Talk:Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Terrorists and Muslim religion
This implied criticism you have added appears specious. You can't assume deaths caused by terrorists is the same as deaths caused by the Islamic religion (say through sectarian violence).Ariel31459 (talk) 03:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't believe I'm even having this conversation, but for anyone who's remotely familiar with Ali let alone the current political climate, when she (or anyone critical of Islam) says Islam is responsible for murder, the meaning taken is most likely to be terrorists. James Earl Cash (talk) 04:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So you are saying you are just assuming something stupid? I don't mind if you look like an idiot, but these articles represent the wiki as a whole. Are we to look like fools here?Ariel31459 (talk) 13:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice you have already pointed out at problems in the section "Inverse stopped clock", I also write my objection to it. Summarizing, Ali spoke of a 70% figure of "bloodshed in the world" so an FBI report about "terrorist attacks in USA" does not confute such figure. This doesn't mean that the 70% is correct, I don't know, but surely the argument made by James is fallacious. If nobody comes up with an appropriate source disputing the 70% figure of bloodshed in the world, then the section "Inverse stopped clock" should be deleted. --Lankaster (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, when the majority of terror attacks in the strongest country in the world, when America was currently doing it's War on Terror, only amount to 10% by extremist Islam, then yeah, that throws a wrench in her claims. And lawl@Ariel claiming that anyone else looks stupid. James Earl Cash (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * make peace with logic. The claim is: "Islam, as a religion, is responsible for 70 percent of bloodshed in the world", hence, in order to confute it, you should provide data showing that "Islam, as a religion, is not responsible for 70 percent of bloodshed in the world", not data showing that "Islam, as a religion, is not responsible for 70 percent of the terrorist attacks in USA" --Lankaster (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I love it when dweebs like you try and claim that you're logical. James Earl Cash (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, you have not been able to make a better argument, the section can be deleted. --Lankaster (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * How about you drop your act and actually address my arguments instead of pontificating from the stool under your ass? James Earl Cash (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You have no argument, your FBI report simply does not address Ali's claim. Check Inverse stopped clock where also explains that. -Lankaster (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure it does, especially when the US had just endured 9/11 and was doing it's War on Terror. You don't have to thoroughly debunk every part of an argument, if something seems fishy, then that's enough reason to cast doubt. You're doing some weird gish gallop thing akin to how juries will let off murderers even with all the evidence mounted against them on the basis of "reasonable doubt." James Earl Cash (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Uh, dude, reasonable doubt is a good thing, and if more juries actually took it into account, we'd probably have fewer innocent black men rotting in prison for decades. Anyway, my point was also that you want to have a more ironclad source/argument due to the sensitive nature of this topic. It doesn't make sense to leave doors open for bad-faith criticism when it's so simple to close them. 18:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Reasonable doubt can also be used as a weasel phrase when you don't have direct evidence that someone committed a crime, but everything else is screaming that something is up. As far as black guys getting the short end of the stick, I'd say that's more a problem of an extremely corrupt judicial system and police that are known to distort evidence. That is if the popo aren't shooting them dead for doing nothing to start with.


