Islam and Us: Responding to Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Ayaan Hirsi Ali writes a devastating critique of the she experienced – growing up in , on her travels to and , and as it followed her to her new home in Europe. The psychological scarring, the verbal assaults, the physical abuse, the social imprisonment, and ultimately the terror and murder inflicted in the name of Islam—all are undeniably very real, and very wrong. Two questions cry out for answers as one reads her account: Is this really what Islam is? And what should be done about the experience of oppression and abuse that she gives voice to?

“It’s in the Qur’an” Hirsi Ali’s primary critique of Islam is that it is a repressive and misogynist religion. In her experience, women live under the constant and often cruel oppression of not only men, but other women enforcing women’s secondary place in Islamic society through wife beatings, female genital mutilation, “honor killings,” and flogging or of rape victims accused of fornication or adultery, not to mention coercion in getting married and lack of divorce rights. She sees this as rooted in Islam itself, and frequently refers to Qur’anic injunctions that “men rule over women” (102)1, that women must ask permission to go outside and be sexually available to their husbands at all times (178), and that husbands should beat their wives if they misbehave (244). She finds in the Qur’an “legitimate basis for abuse” (307), and in Islam “a religion that denies women their rights as humans” (309).

She goes on to suggest that the status of Muslim societies, as well as of Muslims in Western societies, is largely due to Islam. She refers to disproportionately high levels of unemployment, crime, welfare, and even disability claims among Muslims in Holland, and remarks that “surely Islam was some kind of influence” (278). She argues that because Muslim women are taught to be “docile and submissive” and are unable to attend university, travel, or purchase property, they do not perform as well as non-Muslim women (279). Similarly, she attributes violent behavior among Muslim males to their having witnessed their mothers being abused as they were growing up. More generally, she argues that aspects of Islam “slow a society’s development, by curbing critical thinking and holding women back” (288), and attributes the poverty, violence, and

1 Numbers in parentheses refer to page numbers in Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Infidel (New York: , 2007). oppression of women in Muslim countries to Islam itself. “Every society that is still in the rigid grip of Islam oppresses women and also lags behind in development” (296).

Hirsi Ali’s claim that Islam condones violence and is utterly intolerant of unbelievers is even more damning. She experiences in her own life the constant fear of ostracism for unbelief, and faces threats and ultimately the death of her colleague, Theo van Gogh, for “acts of crime” against Islam. In her understanding of Islam, apostasy merits death; “on that the and the are clear” (288). She looks up ’s quotes from the Qur’an about killing Jews, Christians, and unbelievers, and finds his argument about a clash of civilizations—or as she frames it, “the clash between reason and our religion”—compelling (271). She comes to see Islam as a totalitarian ideology, and concludes that the 9/11 attacks are its “logical outcome” (272). As she blurts out in response to news about the attacks: “This is Islam” (268).

Hirsi Ali’s argument ultimately rests on her understanding of Islam as an inherently static and closed system of thought and behavior. She repeatedly argues that Islam does not tolerate interpretation, innovation, or critical thinking. Of her father’s “mostly nonviolent,” “more intelligent” and “humane” interpretation of Islam, she says “it was not legitimate” because it was an interpretation, and “you may not interpret the will of Allah and the words of the Quran: it says so, right there in the book” (179). “True Islam,” as she understands it, is a rigid belief system and moral framework (272). At root she sees the Qur’an as an abstractly absolute authority, in which every verse is universally applicable: “If the Quran is timeless, then it applies to every Muslim today.” She plaintively expresses the logical outcome of her understanding: “If we say the Quran is not timeless, then it’s not holy, is it?” (273)

Is this Islam? What are we to make of Hirsi Ali’s claim that Islam is essentially a “totalitarian” ideology which “spreads a culture that is brutal, bigoted, fixated on controlling women, and harsh in war”? (272) Is this what Islam really is? Are those who say Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance simply deluding themselves, as she claims? She is certainly not the first to argue that Islam is an

