Kamila Shamsie and Christopher Hitchens
Oh look, the poster-boy of those fighting ‘Islamofascism’, Christopher Hitchens, has turned up to support his mate: ‘Martin Amis is no racist’. Of course, he’s not going to convince anyone other than those liberals feeling a bit guilty of supporting Amis earlier. Phew! Now that Hitchens has also confirmed that Martin Amis isn’t racist we can all enjoy ourselves again and not feel guilty. I mean, some of our best friends…
Kamila Shamsie, writing on the Guardian books blog, nails it. And why do I keep coming back to Amis again? Because, as I said yesterday on CIF, “the intentional demonisation of Muslims has become legitimate discourse.” I also said the likes of Amis and the Evening Standard are doing the terrorists work for them but for some reason they took that sentence out.
| Post to del.icio.us |
Filed in: Current affairs, Religion
Christopher Hitchens really sickens me, and thus I will not read his article. But I do not agree with Bennett. Amis is no doubt an islamophobe, but to say that this is ‘racism’, it is really minimising racism, and curbing a debate that we need in this country about alienation, radicalisation of some of our communities.
What is so odious about racism is that it is solely based on physical appearance, not on your beliefs. Islamophobes come in all colours, the fact that he is white, and not a brown hindu or a semitic jewish person, who might share the same paranoia, does not automatically make him a racist.
Being an islamophobe is bad enough, Bennet tries to sensationalise it and call it “racist”. I wonder if that is because islamophobe is not a bad word anymore. There is another point: the mark of a racist is that he or she does not distiguish between a brown muslim from a brown hindu.
If there’s a racist here Sunny it’s you: would you call Ayaan Hirst Ali a racist? No. Yet her criticism of Islam is just as extreme. Therefore you are calling Amis a racist purely because of his race. You are a racist.
Therefore you are calling Amis a racist purely because of his race.
Is that meant to be an argument? *yawn*
would you call Ayaan Hirst Ali a racist?
you think brown or black people can’t be racist? Of course they can. Make your mind up! Stop wasting my time with idiotic arguments.
From Indigo Jo on Hitchens’ lack of knowledge and nuance:
http://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/mt.php/2007/11/21/a_big_gun_fires_blanks_for_ami
So Ayaan Hirst Ali is a racist? This is the logic of YOUR argument.
You just cannot (will not?) accept that his criticism of Islamism is based on the ideology not the race.
You seek to close down the argument by equating it with race. Racism is commonly defined as being the belief that members of one race are intrinsically superior or inferior to members of other races. Amis is clearly not saying this.
Islam is no more a religion of ethnic minorities in the UK than Christianity is in the UK. Yet no one would claim that an attack on Christianity was an attack on people of West Indian or African desent.
No matter how often annd loudly you continue to say it (which is the idea isn’t it – to win by attrition if not argument and press home the point that if you want to be a full member of the “left” you have to accept this piece of double-think) you and the Ronans of this world will still be wrong. As thankfully the more sensible Picklers have pointed out.
Omg you bring Ayaan Hirsi into this..she’s someone who lied to gain sympathy..and when found out ran away to america…as for her views..she’s about as generalistic as you can get…if you want to criticise do it properly..not like some right wing fascist. And yes I would say she is an islamaphobe..because she hasn’t managed to criticise anything but.
Whatever you think of Hitchens, he asks a fair question:
Does he think Muslims are a “race”, or not, and if not, how can he trade down from the already vague and dubious word “Islamophobia” to the toxic accusation of “racism” itself?
I would be very interested to see a calm and well-reasoned answer to that. Bennet’s vague mentioning of “identity” and “culture” won’t do; nor will his claim that most Muslims are brown, because the contrary isn’t true (and even if it were, it still wouldn’t be a valid argument for racism).
In order to equate “Islamophobia” with racism, you need to broaden the definition of racism to such an extent that you seriously weaken the power of the word. That is a bad thing.
To use the word as a rhetorical cudgel does not help clarify the discussion of Amis’s – or anyone’s – views on Islam or Muslims. It just necessitates defensive digressions such as this.
Until someone comes up with a reasonable response to Hitchens’ question, can I respectfully suggest the word you are looking for is “bigot”.
(It is interesting to note that Kamila Shamsie managed to “hit the nail” without once using the r-word.)
