How to counter Islam: Truth or Christianity
Richard Dawkins is skeptical of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's conversion to Christianity. I was also skeptical when I wrote about her conversion last year. But today (this was recorded a month ago), she does seem to accept, and claims to believe, at least some of the tenets of the Christian faith.
But listening to her, I am still led to believe that her newly professed faith is mostly a political, anti-Islam mission. Her position seems to be that enlightenment values do not offer an adequate alternative to Islam, so she's going to try Christianity. Her newfound faith seems to be based on the hope that Christianity offers a viable alternative.
As I see it, the problem with Hirsi Ali's argument is that she is setting aside truth for the sake of winning the hearts and minds of the masses as a counter to Islam. She believes that Christianity is necessary to halt the expansion of Islamic tyranny. Dawkin's position is that we should counter Islam the same way we counter all religions, with truth and rationality. But here Hirsi Ali's point reigns supreme: We must offer something rather than nothing.
I'm still not sure that she is a sincere Christian. But she is so invested in offering an alternative to Islam, that she will call herself a Christian if that's what it takes.
I think the real difference between the two is that Dawkins believes the masses must respond to rationality. Ultimately there is no other choice. And Hirsi Ali believes that it is going to take more than that to appeal to the masses. She believes that the masses need a better story than Islam. Who cares if it's true or not. It is a cynical and patronizing position. Surely people will see that.
Besides, can we really rely on the beliefs of the masses in our existential fight with Islam? The masses will always believe some nonsense. That is a huge part of what makes them masses. Just look how the masses accepted government propaganda on Covid. Look at their social media addictions. Look at how they vote in the United States and Great Britain and Western Europe. Even if we continue to believe in democracy, I think we should be extremely cautious of the masses.
And regarding western masses' perspective on Islam, most people seem to believe that it is just another religion, and therefore, while they may have little knowledge of its teachings, they view it as a positive: It is a religion, therefore it must instruct its adherents to behave righteously.
So while I agree that something must be done to counter Islam, it will not be a mass Christian movement that stops it. It will not be the malleable hearts and minds of the western masses. They are too soft and too unthinking. And eventually the Muslims will kill them. It is convert, submit, or die.
No, it will take sterner stuff. Which will start with...truth.
We might start with the truth of what exactly do Muslims believe? Forget a new story, or a better story. Just tell the awful truth about their story. Let's tell Queers for Palestine what happens to them when they get to, you know, Palestine. Let's tell women the truth about life in Iran. Let's be honest about Muslim apostasy and blasphemy and honor killings and anti-semitism and sharia. And tolerance; let's talk about Muslim tolerance. Not in the West, but in Saudi Arabia. Let's tell the story of the history of Islam and its maniacal, murderous prophet.
Let us explain the difference between Muslim behavior when they are less than five percent of a population and when they are more than twenty percent. This is very difficult for most western people to understand. And it will quite literally be the death of them. Here the United States has an advantage. They can simply watch what happens in Europe. But will they learn?
Let us be so busy telling the truth about Islam that we don't have time or need to preach an alternative.