1 inherently violent and oppressive religion. The question, as J. Harold Ellens puts it, is: are she and others who make this claim bad theologians, or is the Qur’an a bad book?2

The question of what the Qur’an says and what Islam is begs the question of how any religion is defined. It seems simple enough to say, as Hirsi Ali implies, that Islam is what the Qur’an and other central documents say it is (though her actual perspective is more nuanced than that). But defining a religion by its central documents is only one way of defining a religion, in contrast to, for example, what Muslim leaders or scholars say, or what most Muslims say. Focusing on the Qur’an raises further questions about how it is to be interpreted (Hirsi Ali’s perspective about interpretation notwithstanding), and who is doing the interpreting.

For those of us outside Islam it can be instructive to listen to what scholars say about Islam, and to what the majority of Muslims say about their faith. Do Hirsi Ali’s views reflect what scholars say about the Qur’an, and do they reflect the views of significant number of Muslims today?

Islamic Scholars When Hirsi Ali started reading the Qur’an, she found everything her teacher said was in it: “Women should obey their husbands. Women were worth half a man. should be killed” (104). What do contemporary scholars say about the Qur’an and Islam?

Many scholars read Qur’anic passages such as 4.19 [“live with women on a footing of kindness and equity”] as outlining the ideal relationship between men and women as one of equality and complementarity. Esposito refers to 30.21, which describes the relationship between mates as one of “love and mercy,” and to the language of reciprocity between men and women in 2.187 [“they are a garment for you, and you are a garment for them”] and 9.71 [“believing men and believing women are protectors of each other”].3 Ali and Ali argue that the relationship between men and

2 J. Harold Ellens, ed., The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2007), 151. 3 John L. Esposito, What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam (New York: Oxford, 2002), 89.

2 women must be viewed in the context of 4.1, which declares that men and women have been created from the same essence.4

Other scholars note the that “priority” of men over women in verses like 4.34 refers not to women’s status or abilities, but is based on men’s socioeconomic responsibility for women, and that “nowhere in the Quran does it say that all men are superior to, or preferred to, all women.”5 As for the line about “striking” a wife in the same verse, some scholars argue that the single strike permitted (after first trying admonishment and separation) was intended as a restriction on the violence against women rampant in 7th century Arabia. Historically, scholars have stressed that any such strike should be symbolic, or avoided altogether, and that the majority of Quran and hadith do not support domestic violence.6 Rather, they point to the example and the words of the Prophet: “The best of you are those who are the best to their wives.”7

As for female genital mutilation, even Hirsi Ali herself notes that it predates Islam, is not practiced by all Muslims, and is practiced by some non-Muslims (31). Esposito confirms that it is neither Islamic nor widespread among Muslims.8 As for other severe punishments, reformers in Islam (as in other traditions) argue that such punishments may have been seen as appropriate within their original context, but are not appropriate today.9 As for “honor killings,” Fattah argues that the Qur’an not only prohibits the pre-Islamic practice of burying girls alive, but “dispels the myths that demonize and vilify the female gender so that burying girls alive seems a reasonable thing to do.”10 Siddiqui points out that there is no room for vigilante justice under Islamic law; those who take justice into their own hands are themselves to be punished—in the case of honor killings, for murder—and that “honor killings, therefore, have no place in Islam.”11

4 Mary Ali and Anjum Ali, “Women Are Liberated Under Islam” in Islam: Opposing Viewpoints, William Dudley, ed. (Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2004), 121. 5 Esposito, What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam, 90. 6 E.g. 4.19 “Do not oppress them.” Ibid., 107. 7 Ali and Ali, 125. 8 Esposito, What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam, 102. 9 Ibid., 150-151. 10 Anisa Abd el Fattah, “A Problem of Pre-” in Islam: Opposing Viewpoints, 138. 11 Samana Siddiqui, “Islam Does Not Condone Honor Killings” in Islam: Opposing Viewpoints, 137.

