Main Edition
US
FR
Main Edition
US
FRIslamism comes in many forms. Marcus Yam/Los Angeles Times
New York. London. Paris. Madrid. Over the past three decades, at various times, these cities have been yoked together under a pall of terror that has spread right across the West. It has set populations against each other, leaving everyone fearing for their lives. The specifics have varied. Sometimes assailants act alone, sometimes in cells. Often they strike at random, at other times after months of careful planning. Yet, taken together, the terror has a name. Not Islam but Islamism — political, messianic, totalitarian. And it struck again in Israel on October 7, 2023, when Hamas slaughtered hundreds of innocent Jews and kidnapped many more.
That isn’t the only parallel between the massacre last year and its precursors in New York and Paris. As with 9/11, the horrors of 7/10 were initially marked by shock, then calls for huge retaliation. As after 9/11, a backlash swiftly followed. Over the past 12 months, campuses and city streets have been swept by anti-Zionism, just as anti-Americanism became the rage on the Left in the early 2000s. Two decades ago, moreover, there were massive protests decrying America’s invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and calls for the troops to stay home, much like today’s demands for a ceasefire in Gaza and Lebanon. And as after 9/11, the backlash proved impotent. The US hung on in Afghanistan until 2021. Today, Israel is busy expanding its war to Lebanon — and perhaps soon to Iran as well.
Yet surely the strongest parallel between those earlier atrocities and October 7 isn’t the bursts of violence, or the reaction, or the escalation. It’s that term I started with. It’s Islamism, and the way the West consistently refuses to name its true enemy. I mean the Muslim Brotherhood, which created Hamas, along with those other barbarians at the gates. On September 12, 2001, after all, we declared a war on “terror”. But terror is a tactic, not an ideology. In later years, as the enemy started to strike us at home in Western towns and cities, we called it “violent extremism” and lumped it together with fascism and other forms of homegrown zealotry.
This happened first, and most importantly, because the enemy told us it was fighting in the name of Islam, and we refused and still refuse, categorically, to wage war on one of the world’s great faiths. Second, we thought we could use our vast military and intelligence resources to weaken and destroy the enemy without being trapped into starting a war with a fifth of humanity. We failed to understand the difference between Islam and Islamism — between Muslims and the Muslim Brotherhood.
By failing to name Islamism as our enemy, we allowed it to prosper. Consider, for instance, what happened in Afghanistan. After 20 years of fighting that enemy without a name, spending trillions of dollars and wasting thousands of lives, we abandoned the country to the Islamist thugs of the Taliban. It was one of the most disgraceful retreats in American history, cloaked by shabby political expediency. We looked away as the Islamists catapulted Afghan women and minorities back to another Dark Age.
There have been other consequences too, often much closer to home. As we remained silent, the Muslim Brotherhood and its many offshoots quietly entrenched themselves across Western cities, from Australian universities to Manchester suburbs. Enabling them to build mosques and take over schools, moreover, our silence has allowed them to proclaim themselves as spokespeople for every Muslim in the West.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeMan, the irony of using Saudi Arabia as a model to follow is laughable. Has the author heard of something called the Sharia-law ? Honestly, the intellectual rigour on this website is becoming increasingly laughable. News outlets such as Fox News or GB News are quite forthright about their ideological and political alignements. Yet, here, authors are allowed to masquerade colonial ideology under the premise of some objective analysis. Grim
How is this story “colonial ideology”?
We looked away as the Islamists catapulted Afghan women and minorities back to another Dark Age.
What does this have to do with colonial ideology?
Man, you’ve just made a right idiot of yourself. Look up one of the author’s books, such as Infidel.
If you had the slightest clue what you were talking about, you wouldn’t be making moronic points like “Has the author heard of something called the Sharia-law”.
Man, the author is on the record as a massive critic of Saudi Arabia.
Whatever you think of her views, she grew up amidst political islam, and having emerged out of it, knows its contours better than just about anyone.
Has the author heard of something called the Sharia-law ?
How ignorant you appear. You condemned the writer without knowing anything about her.
