Journalistic disapproval
The headline gets it wrong: ‘Amis launches scathing response to accusations of Islamophobia.’ No he doesn’t, he doesn’t mention the word, and neither does Yasmin Alibhai-Brown in the piece Martin Amis is responding to. Both of them talk more sensibly and precisely. Alibhai-Brown says ‘the Muslim-baiters and haters’ and Amis says ‘anti-Muslim measures.’ But no, we mustn’t use language in such a finicky careful way, we must use it sloppily, so that people will keep on getting the idea that dislike of Islam is exactly the same thing as mindlessly impartial hatred of Muslims. We must do it twice in the space of two sentences: ‘Martin Amis defended himself yesterday against allegations of Islamophobia.’ We must do our stupid little bit to make criticism of Islam more difficult and socially suspect.
Eagleton doesn’t seem to have gained a lot of fans though – that’s something. Philip Hensher seems to find him pretty thoroughly meritless.
We could be cruel, and point out that Marxists of Professor Eagleton’s stamp have to justify their existence in a way they didn’t when, for instance, I used to attend his lectures at Oxford in the early 1980s. Let us resist the temptation. We should probably treat them with the same respect and mild curiosity that we should of a man who still worshipped at the shrine of Woden.
But Richard Lea is still worried. He thinks Amis is not off the hook yet.
The novelist went on to “declare that ‘harassing the Muslim community in Britain’ would be neither moral nor efficacious”, but made no apology for making remarks describing an “urge” that the Muslim community should “suffer”, nor any attempt to respond to wider concerns over his views concerning Islamism
That final phrase is interesting. Wider concerns over his views concerning Islamism (oy, where was his editor? concerns concering? please) – what concerns would those be? What views concerning Islamism is Martin Amis supposed to have? What are the right-on okay acceptable views concerning Islamism? That it’s maybe a little brutal around the edges but you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs? That it’s not to everyone’s taste but then revolutions aren’t for the genteel? What? What views is it possible to have about Islamism other than fear and loathing?
Exactly. Anyone who isn’t ‘Islamism-phobic’ really isn’t paying attention.
It depends what you mean by Islamism. I would define it as Political Islam which is a very broad spectrum ranging from moderates like the current Turkish government (are we supposed to fear and loathe them?) to Al Qaeda.
Amis uses Islam and Islamism intercangeably. Watch how he slips from Islamists to all muslims in the world. His language is steeped in racist terminology. Who are the ‘we’ he talks about?
e.g. http://www.ginnydougary.co.uk/2006/09/
‘…the only thing the Islamists like about modernity is modern weapons. And they’re going to get better and better at that. They’re also gaining on us demographically at a huge rate. A quarter of humanity now and by 2025 they’ll be a third. Italy’s down to 1.1 child per woman. We’re just going to be outnumbered.’
@ resistor:
I think you make a good point about Amis’ use of language – I would tend to give him the benefit of the doubt and put it down to carelessness, but that might not be the case.
I think on the question of Islamism, if you are a secularist then you will fear any kind of political religion. I don’t know anything really about the current Turkish government, but I’ll just make the assumption that they want to legislate based at least in part on the Qur’an, Hadith and religious traditions in Islam. I do think that that is illegitimate and frightening.
Secondly, moderate compared to what? If you are comparing them against Al Qaeda then they may well still be very unsavoury. Bush’s government (while not explicitly theocratic) obviously takes inspiration from political Christianity. This has led directly to unjustifiable setbacks against abortion rights, gay rights and stem cell research, just off the top of my head. I don’t like that government or the things they do. They are also moderate compared to Al Qaeda, but they’re still terrifying and deserve to get attacked. Islamism might be broader than just Al Qaeda, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t deserve to be condemned in almost all situations.
I’m with Eagleton. Amis’s Nuremburg-esque pronouncements were not made about Islamists, but about Muslims. Nasty stuff, and Islamophobia in my book. Just because a phrase is often misused doesn’t mean it’s never apposite. See ‘anti-Semitism’, forex.