3 Contrary to Hirsi Ali’s assertion that Islam denies women their human rights, Esposito argues that the revelation to raised the status of women by abolishing women’s status as property [4:19 “you are forbidden to inherit women against their will”], recognizing a woman’s right to contract her own marriage [4.4], limiting husbands’ right to divorce [65.1], and granting women equal divorce rights [2.228, 4.35].12 Ali and Ali contend that 4.32 [“to men is allotted what they earn, and to women, what they earn”] not only establishes a woman’s right to own property, earn money, keep her earnings, and enter into legal contracts, but “to manage all of her assets in any way she pleases.” They further argue that 60.12 establishes the political right of women to voice their political opinions and participate in politics.13

Against Hirsi Ali’s claim that the Prophet established a tyranny (305), Sudanese intellectual and former diplomat Abdelwahab El-Affendi reasons that the sovereignty of God and the equality of humans require democracy, and that “blind obedience to one-man rule is contrary to Islam.”14 Esposito points out that Islamic concepts like shura (consultation between ruler and ruled), ijima (community consensus), and maslaha (public interest) are essentially democratic in nature.15

More generally, Iqbal asserts that the docility and weakness of many Muslim societies are not the result of Islam, but “the antithesis of Islam,” as attested by the dynamism and strength of the ummah from the time of the Prophet until it came under colonial domination.16 In contradistinction to Hirsi Ali’s dismissal of the continuing effects of colonialism as “clearly nonsense” (224), Masud points to the often ruthless nature of colonial rule, and the fact that national boundaries of many currently Muslim countries were drawn for their own benefit of colonial powers..17 Esposito points out that most Muslim states only recently emerged from colonial domination by European powers which installed and/or forged alliances with

12 Esposito, What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam, 92, 105-108, 143-144. 13 Ali and Ali, 121-123. 14 John L. Esposito and Dalia Mogahed, Who Speaks for Islam? What A Billion Muslims Really Think (New York: Gallup Press, 2007), 56. 15 Esposito, What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam, 159. See also 3:159: “Consult with them in matters of concern.” 16 Muzzaffar Iqbal, “The Should Reject Western Values and Embrace Traditional Islam” in Islam: Opposing Viewpoints, 157. 17 Enver Masud, “America Is Waging a War Against Islam” in Islam: Opposing Viewpoints, 60. He further quotes former policymaker George Kennan’s statement that the goal of U.S. policy was to maintain the disparity of wealth between it and the rest of the world.

4 authoritarian regimes.18 Iqbal alleges that the official replacement of Islamic languages with colonial languages robbed Muslims of access to centuries of scholarship, a process he describes as “intellectual genocide.”19

Hirsi Ali’s disregard for history other than Enlightenment (238-239, 266) exemplifies a convenient ignorance of advances achieved under 800 years of Islamic rule.20 Esposito further points out that comparing contemporary modernized Western societies with less developed Islamic societies is like comparing apples and oranges, and that less developed countries in which Christianity is the dominant religion (like ) contrast as sharply with developed Western societies as many predominantly Muslim societies. Furthermore, he notes, there are more developed Muslim societies (including Turkey, Malaysia, and Indonesia) which share many of the modern democratic values and systems which Hirsi Ali argues in favor of.21

In contrast to Hirsi Ali’s claim that Islam is utterly intolerant of non-Muslims, scholars point to Islam’s long history of inter-religious tolerance, from the early Muslim community through the Ottoman Empire, most notably the 250 years of interfaith harmony under Muslim rule in Spain.22 Scholars also note the many examples of religious pluralism in the Qur’an.23 Indeed, “reformers emphasize that diversity and pluralism are integral to the message of the Qur’an, which teaches that God created a world composed of different nations, ethnicities, tribes and languages.24 Above all, scholars refer to the Qur’anic declaration that “there is no compulsion in religion.”25

As for verses which call for waging war on unbelievers [e.g. 2:190-3, 9:5], scholars point out that these arose in a context where the fledgling Muslim community was fighting for its survival, that