Another great contribution from Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Getting quickly to the point about Islamism and its insidious attempts to overthrow Western civilisation – aided and abetted it would seem by many on the Left whose instincts may primarily be anti-capitalist – the article cuts through to the core in a way which other articles fail to do, including others published here today.
The problem is, that she’s been articulating this message for quite some time now. Whilst based upon her own experiences and courageous advocacy of Western values and in particular the removal of basic rights for women under Islamism, greater impact is needed. Where will it come from, and when, as we continue to struggle with vapid and craven political leadership?
Wonderful piece! I think though we need to go one step further in analyzing the Wests failure in Iraq and Afghanistan: Rather than saying we simply tried and failed to instill liberal democracy, this ideology actually guaranteed both nations would become failed states taken over by militant gangs. Instilling liberal democracy in Afghanistan was just as dumb as trying to make it Marxist-Leninist: Another Western ideology imported to a place where it has never existed.
Observe every single Middle Eastern nation that has made peace with Israel– They have done this in spite of what the people want, not from democratic choice. They are all run by Monarchs (or the Egyptian Army) because Monarchs can do what’s best and not what the rabble demand.
The Saudis were able to expel the MB because they are not a democracy. The Egyptian Army was able to toss out their elected MB President because they aren’t going to allow their nation to be destroyed by preserving a Western political system. If we look at every Arab nation that isn’t being co-opted by Persian funded gangs we see the same: Absolute Monarchy.
Israel needs a strong Lebanon and Palestine in order to be secure. The only system that makes Arab nations strong enough to enforce peace are Absolute Monarchies.
Naturally, our foreign policy “experts” have no clue.
Tbf we don’t really know what the people in these countries want. It’s a mistake to assume – as we did in the early days of the war in Ukraine – that autocracies are impervious to public opinion. Probably most Arabs are as sick of the Islamists as everyone else.
But when you are in a rut …
Interesting comment. What it means is co-existence with systems of rule we may not agree with.
Karl Popper has noted something similar previously – nineteenth century Austria was so successful because it was a monarchy. The republics feared it’s success and this led eventually to the first world war.
And it’s worth adding, the European nations that progressed from feudalism and religious bigotry to more modern, egalitarian states around the late 18th centuries – were also monarchies.
Of course, democracy is better. But not at guarding against mob based despotism and fundamentalism, as you so accurately point out is the case for middle eastern countries today.
Western monarchies have democracies, underneath.
Venezuela is a current example of “mob based despotism” installed with democratic mechanisms that were corrupted. I can’t think of a more glaring example of the risks inherent in relying on democratic processes as a cure-all for despotism.
King or a strong executive, insulated from public opinion and the rule of the rabble.
Israel deserves our support because we are Israel.
You might be Tony, but I’m not
I don’t support Israel, and I don’t support their enemies
What do you support?
I support my own country and the Western World
I want Jews, Muslims, and other hostile foreigners to go away and leave me alone
How do you plan on making that happen?
Jews are not hostile foreigners. About half of them globally have lived in Western countries for over a thousand years.
Your first sentence makes you part of ‘my people Israel’….
So you’re lumping the Jews in your country with the guys who cut off a British soldier’s head within sight of the palace and then begged onlookers to record them holding up their bloody hands. When was the last time a Yid did that, or a Sikh, or…?
You’re doing exactly what AHA said not to do: not being specific about who’s doing the killing. 99% it’s the Islamic fanatics. Period
Read The Secret Apparatus: The Muslim Brotherhood’s Industry of Death by Cynthia Farahat
Jew are an intregal part if the western world.
That’s a luxury you can’t afford I’m afraid! Some of Israel’s actions are open for criticism of course, but they are on the frontline against an Islamist ideology that threatens the whole world and for that they deserve our support. Do you think our armed forces would have done any better if the war was being waged openly here?
Excellent. Thank you.
Yes I deeply agree. The start of my disillusion of the Left, which I had always trusted, was after 9/11 when Stop the War stopped being a peace movement and was taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood. It was blatant, obvious but among friends I was met with disbelief or silence. A familiar tactic experienced now by those with gender critical views. Silenced and bullied with manipulative accusations of being cast as right wing bigots, that most fearsome curse to those on the warm fuzzy progressive Left who most want to feel on the moral high ground, don’t we all, but surely not so naively? So blindly.
