some Muslim communities from criticism where even worse it takes a view of many being white supremacy.

This is what I mean by left wing extremism, they seek not to counter views, they seek to instill hate against people.

When are you going to grow some balls and denouce such poor tactics

That would be a massive change for her. She was asked to withdraw the comments by a university in the USA and she wouldn't do it.

She claimed that it was a veil of silence over Multiculturalism which left Breivik with no choice other than to go out and murder 77 left wing school kids in Norway to make his point and that wasn't back in 2007. That's a bit like saying that she can't condone it but she can understand why he did it. Now where have we heard that before? Her speech caused outrage.
She also claims that David Cameron has said that Multiculturalism has failed. Can you remember him saying that?

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

That was back in 2007, how desperate are you?

Clearly that view has changed and I have no doubt why she hated Isalm before to want it dstroyed when it has affected her life so much.

Clearly heres later she wants it reformed.

This is why the left should bow their heads in shame, they seek to demonise everyone that have views they are at odds with and fail to actually take a proper critical look at the book itself.

Islam is full of bad ideas, so lets start asking you some serious questions Irn, as do you defend these bad ideas?

I mean did you see the article that sassy just posted that is utterly disgusting now claiming she is part of white supremacy. That has to be the worst racist drivel I have ever read under the guise of protecting Islam and real discrmination within some Muslim communities from criticism where even worse it takes a view of many being white supremacy.

This is what I mean by left wing extremism, they seek not to counter views, they seek to instill hate against people.

When are you going to grow some balls and denouce such poor tactics

That would be a massive change for her. She was asked to withdraw the comments by a university in the USA and she wouldn't do it.

She claimed that it was a veil of silence over Multiculturalism which left Breivik with no choice other than to go out and murder 77 left wing school kids in Norway to make his point and that wasn't back in 2007.  That's a bit like saying that she can't condone it but she can understand why he did it. Now where have we heard that before? Her speech caused outrage.
She also claims that David Cameron has said that Multiculturalism has failed. Can you remember him saying that?

I am not concerned hat people said in the past as it matters what they say today, take Tommy Robinson who has changed also for the better.
I mean if we took your view, then you would no doubt not even allow Maajid Nawaz to stand as a MP, being as he was a former terrorist. You need to start living in the present, as it may help and understand that people do change their views. So if your only attempt here to make the worst lefty tactic of condemning her book based off former comments and not actually even debating anything on the book eludes to the fact the some of the left are incapable of looking with an impartial critique of a book, they instead attempt to demonize the writer, which I have to say your conduct on this has been utterly pathetic.

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

That was back in 2007, how desperate are you?

Clearly that view has changed and I have no doubt why she hated Isalm before to want it dstroyed when it has affected her life so much.

Clearly heres later she wants it reformed.

This is why the left should bow their heads in shame, they seek to demonise everyone that have views they are at odds with and fail to actually take a proper critical look at the book itself.

Islam is full of bad ideas, so lets start asking you some serious questions Irn, as do you defend these bad ideas?

I mean did you see the article that sassy just posted that is utterly disgusting now claiming she is part of white supremacy. That has to be the worst racist drivel I have ever read under the guise of protecting Islam and real discrmination within some Muslim communities from criticism where even worse it takes a view of many being white supremacy.

This is what I mean by left wing extremism, they seek not to counter views, they seek to instill hate against people.

When are you going to grow some balls and denouce such poor tactics

That would be a massive change for her. She was asked to withdraw the comments by a university in the USA and she wouldn't do it.

She claimed that it was a veil of silence over Multiculturalism which left Breivik with no choice other than to go out and murder 77 left wing school kids in Norway to make his point and that wasn't back in 2007.  That's a bit like saying that she can't condone it but she can understand why he did it. Now where have we heard that before? Her speech caused outrage.
She also claims that David Cameron has said that Multiculturalism has failed. Can you remember him saying that?

I am not concerned hat people said in the past as it matters what they say today, take Tommy Robinson who has changed also for the better.
I mean if we took your view, then you would no doubt not even allow Maajid Nawaz to stand as a MP, being as he was a former terrorist. You need to start living in the present, as it may help and understand that people do change their views. So if your only attempt here to make the worst lefty tactic of condemning her book based off former comments and not actually even debating anything on the book eludes to the fact the some of the left are incapable of looking with an impartial critique of a book, they instead attempt to demonize the writer, which I have to say your conduct on this has been utterly pathetic.