 * That being said, it's more prudent to identify her words for what they are, especially when made in a certain historical context, so even if you can't 100% label them as false, there's more than enough red flags to assume that something ain't right and say as such. James Earl Cash (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. And this is the last time I will address you in this thread. What you have done looks stupid.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Kay. James Earl Cash (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Inverse stopped clock
I don't know if the 70% figure is correct, anyway, Ayaan Hirsi Ali spoke of bloodshed in the world, so a FBI report about terrorism in USA does not confute anything. If a better argument is not proposed, then I think that the section should be deleted. --Lankaster (talk) 13:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. For this to be an effective refutation, the statistic needs to be about the world, not about the United States. On a touchy subject like this, it's always best to be as thorough as possible. 17:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * sure are a lot of nominally "christian" nations in the top of this list, and a lot of nominally Muslim nations towards the bottom, though ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Obviously there is a sentiment to condemn this person whenever possible. I don't object to mean things being said. I haven't the foggiest about the truth of the statement, and don't care much. I just would like folks to know we realize there may be a difference between group generated violence and so-called terrorist violence. Ariel31459 (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't know if it's true, and you stepped over my link that certainly suggested it isn't to make your own point that you think it's true regardless of the facts, because of some unspecified distinction between "group generated violence"(a term it seems you just made up) and "terrorism"? Huh?  What? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking at those kind of data might be a better start. If I had to bet, I would say that 70% is too high, simply because a lot of murders are not related to religions. --Lankaster (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean, it's "65% of statistics are made up on the spot" bullshit, and the attempt at a call-out made an unreasonable comparison. I get what the original version was going for, but it's not great at answer the actual charge.  But Ayaan is just totally full of it, and is could very reasonably be accused of being engaged in hate-speech with that claim.  It won't do to let that kind of thing slide.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't let it slide. But does it have to always be amateur hour?Ariel31459 (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, absolutely not. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Don't edit war over this. I have already pinged a moderator.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "But Ayaan is just totally full of it, and is could very reasonably be accused of being engaged in hate-speech with that claim. It won't do to let that kind of thing slide." A solution could be something like: "But the 70% figure cannot be true because most of the murders worldwide are not related to religions (reference to statistics showing data, if they exists, if it is true, which I guess)"  OK. -Lankaster (talk) 17:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Works, it needs work, but not as much as the status quo does. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, someone needs to put the bell on the cat, don't they? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 01:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Three users have agree that the FBI report does not confute Ali's claim, but you keep reverting. Learn to think, make a valid argument. The claim to confute is: "Islam, as a religion, is responsible for 70 percent of bloodshed in the world." so find information which show that "Islam, as a religion, is NOT responsible for 70 percent of bloodshed in the world.", or shut up. -Lankaster (talk) 09:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's like saying if someone accuses Obama that he's a prophet for the Illuminati/NWO, we need to find a source that says he's not that. Get a load of this guy amirite? The claim is laughable on it's face as is Ali's, again you don't need to address every claim in an argument, you just need to get to the heart of the matter. And while I'd normally be willing to cut the section out entirely, no way in hell I'm letting your asshole shit slide either. James Earl Cash (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ayaan's statement is ridiculous on its face, both in the totality of history and in terms of modern history, Islam has been tied to a lot of bloodshed, but nowhere close to 70%. Lankaster has a point though that citing terrorist attacks in the US is mostly irrelevant to her statement since most terrorist attacks, Muslim or otherwise, happen outside of America. Not to mention that since she was born in Somalia, has lived in a number of countries and traveled all over the world, it'd be really weird if she'd suddenly started suffering from America-is-the-whole-world syndrome. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "That's like saying if someone accuses Obama that he's a prophet for the Illuminati/NWO, we need to find a source that says he's not that." You are confusing "burden of proof" which, I agree, is on Ali and not on you, with giving a wrong refutation. Ali did not give evidences for her claim (and I would bet that her claim is indeed false) however your appeal to an FBI report on terrorist attacks in US still does not refute Ali's claim. It has been repeated many times that a 10% of terrorist attacks in US does not refute the claim of 70% of bloodshed caused by Islamic religion in the world. Four users agree on that (1, 2, 3, 4), plus reverted the page to the version without the FBI report after I made him notice the issue. But you keep ignoring everybody and putting back your version. For the nth times I have to ask moderators intervention., , , ,  -Lankaster (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe she's not completely wrong after all. In 2015 four Islamic extremist groups were responsible for 74% of all deaths from terrorism: ISIS, Boko Haram, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, according to the Global Terrorism Index 2016. And since James Earl proposes that religious bloodshed was intended to refer to terrorism, well... 