It must have been similar in the 17th century when dissent or challenge or autonomy from the church, especially by women, was silenced by accusations as being the work of the devil and people believed it. Religious zealots finding the vulnerable unthinking button to press.
I still can’t figure how the blatant HORRORS of a year ago so quickly turned to anti Semitism in the streets of the UK. How did they do that?
It needs fearless people on the Left to stand up against them. I can’t think of one who dares. Perhaps McSweeney will have an effect now he’s power behind the throne as he so detested the lily livered cowardice of the Labour Council of Rotherham, which allowed the abuse of young girls for so long just to protect themselves from the curse of being called right wing bigots or racists. Sickeningly stupid and so wrong.
Thanks for the article. Much needed.
The US invaded Afghanistan but made little effort to capture bin Laden. Why? In any case, the idea that the 9/11 project was directed (as opposed to supported) by a man in a cave in Afghanistan is ridiculous. The finance came from Saudi Arabia and so did most of the personnel. So why did the US invade Iraq and not Saudi Arabia? Any article that fails to acknowledge these facts and simply tries to move on has no credibility, whatever personal suffering the author has had at the hands of Islamists.
Direction and finance are two different things. Did you artfully ask “why did the US invade Iraq” instead of Afghanistan when in fact it was in Afghanistan Bin Laden hid? Iraq was a stupid move. But it has little to do with Bin Laden. Your comment makes very little sense. Your so called “facts” are nonsense.
Chris you need to do some research into the “dancing Israelis”
It’s key to understanding 9/11
This discussion is where UnHerd fails badly – it only allows one view. The censors only approve on one side of the argument and the members just shout and scream like old little boys – which is what they are.
I support the writer of the essay ( despite the fact that her biography makes her more than biased) but the young people of the world don’t approve. The young people see things in another way – hence the marches of ten of thousands of mainly youngsters in the capitals of the world. Where were the tens of thousands supporting Israel? Probably sitting at home watching because they were too old? The Left seem to support Islam. Is the Left insignificant and beyond speech). Does the Right come out and shout things at the Left in opposition?
There is a problem. You can’t solve it by indefinite military escalation. You can’t solve it by marching forever in London. You can’t solve it by sitting at home shouting. You can’t solve it by paying the censors of UnHerd to edit out anything from the other side. Time for free speech – starting with UnHerd and then carrying over into the general population.
This discussion is where UnHerd fails badly – it only allows one view.
Yes, it’s Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s view, And you presumably have yours. That’s what free speech is. Where’s the problem?
My problem is that IF I said something like ‘Islam is great and I want the world to be united under the one religion’ – that view would not be allowed.
My problem is that politicians are frightened to say some things; newspapers are frightened of losing advertising if people are offended by their views. People in general are frightened because of hate crime legislation. We are a country living in fear and – at the moment – there is no reason for that. Why should we live in fear?
My pet hate, the Mayor of London, can say anything at all about his enemies because he is supported by the Muslim communities but the newspapers can’t say that about him. Over the weekend I tried many times to join the debate on UnHerd but the censors kept taking everything out. What is the point of Free Speech which is censored?
I doubt you’ve been censored here, you’re not that important. Maybe just ease up on the victimhood a little.
Victimhood, it is not. I pay for contributing and if I’m not allowed to contribute the service should be free.
Answer me one question – just an example. If I say that I totally support Israel or I totally support Iran, neither of them can be ‘hate speech’? Think about it.
It might be interesting for you to think about what your saying. I didn’t say anything about hate speech. So maybe your venting at the wrong person.
There’s Free Speech and there’s Hate Speech. You must have crossed that line CW and Unherd not exempt from the law.
As regards your ‘pet’ hate, I guess that sums it up.
Khan is a common pet hate.
My problem is that IF I said something like ‘Islam is great and I want the world to be united under the one religion’ – that view would not be allowed.
And yet there it is.
My problem is that my answer to you has not appeared in the comments.
The problem is her track record of making things up – that’s why she had to resign as a Dutch MP.