So it's a fresh start for everyone from today then?

Gerry Adams? He's an MP

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t8448-where-the-bodies-are-buried-gerry-adams-has-long-denied-being-a-member-of-the-i-r-a-but-his-former-compatriots-claim-that-he-authorized-murder

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


I am not concerned hat people said in the past as it matters what they say today, take Tommy Robinson who has changed also for the better.
I mean if we took your view, then you would no doubt not even allow Maajid Nawaz to stand as a MP, being as he was a former terrorist. You need to start living in the present, as it may help and understand that people do change their views. So if your only attempt here to make the worst lefty tactic of condemning her book based off former comments and not actually even debating anything on the book eludes to the fact the some of the left are incapable of looking with an impartial critique of a book, they instead attempt to demonize the writer, which I have to say your conduct on this has been utterly pathetic.

So it's a fresh start for everyone from today then?

Gerry Adams? He's an MP

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t8448-where-the-bodies-are-buried-gerry-adams-has-long-denied-being-a-member-of-the-i-r-a-but-his-former-compatriots-claim-that-he-authorized-murder

Different case to where they may have committed a crime like murder and they have gotten away with murder.
That really was pathetic, if his views have changed on not hating the British anymore then I welcome that
Do you understand the difference or are you going to continually bore with your infantile pedantic counters?

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


I am not concerned hat people said in the past as it matters what they say today, take Tommy Robinson who has changed also for the better.
I mean if we took your view, then you would no doubt not even allow Maajid Nawaz to stand as a MP, being as he was a former terrorist. You need to start living in the present, as it may help and understand that people do change their views. So if your only attempt here to make the worst lefty tactic of condemning her book based off former comments and not actually even debating anything on the book eludes to the fact the some of the left are incapable of looking with an impartial critique of a book, they instead attempt to demonize the writer, which I have to say your conduct on this has been utterly pathetic.

So it's a fresh start for everyone from today then?

Gerry Adams? He's an MP

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t8448-where-the-bodies-are-buried-gerry-adams-has-long-denied-being-a-member-of-the-i-r-a-but-his-former-compatriots-claim-that-he-authorized-murder

Different case to where they may have committed a crime like murder and they have gotten away with murder.
That really was pathetic, if his views have changed on not hating the British anymore then I welcome that
Do you understand the difference or are you going to continually bore with your infantile pedantic counters?

You brought up former terrorists, not me.

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Different case to where they may have committed a crime like murder and they have gotten away with murder.
That really was pathetic, if his views have changed on not hating the British anymore then I welcome that
Do you understand the difference or are you going to continually bore with your infantile pedantic counters?

You brought up former terrorists, not me.

Maajid spend his time in jail for his crimes, which further proves how poor the left are at deflecting away from talking about the book. You seriously would make pass all tests to being an MP and I mean that off what I was debating with Eddie earlier on these very tactics you are using now.

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Different case to where they may have committed a crime like murder and they have gotten away with murder.
That really was pathetic, if his views have changed on not hating the British anymore then I welcome that
Do you understand the difference or are you going to continually bore with your infantile pedantic counters?

You brought up former terrorists, not me.

Maajid spend his time in jail for his crimes, which further proves how poor the left are at deflecting away from talking about the book. You seriously would make pass all tests to being an MP and I mean that off what I was debating with Eddie earlier on these very tactics you are using now.

It was you that diverted away from the book by bringing up Tommy Robinson and MPs , not me. Jeez, Didge you can't half twist things around mate.

And Gerry Adams wasn't convicted of murder but when you claim that it's what people say today that matters as far as he is concerned you are not applying that to him. Yes Didge, I get that

Islam-critic Ayaan Hirsi Ali refused US university honour

Boston: A private university outside Boston has decided not to award an honorary degree to a Somali-born women's rights activist who has branded Islam violent and "a nihilistic cult of death."

Brandeis University said it had decided not to award an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Dutch parliamentarian who has been a prominent critic of the treatment of women in Islamic society.