Still, it’s nice to know that Marty likes Yasmin becuause she’s a poetic Shia not a nasty Sunni. Bless.
See: http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2007/10/amis-straight.html
I’m torn. On the one hand I feel Norm is right. On the other Pootergeek says he is not. On the third (actually the first moved into a new position, I’m not a mutant or anything) I feel that Norm’s argument may be paternalistic and anti-open-society. And on the fourth even if Norm is wrong that doesn’t mean Amis can’t be wrong to either feel or phrase things the way he did.
What Norm *is* wrong about is his failure to engage with *Dawkins* as a fellow rational adult. e.g. in a post linked from the one above:
“Dawkins might like to call his new organization of atheists the ‘Association for Propagating Poisonous Myths'”
“Amis uses Islam and Islamism intercangeably. “
He does in this careless conversation. But most of are less precise in our language when we are talking. What he sid was immoderate and a bit stupid but then he was only describing an ‘urge’. The idea that certain unworthy thoughts and feelings should never be given voice is an illiberal one, even if it is expressed by the blessed Norm.
Chris, but how can being about Muslims be Islamophobia? Muslimophobia, yes, but that’s a different word. Sloppy journalists and others use the word as if it meant Muslimophobia, but it doesn’t, it means what it says, and the result of the sloppy conflation of the two is to (as it were) criminalize dislike of Islam. It’s a stealthy way of mandating Islamophilia, which ought not to be mandatory.
The word ‘Anti-semitism’ isn’t comparable, because Semitism is neither a religion nor a system of beliefs.
I think what Mart said in the interview was morally dubious, but I also think he’s admitted as much.
The linguistic issue raises a point perhaps worth discussing – why is it morally/politically ‘wrong’ to be afraid of something, to be ‘phobic’?
Fear is not hatred, but I can’t but think that it’s a very effective way to encourage hatred to tell people they aren’t allowed to voice their fears – or that their fears are a symptom of a fault within themselves. Especially given that the public faces of Islamism look on the West with much the same lupine gaze as the conquistadors looked on Mexico – or were the Aztecs just Christophobic?
I think the ‘phobic’ thing started with the coinage of homophobic, didn’t it? And there the word does seem to make sense – because the hatred is (often? sometimes?) mixed up with fear, and it is irrational (at least judging by people’s total inability to offer rational reasons for it). But, of course, it’s now been extended to other things, where it doesn’t work as well, or where it works all too well at doing something that shouldn’t be done.
dirigible, where does Pootergeek say Norm is not right? Is there a link, or is this personal communication?
Oh, I see where; it’s about Eagleton in general, not about the Amis fuss.
My existing dislike of Eagleton was intensified a good deal by his comment on the Rushdie knighthood. I’ll have to go find that now, because I’ve forgotten the details.
Well, Resistor, Eagleton uses Islam and Islamism interchangeably as well:-
“Eagleton’s central concern was that scarcely one British poet or novelist was willing to look beyond their fear of Islam to scrutinise the pressures which generate the hatred, anxiety, insecurity and sense of humiliation that breed religious fundamentalism. Global capitalism, he insists, requires a moral critique.”
http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/article3055841.ece
Fear of Islam should be “fear of Islamism”, surely. And it seems perfectly rational to fear that particular ideology. I mean you could equally write “the anti-Semitism, misogyny, certainty of your religion or culture’s superiority and desire for simple solutions that breed religious fundamentalism” i.e. something that come from within a group rather than trying to pin the blame on that vague external cause of all ills, “global capitalism”.
Global capitalism may require a moral critique but radical Islamism needs one as well and that’s something Eagleton seems to have been reluctant to do. He has omitted to speak of the ideology behind suicide bombing. In the Guardian article re Amis he said “Suicide bombers must be stopped forcibly in their tracks to protect the innocent..” Well, thanks for conceding that much then. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2187641,00.html But he then goes on to indicate that
“But there is something rather stomach-churning at the sight of those such as Amis and his political allies, champions of a civilisation that for centuries has wreaked untold carnage throughout the world, shrieking for illegal measures when they find themselves for the first time on the sticky end of the same treatment.” So the evil West deserves it. But not a word about the ideology
In none of the writings of his I’ve seen which touched upon suicide bombing does he mention the ideology behind it. It’s far cooller to be an Islamophobephobe than an anti radical Islamist. Eagleton would hate to say it’s a lousy ideology producing lousy actions as that’s what the likes of Bush & Blair say.