What does that have to do with the comments?
We looked away as the Islamists catapulted Afghan women and minorities back to another Dark Age.
That is horrific and I do feel very sorry for Afghan women – but what we in the West need to do is stop thinking we can save the whole world from the scourge of Islamism. Therefore, the ruling of the ECJ last week that Afghan women are entitled to asylum simply due to their gender and nationality seemed morally right but at the same time like the rat’s tail of a political age of Western domination and intervention currently moving from the present into the past.
What the West needs to place its focus on is protecting itself and in that respect we need to become “more Saudi” (for want of a more intellectual-sounding expression).
Yes, I agree. Who will lead the way?
You may be right and what you might mean is just “harden up”.
My answer to you has not appeared. Censorship again.
So if an Afghan woman somehow gets here, you’re sending them back well aware of what that might mean for them? Tougher call isn’t it.
I’d focus more on the aspects of the judgment which encourages Afghan women to put themselves in the hands of violent, abusive smugglers in order to get to Europe before we even get to the assessment of their claim. Not to mention that they would have the right to bring (potentially abusive) family members to Europe is the claim is successful, which would contradict the entire rationale of the judgment.
This case went to the ECJ from Austria actually and currently there are some very high level voices from the legal community (not at all far right to preempt you there) who say that the decision is a logical extension of the previous case law but that in view of the current circumstances in Europe, the ECJ really needs to think about whether this approach is still realistic and that there is a clear risk of the entire underlying framework losing trust and legitimacy among the populace.
Avoidance there KE. I asked you your decision not what the ECJ might do, (and we are not subject to the ECJ). I think the reason an Afghan woman might risk the ‘smugglers’ is to not is much worse for them and of course the smugglers marketing will be better than our alternative offering.
Take your point about you can’t then bring family. That could be the trade off. It may even be the residency here is temporary and if somehow the Taliban ejected then you may have to go back.
But fundamentally what do you do now if faced with the choice and you know what it probably means for the woman?
Maybe if they taught their little boys to be more civil and respectful but they obviously don’t do they.
Following this author´s argument, we should say that Islamist Hamas attacked not Israel but Zionism. There are apparently many Israelis and Palestinians who are fed up with the state of constant enmity (as indeed am I). Behind all the camouflage of intolerance and war, I see the wealthy hand of AIPAC, operating in Britain as well as in US. The USA is no longer the democracy that it once was, and UK is going the same way.
The challenge is to differentiate. Lumping all Muslims as Islamists too easy for some and then drives others into the arms of the likes of the Brotherhood.
Of course no better example than Ayaan herself of how western values influence personal change given the chance.
“Speaking at Kanal D TV’s Arena program, PM Erdogan, [now president of Turkey], commented on the term “moderate Islam”, often used in the West to describe AKP and said, ‘These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”Source: Milliyet, Turkey, August 21, 2007”
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/moderate-turkeys-moderate-pm-erdogan-explains-there-no-moderate-islam-andrew-c
Probably be same answer if one asked the Pope is there such a thing as moderate Christianity? And of course Erdogan a politician who seeks the votes of the less moderate.
Now I suspect, given your moniker NS, you possibly don’t have much experience working or socialising with folks from a Muslim background, and thus they all seem a little frightening to you? Let me tell you from experience vast majority like us, same desires, same interests, and increasingly most over time assimilate much more to Brit values than the reverse.
And how many murderous attacks on ‘unbelievers’ by Christians have we seen in the last 20 years?
We can’t go on like this forever. There needs to mutual respect of each-others
history. A 2 state solution. Hezbollah needs to disarm. Hamas needs to disarm. Then build a prosperous middle east.
In other words, someone needs to invent a magic wand that makes everything the opposite of what it is.
Two state “proposal”, two state “plan”; who said this is a “solution”?
Yes, just give everybody magic crystals and have them chant the right slogans and it’ll all work out.
As always – fantastic.
So true!
Why does it have to be binary? I despise Islamism deeply and I also hate what Israel has done and continues to do. If we support Israel as Ayaan suggests we are condoning the most awful acts of murder against innocent people. Through its actions Israel is stirring up long term hatred. And where do they go from there?