Hitchens points out that he had criticisms of Amis’s article too – something you’ve declined to mention.
Also, he accuses Eagleton and Bennett of indulging in a bit of simple-minded literalism – and your writing on this affair is rather making his point for him. In particular, I strongly take issue with this nonsense that just because unspecified ‘liberals’ don’t feel inclined to jump up and down and accuse Amis of racism, as you clearly do, they are in some way implicit in this alleged racism. Frankly, I rather hoped we’d left this rubbish behind in the eighties. Obviously not.
P.S.this was rather funny:
“Memo to the pickles: try not to criticize bigots by calling other people “inbreds”, ok?”
Quite.
Amis isn’t an islamophobe.
He thinks muslims actually believe what they say they believe and would like to practise it and doesn’t like the prospect at all. Fortunately, only a small percentage of muslims sctually do- I hope
I’m not going to argue here whether Martin Amis is a racist or not as I am not sure. What I will say and maybe warn against is this ‘white liberalism’, ie. ‘don’t offend the ethnics’ tourchy feeling.
During the anti-racists campaigns of the 80s, a lot of the left used to avoid criticising the black community in fear of offending them.
Dr Zaki Badawi, Principal of the Muslim College has said ‘But I think that non-Muslims are very unwise to comment on Islam, particularly a man like Martin Amis, a novelist, because he has not studied it. They should be a little more cautious. They should leave it to the specialists.’ Amis replied saying he has read parts of the Koran over the past 13 months and has reached an A-level standard of understanding. So damn if you do.
I’ve been part of the Stop the War coalition ever since it was launched and believe marching against the Iraq war was right. But at the same time I get very annoyed at the bulk of the liberal left for not raising issue as Amis has done for fear of causing offence.
Yes, Amis is provocative, that’s what makes him interesting, as are some commentators on this blog, but to go that step further and call people racist is a tad premature just because they said something provocative or offensive, like ‘There’s a definite urge – don’t you have it? to say to the Muslim community etc.’
If he had said of the Sikh community to get their ‘house in order’ after some of them had stormed the stage at the Birmingham Rep to stop Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti’s play Behziti I would not have regarding him as a racist. We must all learn to be offended.
DavidMWW, I’ll come back to your point. Happy to answer it.
So Ayaan Hirst Ali is a racist? This is the logic of YOUR argument.
I said brown/black people CAN be racist. What’s your point Boyo?
Shuggy: Hitchens points out that he had criticisms of Amis’s article too – something you’ve declined to mention.
Which are? I refer you to this:
http://crookedtimber.org/2007/11/21/standing-up-to-martin-amis-2/
Memo to the pickles: try not to criticize bigots by calling other people “inbreds”, ok?
Calling someone an inbred isn’t a racist term… I do it all the time with brown people.
“Calling someone an inbred isn’t a racist term… I do it all the time with brown people.”
I didn’t say it was – neither did Andrew Sullivan. What he means, I assume, is it’s difficult to claim the moral high-ground against bigotry when you take as a default position the view that people with whom you disagree are in some way mentally subnormal and/or genetically inferior.
“it’s difficult to claim the moral high-ground against bigotry when you take as a default position the view that people with whom you disagree are in some way mentally subnormal and/or genetically inferior.”…or incestuous. It may not be a racist insult, but it’s an irrelevant insult.
If dr Baradawi thinks some subjects should only be left to specialists, does that mean specialists shouldn’t speak on any other subject then?
Instead of insulting people, and engaging in childish tit for that, the wider question of relevance seems to me is how can you legitimately express criticism/thoughts on a particular ideology which is held/disseminated to a particular group whose identity has become so tied up with the ideology? Is criticism of a group’s beliefs a problem? Even if you are criticising the ‘wider’ group as a whole? Is that similar to racism? These are the real questions it seems to me. If you have criticism of a particular ideology, say communism, and you then wish to critique its implementation and how people react to said ideology, if you make comments on the formation of a wider group loyal to that agenda? Is that ‘racist’?