Check out these articles to see him in dodging the question mode:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329722235-103677,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1398445,00.html
Dare I question why anyone is giving great import to remarks made by Martin Amis??
Bit of a has-been lit-celeb, isn’t he?
Or has he won any particular elections while I’ve been asleep?
Sorry, but I’d give any pronouncements he made about the same weight as John Beyer and his ludicrous “Mediawatch”.
But that’s just me.
http://www.andyhgilmour.blogspot.com
Well, say what you will, there is some brilliant stuff in The Information. Lots of dreck too, to be sure, but all the same.
Anyway, I was giving import not so much to Mart as to the nonsense about Islamophobia and Islamism.
I think O.B is right about the term islamophobia being coined from homophobia, the real problem with this term is that it equates an irational predjudice (fear of homosexuals) with a completely rational fear of islam. What is even more troubling is that along with ludicrous acusations of racism (islam is not a race or ethnicity) it is being used with great efect to silence critisism of islam just at the time when close scrutiny is desperately needed, Amis said pretty much the same sort of thing that I hear from people of all backgrounds that I come into contact with are they all phobic racists?
Can I just cop to religionophobia and get it over with? I have nothing against Islam that I don’t also have against Christianity and most other religions traditions: Faith is a radically error-prone – indeed, error-promoting and error-propagating – method for determining what to believe and how to act. Anyone who isn’t afraid of faith either indulges in themselves or isn’t paying any bloody attention.
Of course, since the overwhelming majority of “people of faith” (and boy howdy doesn’t that happy little euphemism take on a different tone when I say it in this context) were raised/conditioned in it, I don’t particularly blame them. But I don’t trust ’em, either.
OB: I think the ‘phobic’ thing started with the coinage of homophobic, didn’t it?
It’s much older than that. I think it started with Anglophobia as a description of French and American fear and loathing of British imperialism. (Interesting bit of the link: researchers find similarities in Scottish attitudes to Muslims and the English.) Anyway it seems to me that the term is best applied to those who get hot and bothered about Eurabia, the Caliphate and all that – the whole “Melanie Phillips” thing.
Mere disapproval of Islam doesn’t count as Islamophobia in my book, but when I hear that they are breeding like rabbits and they won’t be content until they nuke Tel Aviv and impose sharia law on Spurs supporters, then I think we’ve got a right one here.
Amis seems to qualify, judging by the remarks quoted above. Hitchens also if PZ Myers is reporting accurately.
Fideophobia – there’s a useful new coinage.
Hey maybe that’s the handy new umbrella word for atheists, skeptics, secularists etc etc that people have been looking for. Much better than (ew) ‘Brights’! We’re fideophobes.
Kevin,
PZ Myers is not reporting accurately from what I have seen written by other attendees. Hitchens responded to the patently stupid statement that if you kill muslims there will not be fewer muslims. He was not apparently advocating the killing of muslims. I will try and find where I saw that and post a link.
Verbatim report of Hitchens here:
http://badgerherald.com/news/2007/10/15/hitchens_rails_on_re.php
Money quote:
Responding to a question from an audience member on what he said was the futility of killing Muslims in Iraq to end extremism, Hitchens parodied:
“‘How does killing them lessen their numbers?’ You must have meant something more intelligent. … We worry too much in America about our ‘right’ to be in Iraq.
“Make them worry. Make them run scared. … I’m going to fight these people and every other theocrat all the way. All the way. You should be ashamed sneering at the people guarding you as you sleep.”
My favorite quote though is:
“Religion abolishes our obligation to live in truth. … It caters to our worst sadomasochism,” Hitchens said. “We’d be better off without it, even if it preached morality, which it doesn’t.”