I frankly don’t think that there is really a ‘political Islam’. Islam is political, legal, militarist, cultural, all-embracing in fact, and everything about it is based on its religious dogma. ‘Islamism’ is Islam, the real deal Islam, the version preached and practised by its founder. Try finding a definition of an ‘Islamist’ which doesn’t include him. Every Muslim of every stripe signs up to the Quran, and to its prophet as the model for mankind. Of course, the texts are capable of an infinite variety of ‘interpretations’, but every one is believed in utter certainty by its followers. Hence the interminable conflicts. So-called ‘moderate’ Muslims are those who don’t actively do as they are instructed. Until forced to or are called upon, as was the case with Khomeini’s fatwa. Every ‘relaxed’ period in Islamic rule or belief, from its very earliest days, has been overthrown by fundamentalists forcing a return to ‘purity’. Name the enemy? Islam.
Very well stated. Fully agree. An interesting way forward was proposed by Ali A. Rizvi in his 2016 book, “The Atheist Muslim: A Journey from Religion to Reason”, but his ideas seem to have attracted scant attention, despite encouraging reviews.
The question is whether Islam can be reformed if it is tied to the personality cult of its Prophet and cannot countenance any change to its holy book – remember the Satanic Verses. Of course we know that the Qur’an and Hadith were composed, probably by committees, long after the death of Muhammad, but can one persuade the average Muslim believer of that, any more than persuade a Christian fundamentalist that the Earth was not created in six days?
Clear, hard-hitting and reasoned. And by someone who has skin in the game.
A welcome reprieve from the Unherd habit of being overly indulgent of pseudo-opinion me me me writers.
Excellent analysis, but you have ommitted to identify an important factor in the successes of Islamism – and that is the tacit approval of Muslim communities in Western countries. Clearly they are unable or unwilling to limit the reach of Islamism into the hearts of their own youth, many of whom embrace the cause of Hamas/Hezbollah/Houthis as witnessed by their participation in mass marches in London for more than a year celebrating the massacre of 1200 Israeli men, women and children. As you warn, they may also celebrate the mass murder of other non-Muslims in the West under the inspiration of Isalmism.
It’s all talk, as the song goes. That’s all religion is really. The Jews talk to themselves. The Christians speak in tongues. The Muslims recite with one voice. Each sought to upstage the one before, be more universal in its claims, and more aggressive in its conquests. Okay, it’s not quite so simple. We can credit the Jews for producing more than their fair share of intellectuals, the mediaeval Muslim scholars for not imposing doctrine on Nature other than human nature, and the Christians for paving the way for Humanism and the Enlightenment according to some readings.
The elephant in the room is religion itself. Practically, it cannot be silenced and maybe it ought not to be. It may literally be nonsense, but David Hume showed one cannot derive ‘ought’ from ‘is’. How to accommodate it in a liberal secular democratic society?
Richard Dawkins and (nearly) the author of this essay have embraced ‘Cultural Christianity’ as a kind of Christianity minus God. I suppose it is what we do anyway, minus God and foreign adventures like Iraq, and minus personality cults including of a Jesus who bears no relation to any historical person. Islam is inherently incompatible with democracy and human nature. Read what the Qur’an says about infidels, albeit defensively, and about women. Its claim to speak for ‘God’ without error flies in the face of every intellectual insight since the time of the ancient Greeks.
It has to be about ideology not individuals. Nigerian journalist Tomiwa Owolade wrote in the Times, 5 August 2024: “Anyone who uses the actions and beliefs of jihadists and their fellow travellers to denounce Muslims undermines any claim to moral rectitude. It is also the case though, that terms such as Islamophobia have been exploited all too often to obscure any scrutiny of a belief system that is anathema to the values of liberal democracy. Islamism should be denounced because we want a more inclusive and open society: it represents the very antithesis of these things.”
I am a member of a society that contains a number of special interest groups (SIGs). As secretary / editor of a SIG on Atheism and Secularism I try to inform members, air ideas and collate reactions and personal experiences. (Note: I do not refer to the National Secular Society of which I am also a member – and whose Annual Meeting is scheduled for 19 October in London.)