If it is, then the Right-wing/Left-wing divide – grouping on people based on political ideologies – should also be subject to similar issues. Anyone who insults ‘right-winger’s’ on the basis they don’t like the fact they conform to particular ideology X ( and both of these are very much subject to group dynamics in a very similar way to religious group identity and dynamics)
I think a large aspect of this is down to what people think of as ‘choice’ to belong to any particular group. So if people think well those guys didn’t have the choice to belong to that group, its unfair if they are lumped within that group. And that is a valid point to think along. the question – I would also say -is how you go about understanding, the group dynamics, and being able to be more ‘abstract’ in a critique, rather than personal. Though mind you, many people feel obliged by their wider ‘group’ to take offence. A group for me – is in any case, a social construct, an individual is different. There are many problems with such a social construct, that model for organising humans. Because I happen to think there are big problems with the nation-state model, that is hardly to say i think everyone who is a citizen of a nation-state – is a ‘problem’ thinker. Its more about individuals paying legitimacy to a problem that has wider sanction in the wider ‘group’ – and addressing those questions of legitimacy of a construct. particularly because often individual members don’t actually subscribe to the ‘wider’ viewpoint enshrined by the group, often this is done in such abstract ways, to make the pointing out of it, and a critique, difficult.
So similarly with the problems enshrined in Islam – (which has become a ‘group’ construct because people have accepted and institutionalised the message from originally one person ) – which are necessarily NO different to any other human problems obviously. However – many attitudes are enshrined and institutionalised in religion – and given that there are now many people who define as Muslims, and naturally as with any human/social construct, there is interpretation and disagreement as to what Islam actually is, therefore what Muslims are actually all about, however the general idea is that Muslims are all about following islam, whatever that particular model of islam is. Now if you want to bring up something that is problematic embedded in the particular model of islam, and the wider group say no you cant say anything about that, because then you are saying WE are bad, and that is racist, then that is effectively a very clever tactic. Person who wants to criticise may well be racist too, there’s no reason one can’t be both, but however, criticism of a particular group, for what are *assumed* to be beliefs they subscribe to, is hardly, a ‘racist’ thing in itself. (Of course, this is when going back to having to be alert to the reality of group dynamics and power within the group, is necessary.) I don’t hear anyone calling animal rights activists who slagged off the ‘country types’ who go fox hunting – racist. and why not? theoretically the same could apply. the term “liberal lefty”, or ‘wishy-washy liberal’ is applied in many cases, as a pejorative term, to people who have identified themselves as forming a group around a particular set of political beliefs ( or often even to people who havent even organised themselves as such)
And what about references to “Communists”, and insulting/critiquing Das Kapital. Again, there are ways of expressing criticism, which are more offensive than others, but, clearly, in many cases, the fact that there is criticism, is offensive.
I suspect that if you are going to criticise a Muslim, because for the vast majority of people, they have had no ‘choice’ in choosing a faith, never mind that particular one, criticism is equated/seen to be equated to the simple existence of that person. And clearly that’s where the problem lies in all this debacle.
Ok, to answer the questions above, quickly, using examples.
The point here isn’t about who can criticise Islamic from a theological point of view, because I’m not fussed if people do that. I’m not even fussed if people criticise Muslim organisations, as I do frequently.
The point here is about deliberately demonising an entire sub-group of people, de-humanising and cursing them, because they happen to share a religion or background. That is xenophobia. Race is also a social construct, so actually it is as arbitary an excuse to criticise someone as religion is in many ways.
I’ve previously pointed out that, despite popular mis-conceptions and laws, Jews and Sikhs are not a race either.
We identify anti-semitism as an exercise not in criticising Judaism, but because it is designed to de-humanise and curse an entire group of people who only share a religion (and sometimes culture). There is as much racial diversity with Jews as there is with Muslims, so why is anti-semitism an issue and not Islamophobia?
Both are valid problems if bigots use Islam or Judaism as a marker to make generalised criticisms that are intent on stirring up hatred or violence.
If Martin Amis wants to have a theological discussion, let him go ahead, I havem’t got a problem with that. If he wants to have a pop at the MCB – go ahead. He claims his truck is with religious nuts but his quotes betray otherwise.
Here, he is after the whole ‘community’ of people, no exceptions. If they look brown or Arab then they’re suspects. How convenient.
Here is more, as Bennett points out. He’s worried about being overrun by non-white people. The ‘Muslim male’ as a whole is a problem… etc etc.
If that donkey started making such generalisations about Sikhs, based on some half-assed reading of the Guru Granth Sahib, I’d be just as angry.