Ms Hirsi Ali in a 2003 interview with a Dutch newspaper said that by modern standards, the prophet Mohammed could be considered a paedophile, and in a 2007 interview with the London Evening Standard called Islam "a destructive, nihilistic cult of death."

"We cannot overlook certain of her past statements that are inconsistent with Brandeis University's core values," the university said in a statement late on Tuesday. "We regret that we were not aware of these statements earlier."

The move followed an open letter from the Council on American-Islamic Relations to the university's president, Frederick Lawrence, saying that to do so was "unworthy of the American tradition of civil liberty and religious freedom."

Nihad Awad, the group's national executive director, said, "offering such an award to a promoter of religious prejudice such as Ali is equivalent to promoting the work of white supremacists and anti-Semites."

Ms Hirsi Ali could not be reached for immediate comment.

Ms Hirsi Ali, a supporter of atheism, has been a prominent critic of the practice of female genital mutilation, the partial or total removal of external female genitalia. The practice, which causes health problems, is for cultural and religious reasons and is prevalent in 28 African nations, as well as parts of the Middle East and Asia.

Located in the Waltham suburb of Boston, Brandeis was founded in 1948 with a Jewish tradition and has about 3600 undergraduate students, according to its web site.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/islamcritic-ayaan-hirsi-ali-refused-us-university-honour-20140409-zqsvh.html


Oh dear.

I looked them up.

The Brandeis Library of Modern Jewish Thought

http://www.brandeis.edu/tauber/publications/jewish_thought.html

Heck, you couldn't get more Jewish than them.

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Maajid spend his time in jail for his crimes, which further proves how poor the left are at deflecting away from talking about the book. You seriously would make pass all tests to being an MP and I mean that off what I was debating with Eddie earlier on these very tactics you are using now.

It was you that diverted away from the book by bringing up Tommy Robinson and MPs , not me. Jeez, Didge you can't half twist things around mate.

And Gerry Adams wasn't convicted of murder but when you claim that it's what people say today that matters as far as he is concerned you are not applying that to him. Yes Didge, I get that

You see this is why you are such a child and a left wing extremist.
Thsi thread was started about a book which both you and the racist decided to not show or debate any aspects of the book but to disingenuously attacked the author based off past comments.
I showed and brought in other people to show how they have changed and now you make the lamest and infantile view around this. Being as my family is Irish and I have members of my family murdered by the IRA and know of his involvement, than I have every right to state his is a murderer who has escaped justice.
Now unless you have anything to say on the book, I suggest you crawl away embarrassed, as not only was your views quite pathetic and completely childish but the outbursts by sassy were disgusting making views to white supremacy further proving how racist she is, making such a claim against a person of African ethnicity.

BTW Didge. You're pal Dawkins was promoting her book on twitter today and he got absolutely rinsed and legged it smartish.

Irn Bru wrote:BTW Didge. You're pal Dawkins was promoting her book on twitter today and he got absolutely rinsed and legged it smartish.

Really and you expect me to go by your hearsay?

Ha ha ha

So you think someone as smart and intelligent as Dawkins got rinsed?

Hilarious, which proves how delusional you are mate

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:BTW Didge. You're pal Dawkins was promoting her book on twitter today and he got absolutely rinsed and legged it smartish.

Really and you expect me to go by your hearsay?

Ha ha ha

So you think someone as smart and intelligent as Dawkins got rinsed?

Hilarious, which proves how delusional you are mate

He legged it after that

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Really and you expect me to go by your hearsay?

Ha ha ha

So you think someone as smart and intelligent as Dawkins got rinsed?

Hilarious, which proves how delusional you are mate

He legged it after that

Hearsay again, hilarious, lets see you go face to face with Irn.
Do you want to go against me on Islam and its many bad ideas?
Happy to help educate you.
In your own time

The tweets after that were so funny, sets himself up as an expert on what Islam is about and then admits he has never read the Q'ran!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He's not half as clever as he thinks he is lol

He looked a total plonker and then started blocking people.

risingsun wrote:The tweets after that were so funny, sets himself up as an expert on what Islam is about and then admits he has never read the Q'ran!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He's not half as clever as he thinks he is lol

He looked a total plonker and then started blocking people.