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * @141.134.75.236 By the way, this is the original source of Ali's claim about 70%, since it was missing. -Lankaster (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "70% of all the bloodshed in the world today", said in the context of a book published in 2015. Hmm... 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, that Global Terrorism Index IS something we should be using and has far more clout to it. Still, I think we should include a caveat that 74% of all terrorism related deaths doesn't account for 70% of all bloodshed in the world, period. When I think of all the shit that developed nations have pulled, to say nothing of Russia's antics and the US casually pardoning it after Trump's election, then it's still a big claim to make even with the legit data that appears to support her. James Earl Cash (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a fair comment to make. But if the goal is to point out an instance where she's being an "inverse stopped clock", we can probably find more blatant statements she made, with criticisms that seem less like nitpicking. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "I think we should include a caveat that 74% of all terrorism related deaths doesn't account for 70% of all bloodshed in the world" So... when people were pointing out to you that 10% of terrorist attacks in US do not account for 70% of all bloodshed in the world, you disagreed strongly... but now you think that it should be explained that 74% of all terrorism related deaths doesn't account for 70% of all bloodshed in the world... you don't give a fuck about any data, you are just an ideologue, not even good at hiding it. -Lankaster (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh look, the whiny little conservashit is accusing others of being biased and motivated by ideology. Get a load of this guy. James Earl Cash (talk) 00:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Moderating
The consensus appears to be that we should not use US statistics as if they are representative of the world. I also agree with this. Her comment is incorrect, and appears to have been made up on the spot, but using statistics from a single country is a poor attempt at refutation, especially when 24% of the world's population are Muslim compared to 1% in the United States. The consensus is that this part should be removed: '''However, between 2002 and 2005, according to a FBI report, only 10% of the terrorist attacks were committed by radical Muslims, which is a little more than eye opening in an era just after 9/11 and when America had begun it's [sic] War on Terror, her unsourced statement and the random exaggerated number besides. Also, in 2015, toddlers killed more Americans than terrorists.''' This assumes she is talking about the United States (she said the "world"), terrorism specifically (she said "bloodshed") and also assumes statistics from 2002-2005 are relevant (she said "today" and her comment was in 2015). After a quick read of the source I also found no mention that 10% of terrorist attacks were committed by radical Muslims in the US (please correct me if I'm wrong).

The source for her comment also needs to be added (here is the video, quote begins at 0:38) with her quote in the reference: "I say it's not a religion of peace now because if, as a religion, you're responsible for 70% of all the bloodshed in the world today then you possibly cannot be a religion of peace but it could become a religion of peace if we make some changes." It's worth noting that we have cited the 2016 Global Terrorism Index and Ayaan Hirsi Ali's comments were made in March 2015. Even if we assume she misspoke by saying "bloodshed" and meant "terrorism-related deaths", it is still impossible that this is what she was referring to with the 70% figure. CowHouse (talk) 05:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've done some searching, and I think I have some good worldwide debunking material. 06:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added it all. If anybody has a problem with what I've written, please ping me on this talkpage. 08:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Very good. I just wish to say that I would like these things to be easier... instead of having to call moderators each time. Anyway, as a last note, during the FoxNews interview Ayaan Hirsi Ali was speaking about her book "Heretic", so maybe it is worth checking if in the book the 70% figure is somehow justified. -Lankaster (talk) 09:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I checked Ali's book "Heretic", and I did not find the 70% figure. However, I looked at the "Global Terrorism Index Report 2014", which was released in November 2014 before Ali's claim on Foxnews, and I found that "The majority of claimed deaths from terrorist attacks, 66 per cent in 2013, are claimed by only four terrorist organisations; ISIL, Boko Haram, the Taliban and al-Qa’ida and its affiliates. Variations of religious ideologies based on extreme interpretations of Wahhabi Islam are the key commonality for all four groups." Moreover, from the data of pages 49-50, one can deduce that the jihadist terrorist group is responsible for at least another 4.7% (from page 50, the 66% of the deaths is 8585+8763+3440+3111=23899, so the total number of deaths is 36210; from page 49, comparing Al-Shabaab and ISIL one gets that Al-Shabaab is responsible for at least 1730 deaths; finally 1730/36210=4.7%). I added these things to the section "Statement on Islamic bloodshed" to make clear how Ali could have come to the 70% figure and that this is plausible only if referring to terrorists attacks in a certain way. Let me know your opinions. -Lankaster (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That is a whole lot of speculation and you are giving too much effort to justify some random assed statement made on fucking Fox News. Moreover I take issue with your inflammatory language when the section is made solely to debunk her Islamophobia. James Earl Cash (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "That is a whole lot of speculation" The only speculation is "It might be that Ayaan Hirsi Ali was actually thinking more specifically about terrorist attacks perpetrated by Islamic extremist organizations", the rest of the section is well supported by data.