And expert he isn’t, one only has to read his stupid letter to Yasmin Alibhai-Brown explaining how the Shias were great and all that and it was the Sunnis who were the problem. Again, it’s a childish attempt at
i would say overall martin amis’s comments were silly and problematic because they didn’t take into account how groups really are and power dynamics. Not becasuse there isn’t some wider problem to point to. And the stuff about muslims getting their house in order and suffering till then – was silly of course, but no different to imposing sanctions on an entire people because of some troublemakers within. And there is a big problem with imposing sanctions, because other people suffer than the ones you want to make suffer. but the wider problem is it just treats a group monolithically.
and treating groups monolithically is a problem that runs throughout everything we do, throughout the idea of democracy and representation, and is problematic, much more so than just referrring to it as ‘racism’.
Sunny – you’re not addressing Hitchens’ point, which was that Eagleton and Bennett were being far too literally-minded. Amis himself had this to say:
“Terry Eagleton inhabits a parallel universe of groaning and blundering factoids. His Comment piece of October 10 (Rebuking obnoxious views is not just a personality kink) begins: “In an essay called The Age of Horrorism … the novelist Martin Amis advocated a deliberate programme of harassing the Muslim community in Britain.”
The essay, which was published over a year ago, contains none of the sentences that Eagleton goes on to quote. The “vile views” he instances come from a newspaper interview I gave in the summer of 2006, a day or two after the exposure of the plot to blow up 10 transatlantic commercial jets. And my remarks were preceded by the following: “What can we do to raise the price of them doing this? There’s a definite urge – don’t you have it? – to say … [etc, etc].”
I was not “advocating” anything. I was conversationally describing an urge – an urge that soon wore off. And I hereby declare that “harassing the Muslim community in Britain” would be neither moral nor efficacious. Professor Eagleton is making a habit of this kind of thing. A marooned ideologue, he has submitted to an unworthy combination of venom and sloth. Can I ask him, in a collegial spirit, to shut up about it?”
You may or may not find this persuasive but that isn’t the point. If I could get back to what you originally said about this, which was that you seemed to be agreeing with Bennett that there is some kind of liberal “we” that are in someway collectively shamed because “we” failed to denounce this as racism. This is pretty ridiculous, when you think about it.
You can dislike someone’s beliefs without disliking them, or de-humanising them. It depends perhaps on what language you use.
You can be prejudiced towards someone because you think they believe x y or z, when possibly they don’t actually, as an individual do so.
All of this goes back to the wider problem of generalisation. So its a wider problem than just ‘racism’. Perhaps for you Sunny racism encapsulates all that is wrong with the human race in terms of our prejudices, but the way i see it, it is only a small sub-set, there are other -isms which contain exactly the same sort of de-humanisations, but of course, racism is what we seem to have agreed is the Big problem. Rather than wider forms of exactly the same discrimination.
–
Can we define Islamophobia please, lots of people use it in different ways. As far as i can see, its pretty much the same as the fear people have towards ‘british whites’ as a block..oooh! they’re all imperialists.
Interestingly of course, if you can’t criticise Empire without ‘British’ people feeling upset, that – is to my mind, the same thing about not being able to criticise Islamic Empire and ( very similar issues to British Empire, subjugation, colonialism etc.)without upsetting Muslims.
because muslims are considered to be the ‘underdogs’ now and are a minority in this country and other countries, one isn’t allowed to hark back to the history of Islamic empire, and its problems, when some Muslims were in power. ( and oppressing many of those who later became the ancestors of current day muslims) ooh dont things get confusing when minorities are involved. i think i should go back to a muslim majority country where raising the issues of our dodgy imperialist past and the oppression we suffered through – is much more of a legitimate “progressive” thing to do. i’m tired of not being able to say anything because of group boundaries.
I agree with the last few comments.
Sunny, think it would be useful to concentrate on Amis’ writing rather than their interpretations and critique by other writers. Nevertheless Amis is a maverick of an author and plays on provocation.
The comments about ‘The Muslim community will have to suffer until it gets its house in order’ was despicable to say the least even though he said he was talking about ‘an urge’ which soon warned off and 14 months later to say: “And I hereby declare that ‘harassing the Muslim community in Britain’ would be neither moral nor efficacious.”
Yes, that Yasmin letter was plain daft as I think he was referring to Sufism not Shias but nevertheless he has said of Muhammad in ‘The Age of Horrorism’ http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1868732,00.html
‘Let us make the position clear….Muhammad has strong claims to being the most extraordinary man who ever lived. And always a man, as he always maintained, and not a god. Naturally we respect Muhammad. But we do not respect Muhammad Atta.’
