A Fanatic with 'good intentions'

The New York Times published an interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali former-Muslim-turned-crusader, and unfortunately, it was a huge disappointment.

"Questions for Ayaan Hirsi Ali" was anything but, as the writer was too busy prompting her subject to expound on her experience with genital mutilation and the murder of Theo Van Goh to actually speak about anything substantive. It was a major let-down from a paper that usually sets a high bar for quality, and generally attempts fairness.

Ali is nearly as bad as those she criticizes, but she disguises her contempt with a veil of moral improvement. She has suffered so much at the hands of those who use their religion to justify violence, that she can no longer conceive of Islam as anything but violent. More frustratingly, she is cast as a feminist, even as she demonizes the choices of millions of women, labeling their devotion to Islam as oppression and assuming they too must be beaten. Her attitude is paternalistic and offensive, and it's a travesty that her voice is given the microphone in public discourse. I'm ashamed of the New York Times for promoting this one-sided rant as a legitimate interview. It's pieces like this that are a barrier to understanding, especially when underwritten by credible institutions who should know better.