Go Hitch!
Thanks, R’ham.
From the bit quoted, it’s not clear if he meant Muslims or Islamists (or ‘jihadists’ or whatever) – but the latter looks more likely – especially given the ‘and every other theocrat.’
I think the claim about worrying too much about our right to be in Iraq is absurd, though.
K B Player, what’s the obsession with suicide bombing? Conventional bombing by the (genuinely) evil West has killed untold more. Just remember Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. How many have died in Lebanon during bombing raids from Israel? How many have died in Iraq from bombs dropped by American warplanes?
This article
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/29545/
asks
Why is the media not reporting crucial information about U.S. bombing runs in heavily-inhabited parts of Iraq?
Suicide bombers are genuinely amateurs in comparison – and at least they’re not repeat offenders.
As for Butterflies and Wheels pinup Christopher Hitchens, this site reveals his incitement to mass murder in the name of atheism
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/10/ffrf_recap.php
What makes Islamist suicide bombers particuarly horrible to me is the crazed ideology behind it. The other night I saw the Cult of the Suicide Bomber where a couple of lads in their teens had failed in their bombing mission. But their indoctrination had been that God (ie a high frequency device operated by their handler) would set off the bomb & they would be greeted by throngs of virgins. An ideology that indoctrinates ignorant kids like that is plainly evil & crazy.
You mentioned Cambodia – well that had the evil & crazy ideology of Pol Pot responsible for a load of casualties as well.
I haven’t got the numbers but the casualties of evil & crazy ideologies of the 20th century (Nazism, communism)has been in the high figures. So when I got some grasp of what radical Islamism is about, I thought, oh no, not yet another evil & crazed ideology. I thought we were going to have a rest from them.
I await the next crazed and evil ideology that will no doubt supplant Islamism with interest.
Get a grip, resistor – Hitchens isn’t such a ‘pinup’ as all that. I posted that Pharyngula link in News hours ago.
Resistor alothough the examples you cite of (guenuine western evil) may not be the finest moments in western history, to equate the enlightened west with savages who would walk into a piza parlour and self explode is probably the most asenine thing I have ever read!
OB: “I think the claim about worrying too much about our right to be in Iraq is absurd, though.”
Absolutely. Currently the US/UK are there with the consent of the Iraqi government. Once that consent ceases, the troops have to leave.
However, could one make the argument that, given that the current state of Iraq flows (directly or indirectly) from the invasion in 2003 there is a moral duty to remain and sort the country out? Not a right, but an obligation?
“However, could one make the argument that, given that the current state of Iraq flows (directly or indirectly) from the invasion in 2003 there is a moral duty to remain and sort the country out? Not a right, but an obligation?”
I would agree entirely with that, so long as we bear in mind that the moral obligation to help Iraq by keeping troops there does not trump the right of the Iraqi givernment to order us to leave. We should also remember that troops are not only there at the behest of a democraticaly elected government but they have a full UN mandate too. The moral case for a US troop presence in Iraq seems to me, therefore, to be a clear as these things ever get.
There’s a very good comment on Eagleton & suicide bombers (in fact series of comments) by one georges over at David Thompson’s blog:-
“Returning to Mr Eagleton’s opinions. His bizarre take on suicide bombers is actually a product of his western cultural imperialism. I read most of what he writes, and I can’t think of any mention of Muhammad, the Koran or the Hadith – or for that matter the Tale of Genji, the philosophy of Zhuangzi, or anything outside of the western canon. Confronted by Islamic suicide bombers, he insists on interpreting them in terms of a western rather than an Islamic tradition. So they must be like the Russian anarchists described by Joseph Conrad. Except they’re not.”
http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2007/10/tenured-radical.html#comment-86810754
A good point, I think. When Christians in the Reformation were going about smashing up sculptures and covering paintings in churches anyone commenting on it would have had to make some reference to passages in the Bible, or Martin Luther, or John Knox or whoever. Imagine an Islamic guy at that time saying “they must be following the bits in the Koran about representation”.