Its childish the way he goes about things, I know, but is it racist, ie. attacking a whole group because of their religion, which would be racist or just attacking Islamists like Muhammad Atta?
sonia, you are far too clever for this blog.
You should be part of a think tank or something.
Sunny: “There is as much racial diversity with Jews as there is with Muslims, so why is anti-semitism an issue and not Islamophobia?”
Because six million Jews were murdered regardless of their religion. The Nazis came for the rabbis, the communists and the Christian converts. They came for them because of their racial identity, regardless of their blood-type. In Italy, they even came for the Jews who were members of the fascist party.
“Race is also a social construct, so actually it is as arbitary an excuse to criticise someone as religion is in many ways.”
I’ve read this a couple of time and still don’t understand it, unless you mean that some people regard race as a social construct? Like yourself presumably. I don’t agree, but perhaps that explains why you argued why there could not be a white British race? Because you see it as a social, rather than racial idenitity? If so, I can see your point. However it also kind of undermines any argument about race. I mean, if it’s just a social/ cultural construct then had I been adopted by an Indian family that would make me “racially” Indian would it not? The whole evil and idiocy of racism is that it claims superiority/ inferiority of one type of human over another, regardless of their culture, is it not?
Sofia: “Omg you bring Ayaan Hirsi into this..she’s someone who lied to gain sympathy..and when found out ran away to america…” Just to illustrate my point. Have you actually read Infidel? I don’t disagree that her views can be blunt, but her story has value. And having read the book and her experience following the murder of Van Gogh, then perhaps you will understand why she “ran away” to America. I supect her real mistake was telling too truthful a biography.
Sofia: Defintiion of Islamophobia: fear of Islam. Possibly, fear of Muslims?
Sonia – 19 & 20 – Well put but
i think i should go back to a muslim majority country where raising the issues of our dodgy imperialist past and the oppression we suffered through – is much more of a legitimate “progressive” thing to do – does such a place exist?
Wahishi – The Wild One @ 22 . See what happens when you educate women !! they spot most bullshit straight away. We know it’s in their nature to find ‘faults’ and with education, there is just no stopping them.
“demonise the demonizers”
“let live the let livers”
“Down with damn yellow commie bastards”
I think its time for my medication again.
Justforfun
In response to never ending debates about whether UFOs exist, Arthur C. Clarke once called for a ‘period of begnign neglect.’ I’m thinking most of us would benefit something similar for Islamism.
By this I don’t mean that people shouldn’t go on condemning violence, discrimination against women and homosexuals, just that they shouldn’t be framed in a ‘post 9/11′ clash of civilisations framework.
I went to the Institute of Social Cohesion’s Islamism debate on Tuesday featuring Ayan Hirsi Ali and Ed Hussain : all very interesting but as neither speaker was typical of most Muslims I know(born into the faith and die in it even if they don’t practice at all) and most of the audience was non-Muslim and included quite a few right wing journalists with an axe to grind, (eg; one questioner was fearful that so called ’sharia compliant ‘ ethical funds somehow helped OBL by not buying shares in alcohol companies ) I’m not sure what purpose these types of debate serve.
And that’s a key point of differentiation for me if you want to accuse someone of being Islamaphoic/racist towards Muslims- there’s a difference between someone who says ‘all abrahamic faiths are outdated/bad’ and someone who says/makes out that ‘Islam is worse’
So I think Amis has gone a bit over the edge. Hitchens despite his support for Bush deserves much more benefit of the doubt given his track record in standing up for peoples who happen to be Muslim and that he is consistent in being antiall religion .
Rod Liddle, Julie Birchill types who profess some form of muscalar /liberal christianity on the other hand, just seem to have issues with brown people.
well Jff ive grown up in muslim majority countries so thats what i meant, of course there are people that will frown at you – the Authority – but its recognised by many that what we are trying to say is valuable, and that accusations of not being ‘islamic’ not fitting in, saying bad things about your group – etc. are all designed to ward off criticism. And overall – there is acknowledgement of the dangers of religion, and whilst clearly the Mullahs are very defensive, a lot of ordinary people don’t feel they have to be automatically defensive about it because its “theirs”.
asifb – good comparison heh.