18 Esposito, What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam, 160-161. 19 Iqbal, 155. 20 Jahangir Mohammaed, “False Arguments About Democracy” in Islam: Opposing Viewpoints, 48. 21 Esposito, What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam, 61-64. 22 E.g. the Constitution of Medina accepted the coexistence of Muslims, Jews and Christians. Ibid., 73, 79-84. 23 3.84 “We believe in...what was given to Moses and Jesus…”; 2.62 “The Muslims, the Jews, the Christians and the Sabians, any who believe in God and the last day and do good have their reward with the Lord. There is nothing for them to fear.” Ibid., 71; Esposito and Mogahed, 8. 24 5.48 “For each of them we have established a law, and a revealed way;” see also 30.22, 49.13. Esposito, What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam, 72-73; Esposito and Mogahed, 9. 25 2.256; see also 50.45: “You are not there to force them;” 6.107: “We have not made you their keeper, nor are you responsible for what they do.” Esposito, What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam, 70.

5 the Qur’an indicates that any such fighting was to be defensive and proportionate, and that peacemaking through negotiation is the preferred solution to conflict, even in the infamous “sword verses” cited above.26 Rather than quoting Qur’anic verses which condemn violence [5.32 “If anyone killed a person…it would be as if he killed all the people”], Lawrence points out that a militant like Osama bin Laden “selects only those Qur’anic verses that fit his message, and then cites them exclusively for his own purposes. He ignores both their original context and also the variety of historical differences among committed Muslims about how to apply their dicta.”27 For very different reasons, the same could be said about Hirsi Ali’s critique.

It is this disregard for context in reading the Qur’an, her overlooking of passages in conflict with the verses she cites, and her apparent ignorance of both the diversity and the permissibility of diverse interpretations within Islam, which are at the root of Hirsi Ali’s absolutist critique—itself an interpretation. When she dismisses her father’s Islam because it is an interpretation, she fails to recognize that there is no way not to interpret Islam, which, like every religion, has its internal contradictions.28 Even Hirsi Ali’s absolutist reading of the verse, “I have left you with clear guidance; no one deviates from it…” (179), stands in contrast with 3.7: “It is God who has revealed the Book to you, including precise signs…and others that are ambiguous.”

Her argument that Islam permits no interpretation or innovation is contradicted by the Islamic principles of ijtihad (independent legal judgment on the basis of reason) and nask (abrogation or repeal on the basis of new revelation). As Lawrence explains it, the Qur’an provides the basis for its own continuously revised interpretation through the principle of nask, through which the revelation may be updated.29 Scholars use the principle of ijtihad to reinterpret Islamic

26 Esposito, What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam, 121. See also 4.90: “If they…do not fight you, but send you peace, then God has made no cause for you against them;” 8.61: “If they incline toward peace, then incline toward it;” 10.25: “God summons humankind to the abode of peace, both in this life and in the next." 27 Bruce Lawrence, The Qur’an: A Biography (New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 2006), 180. 28 Hans Kung, Islam: Past, Present and Future, (Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2007), 21. 29 2:106: “We do not cancel any sign…unless we bring one better”, 13:37, 16:101, 22:52; Bruce B. Lawrence, Shattering the Myth: Islam Beyond Violence (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998), 172. Abdullahi Ahmed An-Naim (“The Muslim World Should Modernize by Adopting Some Western Values” in Islam: Opposing Viewpoints, 151) proposes a “superfundamentalist” return to the more peaceful and pluralistic passages from the Meccan part of the revelation and an abrogation of the more violent and intolerant verses from the Medina period.