Another lefty slagging off one of the greatest thinkers of our time lol
Same points go to you as happy to take his place and show why it is full of bad ideas

risingsun wrote:The tweets after that were so funny, sets himself up as an expert on what Islam is about and then admits he has never read the Q'ran!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He's not half as clever as he thinks he is lol

He looked a total plonker and then started blocking people.

Rinsed Oh yes.

Irn Bru wrote:

risingsun wrote:The tweets after that were so funny, sets himself up as an expert on what Islam is about and then admits he has never read the Q'ran!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He's not half as clever as he thinks he is lol

He looked a total plonker and then started blocking people.

Rinsed Oh yes.

The delusions of the left who now are at odds with Dawkins who advocate Liberal views lol

I notice the left run away when challenged on the topic they reckon he was claimed to be rinsed on lol
Says it all

Irn Bru wrote:

risingsun wrote:The tweets after that were so funny, sets himself up as an expert on what Islam is about and then admits he has never read the Q'ran!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He's not half as clever as he thinks he is lol

He looked a total plonker and then started blocking people.

Rinsed Oh yes.

He wouldn't speak to anyone, just blocked and blocked and blocked all who tried to ask him how he can be an expert if he has never read it. What a plonker Rodney!

risingsun wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Rinsed Oh yes.

He wouldn't speak to anyone, just blocked and blocked and blocked all who tried to ask him how he can be an expert if he has never read it.   What a plonker Rodney!

Always makes me laugh that the left think its funny to mock a champion of Liberal values over it seems inequality which is found in abundance in religions, which dispels that the left wing extremists have any care for equality, they would rather religious inequality instead thrived

Lol
I thought that from things Dawkins said he has never read a religious book other than the bible. which he has now admitted.

Ignorant twit should just be quiet seriously it took him to adulthood to work out the bible was wrong. Sorry You ARE NOT SMART if as a child you cannot work that out.


This is EXACTLY my Problem with Atheists, not that the Koran is right but At least read the thing for your self before bad mouthing it.
Because I still say If you read the Bible and then read the Koran it is a no brainer which is better, it is the Koran by a long way. it make a lot more sense and it is more consistent in it's language and writing style. a lot of this can be attributed to the fact it has been translated far less and does get reference back to the original text and language.

veya_victaous wrote:Lol
I thought that from things Dawkins said he has never read a religious book other than the bible. which he has now admitted.

Ignorant twit should just be quiet seriously it took him to adulthood to work out the bible was wrong. Sorry You ARE NOT SMART if as a child you cannot work that out.


This is EXACTLY my Problem with Atheists, not that the Koran is right but At least read the thing for your self before bad mouthing it.
Because I still say If you read the Bible and then read the Koran it is a no brainer which is better, it is the Koran by a long way. it make a lot more sense and it is more consistent in it's language and writing style. a lot of this can be attributed to the fact it has been translated far less and does get reference back to the original text and language.

I have read and studied the Quran and the Bible and the Torah, would you like to test me or Sam Harris, or Cor countless others athiest who have studied the religions?
Dawkins may say some stupid things but stands for Liberalism and you mock that, which shows why you are an idiot, as in all the Abrahamic faiths they endorse and teach inequality and they are all fullof bad ideas.

Let me know as happy to further your education where the man would chew up up on science, so please spare me how some lame poster on a forum thinks he is smarter than dawkins.
For fuck sake the left wing appeasers thinking they are smarter than someone of his intelligence

lol

That's exactly what he said Veya, 'I've never read any religious book but the Bible'.   If he carries on being as stupid as that he will have to close his twitter account because his followers were gob-smacked!

Dawkins added: “Of course you can have an opinion about Islam without having read Qur’an. You don’t have to read Mein Kampf to have an opinion about Nazism.”

Which is is very much right, as you can read many teachings and studies around Islam by other writers, but of course the best way is to study the many different sects from within Islam and the Quran. But these attempts here at an attack of dawkins shows why the left champion inequality around religious views, they hate people showing what is wrong with religion and has been for hundreds of years. If it had not been for scientific people like dawkins in the past, we would still be under religious idiotic laws.
I thank my lucky stars for people like him