Sorry to press the point – I know you have spent time in the KSA and Kuwait(?), so was wondering if you meant these countries, or Bangladesh or some where else, like perhaps Malaysia or some of the central Asian stans where one reads about Islam being questioned by more and more.
a lot of ordinary people don’t feel they have to be automatically defensive about it because its “theirs”. … these people.
Are we talking about conversations in ones home with or conversations out in the bazaar.
When travelling I’ve been too much of a coward to discuss religions with people out in the bazaar.
Justforfun
ES and hitchens aren’t doing the terrorists work for them. Thats according terrorists high strategic planning and denying the ES and hitchens native malevolence.
though tbh its a nice sounding sound bite. i wonder where you appropriated it from?
jff – that’s fine, keep asking. I have only been to the KSA once as a child, and i have never set foot in it again, despite living right next to it, and I have no intention of ever setting foot in it again – certainly not if i had anything to say about it. An abysmal place with no regard for basic human rights and a very good place to go to blow the myth of the global muslim ummah, heh. I urge all muslims to go there and see for themselves.
i was referring to Kuwait – where i had spent most of my growing up years- and Bangladesh, where i come from, have lived in for 2 full years, and visit regularly as my parents and most of my relatives live there.
(ooh dont even get me started on KSA!! GRR!!)
i was referring to conversations anywhere, and also the ‘national’ conversation, if you see what i mean. ( and yeah, if you dont know the place, then not having conversations about religion in the bazaar is a good idea!) perhaps i was really referring to the relevance of religion – or not – to what makes people feel distinct as a people/group. Bangladesh hence may be a funny example because the forming of the nation was framed very much around the Bengali identity, and getting away from an arbitrary invention -i.e. Pakistan, which was supposed to be a homeland for Muslims, but clearly, didn’t have that much relevance for people at that time.
clearly things are possibly changing now.
and possibly in Kuwait, the shadow of that awful place, the K of SA, the custodians of the two holy mosques, was always looming over us. also there, it was clear that though there were lots of muslims from all different places, and lots of non-muslims, and there was never really a feeling of ‘muslim’ solidarity, nope. much more along the lines of where are you from. indians and pakistanis and bangladeshis – muslim or not – were definitely ‘foreign’ (all referred to as hindiyas for the most part!) as were any muslims from other countries, there was a certain feeling of Arab solidarity to a certain extent, though of course with very distinct national identities, and then the idea of arab solidarity died on august 2nd 1990 for most kuwaitis. still, overall, in that country, which was full of mostly expats from the world over, in the end, divisions were really along class lines.
i read “G!D is not great” on holiday and whilst i enjoyed the splendidly splenetic invective, i came out of it at the end thinking: “this guy’s an idiot. he’s got no sense of proportion, he doesn’t check his facts and he is quite ignorant of those who are working within their own faiths against extremism and intolerance – in fact, he lumps us in with them.” i’ve got far more time for richard dawkins, at least he’s a proper scientist even if he does appear to suggest in “the G!D delusion” that my children should be taken away from me and educated by the state to prevent me abusing their tender young minds with religious indoctrination. you can see why trey parker and matt stone pointed out that “isms”, even if they’re robustly constructed by great minds, will almost always end up being bowdlerised and implemented by idiots. or, in 500 years, by sea otters riding ostriches, science be praised. in the long term, we’d all be better off if he stayed away from mrs garrison.
b’shalom
bananabrain
i forgot to say – the thing that really annoyed me about hitchens was his repeating the “hole in the sheet” myth as if it was actually true. that’s just unpardonably slanderous.
b’shalom
bananabrain
Sonia – I’ve never really travelled around Muslim majority countries, thanks be to Allah, however been through many muslim dominated provinces and states, but I fear my experiances are all out of date now – the world seems to have moved on. I kept quite about religions in all, the sub saharan African belt mainly – there was always a malevolance there about the Xtian south that clouded everything, but in Kashmir it was actually very open and free. Over a few drinks, by a fire high up in the hills, I had a great time chatting and discussing the ills of the world with travellers and bazaari folk. I still can’t reconcile what has happened to the place to the kind happy open people I met.
I suppose I’m just trying to gauge what ‘conversations’ are now possible, so was intrigued by your comment I’m planning a trip to the northern Stans in a couple of years time and not that I have any interest in religions anymore, perhaps I’ll just keep the conversation to ‘horses’ and such like.