6 principles and values in new contexts, and point out that the Qur’an itself distinguishes between passages which express universal principles and those which addressed specific contexts and are subject to interpretation.30 As British Islamic leader and Pakistani parliamentarian Khurshid Ahmad puts it: “God has revealed only broad principles…It is through the ijtihad that people of every age try to implement and apply divine guidance to the problems of their lives.”31 Similarly, Muslim feminist scholar Amina Wadud argues we must understand the implications of a passage for its context, and then derive principles from that meaning.32 As opposed to a view of every Qur’anic verse as “timeless” and universal, Wahid asserts that all Muslims have the right to “perpetual reinterpretation” of the Qur’an in light of ever changing situations.33

Hirsi Ali’s interpretation of Islam is clearly at odds with many contemporary scholars’ interpretation of what Islam really is and what the Qur’an actually says. At the very least, there is a diversity of opinion about whether the Qur’an is the univocal revelation applicable regardless of context which Hirsi Ali sees, or a multilayered book of Signs to be “continuously reinterpreted by successive generations and diverse audiences.”34 The variety of scholarly viewpoints shows that the absolutist approach is not the only way to understand Islam.

But what about the faith of everyday Muslims around the world? If Hirsi Ali’s portrayal of Islam accurately reflects how Islam is actually practiced by most Muslims, there is no point arguing about an academic “pure Islam” that nobody practices. What do Muslims really believe?

The Gallup Poll of the Muslim World Hirsi Ali is convinced that the “vast mass” of Muslims saw the 9/11 attacks as justified, and that the images of Muslim youth celebrating caught by television cameras were only part of a more general Muslim jubilation of revenge against “the infidel enemies of Islam” (268-9). She admits that she was often accused of not backing up her arguments with data (295), and though she does succeed in collecting data about abuses of Muslim women in Holland, her claims about Muslims

30 3.7, quoted above; Esposito, What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam, 91, 159. 31 Esposito and Mogahed, 57. 32 John L. Esposito, The Future of Islam, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 122. 33 Ibid., 111. Ziauddin Sardar (“Not a Static Faith” in Islam: Opposing Viewpoints, 149) argues that “the shariah is a problem-solving method rather than law,” requiring ongoing reinterpretation of Qur’an. 34 Lawrence, The Qur’an, 15.

7 as a whole are not backed up by data collected through Gallup Poll of the Muslim World. This poll was conducted between 2001 and 2007 through hour-long, face-to-face interviews with tens of thousands of residents in 35 nations with substantial or predominantly Muslim populations (though not, it must be noted, Hirsi Ali’s native Somalia), and represents the views of more than 90% of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims with a plus or minus 3-point margin of error.35

The poll shows that majorities of both men and women in Muslim societies believe women and men should have equal (or equitable) rights, and that majorities of Muslim women do not see Islam as not an obstacle or “crucial component” of their progress.36 The study based on the poll points out examples of the Islamic tradition being successfully used to ban anti-female practices and advance women’s rights, such as the Women’s Protection Bill overturning Pakistan’s infamous rape laws and Egyptian Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa’s fatwa against female genital mutilation.37 Recognizing that women’s status lags in much of the Muslim world, the study points out that support for women’s rights tends to be equal to or higher among religious Muslim men than among non-religious men in these nations, suggesting that cultural influences other than Islam are responsible for the ongoing impact of patriarchy. Similarly, men who committed “honor killings” were more likely to be illiterate or convicted criminals than observant Muslims, suggesting that religious zeal is not the motivation for this abominable practice. 38

Rather than being unable to attend university, women make up the majority of university students in predominantly Muslim countries like Iran. The range of education levels and literacy rates in Muslim countries is comparable to that in non-Muslim countries.39 As for the argument that the oppression of women slows Muslim countries’ development, the study cites a researcher for the World Values Survey who argues that human development in almost any society begins with economic modernization, which leads to women’s advancement, rather than the other way around.40

35 Esposito and Mogahed, xi. 36 Ibid., 101-103, 114, 121. 37 Ibid., 115-117. 38 Ibid., 123. 39 Ibid., 103-105. 40 Ibid., 128.