 * "you are giving too much effort" There's no rule that prevent me to dedicate as much time and effort as a like to write on RW, this is really not an argument.
 * "statement made on fucking Fox News" The section address Ali's 70% statement, it doesn't matter if she said it on Fox News, on another network, or shouting from her own window.
 * "I take issue with your inflammatory language" Please point to the parts of what I wrote that you consider inflammatory language. -Lankaster (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Apparently anything that doesn't debunk Ayaan's statement is "inflammatory". *shrugs* 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1. Right, and that's the whole reason for including the damn thing to begin with. If your main reason for including it is speculation, then yeah, we have a serious problem. Almost as legit as whenever Glenn Beck says he's just asking questions.
 * 2. No, we don't have to devote much time to take garbage seriously, especially and especially when it's only just speculation. You open up the door to all kinds of conspiracy theory thinking that way.
 * 3. Fox News is inherently awful. Anything they say and peddle can't be trusted and doesn't deserve the time of day. Her statement being a completely random figure that we don't even know comes from having read the report makes it even more dubious.
 * 4. You already admitted you share views similar to Sam Harris, and in a section devoted to debunking her statement, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that saying these terror groups all being Islamic in common looks inflammatory in the section you're putting it in. This is literally legitimizing hate rhetoric. James Earl Cash (talk) 23:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "saying these terror groups all being Islamic in common looks inflammatory" So saying the true looks inflammatory. I don't really know how to reasonably arguing with that... If 141.134.75.236 is interested he can continue, I give up. -Lankaster (talk) 10:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure it's inflammatory. It's like JAQing off about black guys being criminals, which, oh that's right, is something you have actually fucking done, nevermind that the whole point of the section is to dispute what she's saying, the poor style choice of putting your input in after everything that's been said in the section notwithstanding. I seriously can't believe anyone is willing to entertain your notions with an uncritical eye after that, and that's not even getting into how you started on this site. James Earl Cash (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I protected the page for one hour. Do not edit war,, 141.134.75.236, and , especially James Earl Cash. 22:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Yo, can a mod add this link for me?
The section I added to this article not too long ago contains a reference to the Iran-Iraq War. I was going to link it to the article I recently created, but I've been locked out of this article by presumably a mod. Can someone add it for me? 19:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, kids. It's Duce again. With my added months of experience, I can say conclusively that if you want something done, sometimes you can only rely on yourself. 21:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sad truth. 21:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Article Rewrite
This article needs to be rewritten. It reads like the you tube comments from an Islam apologist on an Ayaan Hirsi Ali video. The writer obviously hates Ayaan and represents all of her life in the most unfavorable interpretations possible. I get the distinct impression that the author holds Islam and Muslims in general as particularly sacred or in need of special protection against criticism. The wording and talking points used by the author are identical to ones used by her worst critics.

Quite frankly, this article is a disgrace to Rational Wiki, and I think it should be rewritten entirely. Compare this article to the one written about Linda Sarsour and I think you will find that religious apologists have infiltrated Rational Wiki, and are using it to spread their agenda. If you care about Rational Wiki being objective and reasonable, you should flag this article for a complete rewrite.
 * --Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately for yourself, RationalWiki does not care about being objective and reasonable. Please see the point of view from the Community Standards page.--Castaigne2 (talk) 02:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I would say, Unfortunately for RationalWiki... Thanks for the link. Now I know not to bother with this site.

A Dutch Documentary on Ayaan's history of Lies
https://youtu.be/Z82C10myBmM This would be a great video to add to the article if there is someone who is interested in using it as a source. 47.145.115.178 (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Have you read the comments below this video? Most of the commenters came away with a positive impression of her. Why do we care if she lied to escape her bad situation? I don't get it.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)