Bananbrain – is there a reading list that I don’t know about? Do we actually have to read all this stuff your talking about. Do they write children’s books so I can scan through it quickly – I feel so left out. Holy Sheets sounds very Catholic. Is it?
Justforfun
AsifB
“Rod Liddle, Julie Birchill types who profess some form of muscalar /liberal christianity on the other hand, just seem to have issues with brown people.”
I don’t know about Rod Liddle but I can’t imagine it of Julie Burchill. Any evidence? Anything I’ve read of hers on the subject takes issue with the religion and its precepts rather than the colour of those most likely to follow it in the UK.
By the way I wish Amis would write stuff on subjects he knows from the inside, like language and literature, rather than subjects he has had to swat up on, like religion and politics.
KB Player – have a search for Burchill here, you’ll see her cute reference to ‘ragheads’
Shuggy, I see you’ve comprehensively failed to address what I said above.
Sunny – you’re not addressing Hitchens’ point, which was that Eagleton and Bennett were being far too literally-minded.
Is that another way of saying: “We must look at these phrases in context”? Sounds like the kind of thing the MCB would say.
Martin Amis did indeed declare after the whole controversy blew up and Eagleton pointed out the stupidity of his ways that “harassing Muslims” wasn’t a good idea.
But you singularly ignored the other quotes that Bennett has also dug up including: ”The impulse towards rational inquiry,” Amis wrote elsewhere, “is by now very weak in the rank and file of the Muslim male”
Tell me something, if that was said about the white male or the Jewish male, would you not find it a bit odd? A bit… racist maybe? I mean, he’s only being derogatory to about half a billion people…
Well as a mulsim male I have to confess to having no impulse for inquiry into the work of Martin Amis. Is that what he meant? The man is a highly acclaimed and highly regarded literary pigmy with a famous dad. Who said nepotism was dead?
bananabrain on Hitchens:
this guy’s an idiot. he’s got no sense of proportion, he doesn’t check his facts and he is quite ignorant of those who are working within their own faiths against extremism and intolerance – in fact, he lumps us in with them.
Exactly right. This seems to be the trap that most of the so-called muscular liberal poster-boys have fallen into. I guess the Fox-News line in political analysis is what puts food on their tables these days.
This is par for the course, though. Every time I read a piece of supposedly ’serious’ political journalism in this country, it always reads like an American book with the particulars changed. Evidently a lot of people are looking at the sort of book sales that Michael Moore, Ann Coulter, Al Franken et al have in the states and thinking “I’ll have a piece of that.”
The thing that annoyed me most about Amis’s piece was the context, which is what most people who objected to it are accused of ignoring. For him to parrot almost exactly the BNP’s opinions on Muslims, then say that it was just an “impulse” and he doesn’t really mean it is woefully disingenuous. If Amis wants praise for going into the dark corners of the collective imagination and saying the unsayable, he has to actually engage with what he finds and provide some sort of moral framework to it, rather than cop out with a glib intellectual equivalent of “Only kidding!” That makes him the real-life equivalent of an Internet troll, just doing it for the reaction.
This sort of thing is maddeningly endemic among self-appointed intellectuals now, though. Pick up a Michel Houellebeccq book or a Michael Haneke film and you’ll find the most jaundiced, misanthropic caricature of humanity imaginable, but rather than deal with it, the creators simply say “And that represents all of us – you deal with it.”
People like that want the freedom to think up repulsive and offensive things, but they seem to regard it as a personal insult when you point out to them that, having thought it up, they should then show some responsibility for it and acknowledge what it says about them, rather than fobbing it off onto the rest of society. Amis’s mistake was to try and apply this hackneyed old way of thinking to serious political debate rather than fiction; he’s never been a particularly original thinker, and that unoriginality may have just tripped him up.
“The Muslim community will have to suffer until it gets its house in order. What sort of suffering? Not let them travel. Deportation – further down the road. Curtailing of freedoms. Strip-searching people who look like they’re from the Middle East or from Pakistan … Discriminatory stuff, until it hurts the whole community and they start getting tough with their children.”
People keep forgetting that Amis did not say that he supported these policies, but that he and others are tempted to support these policies. We all have moments- which those of us who are not bigots try to control- when we want to blame all of a group for the crimes of a minority of that group.