8 The study’s most striking findings are in the area of extremism and terrorism. Contrary to Hirsi Ali’s assertion, only 7% of respondents considered the 9/11 attacks justified (compared with 6% of who think that attacks in which civilians are targeted are “completely justified”).41 Again, these extremists were found to be no more religious than the vast majority who condemned the attacks. Indeed, those who opposed the attacks often did so on the basis of their religion, while those who supported them did so on the basis of “markedly secular and worldly” reasons. “The real difference between those who condone terrorist attacks and all others is about politics, not piety.”42

Extremism and terrorism are a top concern among the majority of Muslims who see Islam as a moderate, peaceful religion—which, as the study points out, is not surprising since the primary victims of terrorist attacks have been Muslims. “The ‘terrorist fringe,’ far from being glorified, is rejected by citizens of predominantly Muslim countries as it is by citizens of the United States.”43 The studies’ findings are supported by a long list of strong public denunciations (published in both the Western and Arab press) and even fatwas issued by a diverse array of the world’s most prominent Muslim leaders and organizations against the 9/11 attacks and every subsequent terrorist attack.44

The poll did not deal with the question of how Muslims interpret the Qur’an or their religion, though Kung asserts that the majority of Muslims accept that some surahs mitigate or abolish others; Lawrence concurs that absolutism is a minority view.45 Even a cursory review of the history of Islam reveals that there has always been a diversity of interpretations, and that Hirsi Ali’s absolutist interpretation has never been predominant. The position of the early Kharjite sect, which most closely exemplifies the kind of uncompromising extremism she sees as “true

41 In fact, higher percentages of Americans believe that attacks aimed at civilians are “often or sometimes justified” than respondents from predominantly Muslim nations. Ibid., 69, 95. 42 Ibid., 73-74, 161. 43 Ibid., 46, 96. 44 E.g.:” We condemn, in the strongest terms, the incidents, which are against the Noble Laws of Islam who forbid all forms of attack on innocents;" ”The cult of suicide bombings has to stop” “The crimes are not accepted by any religion. It is a barbarism wholly rejected by Islam;” from Esposito, The Future of Islam, 31-33. 45 Kung, 573: “Muslims attach the utmost importance to the rationality of their religion and therefore the Shariah is seldom applied fully and completely;” Lawrence, The Qur’an, 15.

9 Islam”, has never been held by large numbers of Muslims.46 Similarly, while the literalist and intolerant Wahhabi interpretation (which Hirsi Ali describes as Islam in its “purest form” 347) currently holds sway in Saudi Arabia, it is a more recent development in Islam and its global influence is “strong but not predominant.”47 Clearly, it is more accurate to say there are many “” rather than only one, much less only an absolutist one.

How shall we respond? Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s largely anecdotal case against Islam is not a particularly representative or accurate portrayal of Islam. Her characterization often conflates Islamic faith with other cultural influences (most notably patriarchy) and sees these as uniquely attributable to Islam (exceptionalism), while at the same time ignoring both positive and negative historical developments (past cultural advances and achievements, as well as the more recent rise of fundamentalism, extremism, and politicization) within Muslim societies. Above all, she collapses all Islam into a monolithic absolutism, which ignores the relevance of context and denies the possibility of interpretation. The result is a caricature which stigmatizes all Muslims for the cruel distortions of some, weakens the credibility of her own critique among mainstream moderate Muslims, and ultimately ends up strengthening extremists on all sides who share her insistence that a peaceful, tolerant Islam is fallacy. In many ways, her approach diminishes possibilities for counteracting the very abuses she rails against.

Nevertheless, her experience has undeniable validity, and urgently demands a response. The question is: what kind of response? While it may be counterproductive to claim that extremists represent all Muslims, it can also be dangerous to say that because mainstream Islam is peaceful and tolerant, everyone acting in the name of Islam stands for peace, love, and tolerance. The danger of extremism is very real, in Islam as in other religions and ideologies, and the danger of relativizing every religious perspective as “just another point of view” is real as well—especially for religious and secular . If values matter, there must be limits to tolerance.