There is a view that without religion our culture loses moral impetus. I don’t think that has to be so. We can have (only) one Constitution, with many interacting parts that divide powers and purposes, ranging from Executive down to Pressure Groups, and a rational universalist framework of Ethics. Such an organic arrangement can never be static, but it must be both resilient and resistant to narrow sectional interests. Religion can be a personal choice and a moral regulator, but it must relinquish all power over persons, relationships and especially over education. I know it’s all talk. Elephant talk.
I don’t think it’s especially Christian to cheer on the massacre of civilians by a regime that has made the Iranian theocracy look calm and measured by comparison. No amount of hand wringing will ever convince me to support Netanyahu’s army of brainwashed thugs.
the Iranian theocracy look calm and measured by comparison.
Are you actually making approving noises about Iran? Did they not send 200 missiles into Israel in support of Hezbollah? Did they not drag women from the streets during a hijab crackdown? Was this tension not escalated by the murder and kidnapping of citizens by Hamas? You can’t support Netanyahu, then who and what will you support?
I admire Persia and Persian people. They love roses. They had the oldest civilization,the oldest garden in the world is in Persia. They have thousands of years of exquisite art
Jewish owned Hollywood gave us Mickey Mouse and Popeye. And now the mayor of Tel Aviv is having to admit their Iron Dome was a myth.
Jewish owned Hollywood
Your anti Semitism is showing. I have nothing against the people. What do you mean the Iron Dome is a myth?
It’s a mistake to sympathise with one side in a conflict simply on the grounds that it is less successful than the other. The only reason Iran and its proxies don’t inflict an October 7 style massacre on everyone in Israel (and the rest of us too, probably) is that it doesn’t have the capability.
Remind us again why you had to resign as a Dutch MP Ayaan.
And regarding your 9/11 and October 7th parallels – at no point did the New York emergency services use Apache helicopters and tanks to strafe and shell the survivors, so they’re not really that comparable.
I’m happy to name our enemy – it is chicken-hawk, Neoconservative war mongers like you and your new, credulous, chums.
Evidence please.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-07-07/ty-article-magazine/.premium/idf-ordered-hannibal-directive-on-october-7-to-prevent-hamas-taking-soldiers-captive/00000190-89a2-d776-a3b1-fdbe45520000
Here’s plenty – with a bit of historical context too. The Israeli regime’s supposed care for their hostages is entirely performative.
https://electronicintifada.net/content/how-israel-killed-hundreds-its-own-people-7-october/49216
Chilling. I was at first convinced you were doing a parody of a radical. Have mercy on all who seek to divide, condemn, and destroy. In Christ’s name, amen. (You just said a prayer. Wasn’t that easy? Let’s do more of it. Together.)
A D Kent is a well-known antisemite on this platform, so I would interpret with caution anything that emanates from ‘their’ posts relating to Israel and Jews.
How much are you getting paid to write this lol
Aayan is smart enough to know that Oct 7th was planned,funded and enabled by the CIA in order to create the undeniable pretext for Genocide under the guise of self defence. Just as the Holocaust.was funded and set in motion by wealthy Zionists. The reason we are not encouraged to study in depth post WW1/pre WW2 history. I have read a couple of her books,not many,but I see how the religion of Islam creates conflict in the human psyche,as can Christianity of course,but in my opinion world events are now being “manufactured” to steer whole populations to accept a particular point of view. It is not 1914 all over again,or 1939 so dont tell me that I should think it is.
Oct 7th was planned,funded and enabled by the CIA in order to create the undeniable pretext for Genocide
Cite evidence for this.
You forgot to blame the Jews.
You’re another antisemite, along with A D Kent, allowed to spew your conspiracy theories. The censors are strangely silent when it comes to this hatred but there’s nothing new about that.
Islamism is not driving the conflict we see out there. It’s the relentless agenda of colonisation and ethnic cleansing led by Netanyahu but driven by Israel’s far right ‘Judeaists.’ Religious extremism of a different kind. When we accord the right of self defence to a country, that does not extend to colonial expansion, ethnic or religious cleansing. As I would expect you would be happy to acknowledge.