46 Esposito, What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam, 39-41. 47 Esposito, The Future of Islam, 77.

10 On the other hand, a perspective which rejects any one religion or all religions as bad is neither accurate nor helpful. Any religion or ideology can be a force for good or evil, and denying the potential truth or goodness in another belief system is as narrow-minded as insisting on the absolute truth of one’s own. Taking seriously the views of mainstream Muslims is key to bringing the power of Islam to bear on the problems of extremism and abuse that Hirsi Ali brings to light.

For these reasons, I believe Hirsi Ali’s book calls us to engage in serious interfaith dialog, not so much to highlight our different beliefs, but to pursue consensus around values regarding human conduct and relationships. Such dialog can serve to highlight areas of agreement between mainstream Muslims and others. It can also help to clarify how far beyond the bounds of mainstream Islam the views and especially the acts portrayed by Hirsi Ali really are. It could further bring to light issues of Western policy and practice which Esposito and Mogahed argue are at the root of both mainstream and extremist conflicts with the West.48

The implications for Unitarian Universalists is obvious: we can neither simply tolerate the abuses Hirsi Ali portrays as acceptable nor simply reject Islam as a bad religion. Nor can we allow ourselves to remain in the splendid isolation of religious liberalism in a world with a multiplicity of religious viewpoints. Our principles allow us (in principle!) to engage in dialog, even those with whom we may disagree, while remaining committed to both the search for truth and to the equal worth and dignity of all. But we must get beyond our own echo chamber and engage with people who may have very different perspectives on what is true, important, or meaningful. We must be willing to listen to what people say their religion is about and why it is important to them, what values they believe in and why. And we must be willing to challenge misperceptions—both among others and ourselves—as to what Islam is, to distinguish mainstream Muslim faith from the barbaric practices too often associated with it, and to address underlying causes of conflict, extremism, and abuse.

Having freed herself from the cage of religious oppression, Hirsi Ali may still be trapped in a narrow view of religion. But she does go on to call for reform of Islam, and while such a call

48 Esposito and Mogahed, 87-94.

11 may not be particularly new or unique, her call for dialog with Allah (350) frames it in fresh way. Even more, her vivid call to “wake up and stop tolerating the oppression of Muslim women” (295) is of critical importance. From an Islamic or any other ethical perspective, it is more important to stop the abuse than to defend Islam. Rigid interpretation of religion does cause misery (350), and the tepid encouragement of reform by some does not convey the urgency of the situation.49 Hirsi Ali’s important work in exposing religious sanction of cultural barbarism cries out for Wadud’s “gender jihad,” understood as the struggle (the literal meaning of jihad) against oppression and for the creation of a just society.50 We must go beyond blanket tolerance and academic discussion, and move towards critical reflection and dialog around values and the issues Hirsi Ali raises. If Infidel provokes such actual dialog, all the better.

49 As Ellens points out, extremists are “not merely of a different opinion in an interesting theological dialogue.” Ellens, 151. 50 Esposito, The Future of Islam, 48, 121. Though whether Hirsi Ali is calling for such struggle from within or from without Islam is somewhat ambiguous.

12 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ali, Ayaan Hirsi. Infidel. New York: Free Press, 2007.

Cleary, Thomas, trans. The Qur’an: A New Translation. Starlatch Press, 2004.

Dudley, William, ed. Islam: Opposing Viewpoints. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2004.

Ellens, J. Harold, ed. The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2007.

Esposito, John L. The Future of Islam. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Esposito, John L. What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam. New York: Oxford, 2002.

Esposito, John L. Esposito and Dalia Mogahed, Who Speaks for Islam? What A Billion Muslims Really Think. New York: Gallup Press, 2007.

Kung, Hans. Islam: Past, Present and Future. Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2007.

Lawrence, Bruce. The Qur’an: A Biography. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 2006.

Lawrence, Bruce B. Lawrence. Shattering the Myth: Islam Beyond Violence. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998.

Ramadan, Tareq. “A case of selective hearing,” New York Times, 16 November 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/opinion/16iht-edramadan.1.8765057.html.

13