‘Salman Rushdie taught liberals to hate Islam’
Wow.
Before that January day in Bradford, the Left-liberal consensus was notionally on the side of the Muslim community, which in Britain is predominantly Asian. Since that day there has been a creeping racialist antipathy towards Muslims, by the Left. The grounds of their growing hatred are entirely spurious and are represented as religious. The very part of Muslim belief that trespasses on the territory of the secular liberal creed is identified, for that reason alone, as intolerable. That is to say, Muslims are denied the right to take offence when their most holy emblems are deliberately pilloried.
No they’re not – they’re denied the ‘right’ to do things like kill people or torch embassies or threaten people or plot to kill people. Those things are crimes, actually, not ‘rights.’ Of course all the rest of the passage is absurd nonsense too – but life is short, and I have places to go and things to see.
This line of artistic endeavour finds its ultimate expression in Theo van Gogh’s film Submission (a word translating “Islam”). Islam holds the text of the Koran holy, and insists on public modesty in the depiction of women. So why not, the film-maker thought, project the holy words of the Koran on to the exposed body of women? Tee-hee, he chortled in his Dutch way. So van Gogh was killed.
And…the religious columnist Christopher Howse apparently approves? At least, it’s difficult to spot any sign of disapproval in anything he says.
The secularist haters of Islam pretend that that they have a sacred principle of their own, which is freedom of speech, freedom to publish.
Yes, that’s right. We’re funny that way. Of course we wouldn’t (the sensible among us at least) call it a sacred principle, and we would agree that freedom to publish is not completely without limits, but we do have ‘a principle’ that we should be able to publish stories and polemics and disputes about religion and religions, in general and in particular, without being threatened or set on fire or blown up or shot or carved up. Does Christopher Howse not agree?
Wow! You’re right, and so is the first comment. What an incredibly benighted article. Where does this guy come from?!
I take it (though, I don’t know) that Der Führer Howse is Christian. Like a lot of other religious people, he’s putting in his dibs. He wants to be able to ‘take offence’ in a religious way too.
What planet is this guy from?
There’s no “pretence” whatsoever about freedom of opinion and expression being valued principles as far as I’m concerned. I will argue against any religious bigot, regardless of creed or race, especially if s/he (most usually a ‘he’) regards me as inherently inferior on account of sex and sexual orientation. Some of my fiercest arguments have been with white Christians over the segregation of schools according to parental religion.
The Daily Telegraph is one of the rightward-leaning UK daily papers, isn’t it? So why is it unsurprising to me that a token “Left” opinion-spouter on blogs.telegraph.co.uk is a complete nattering dunderhead? It reminds me of the way Faux News always finds the biggest loser hacks to play the liberal patsy role on any point/counterpoint style program they produce.
Then again, the notably leftward-leaning Grauniad publishes many complete nattering dunderheads representing the “Left” … so there goes my thesis!
Why would any liberal not hate islam it is a direct contradiction to everything a liberal holds dear?
Not quite, Richard. Authoritarian religion of all types is in direct contradiction to everything that genuine liberals ought to hold dear, such as individual freedom, genuine equality, free and open exchange of ideas, and governance legitimated only by the consent and participation of the governed. But many individuals who think of themselves as liberals are muddle-headed, self-deceptive, and self-contradictory – as, of course, are many people who think of themselves as conservatives.
That said, I think Christopher Howse goes well beyond muddle-headed, self-deceptive and self-contradictory: He is an apologist for murderers. I literally cannot find words nasty enough to express my opinion of him, and nothing I could say would be as damning as his own loathsome little victim-blaming screed.
For the record, this berk is not a token leftist at the Telegraph, he’s a leader-writer and religious columnist. In other words, this is right-wing Xian supremacism wallowing in Islamists sticking it to their joint secularist enemies.
However, the first few commentators on the website have him bang to rights.
See, here’s what I don’t get about religion columnists/apologists such as Howse or the Lefties who align themselves with the likes of Hezbollah & Hamas:
The writing is on the wall (to get all biblical and such) where their own fates are concerned under Islam. The unhappy end of the Infidel is theirs just as surely as it is those of us who consider that maybe Islam warrants a good re-think.
I’m not usually a Spiked fan but I think O’Neill is on the money here:-
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/earticle/5773/
To claim that a few thugs are giving rise to censorship is to miss a trick – the trick, in fact. In reality, it is the already-existing fear amongst the cultural elite that gives rise to the thugs. Never mind Mohammed’s prophecy and a few individuals’ desire to protect it from ridicule; we should be far more concerned about the self-fulfilling prophecy that was the violent assault on Gibson Square. It was Random House’s caution, fuelled by the doubts of one non-Muslim academic, which transformed Sherry Jones’s book from what sounds like a fairly run-of-the-mill novel into an internationally talked-about possibly violence-inducing text. It was their safety-first, censorious instincts which guaranteed the book would become a flashpoint issue for Islamists whose Offence Antennae are permanently switched to overdrive
@ KB Player
“In reality, it is the already-existing fear amongst the cultural elite that gives rise to the thugs.”
Wow, it’s hard to patronize murderous fanatics, but I think you just managed it! That sounds to me like a warmed-over version of 1970s social psychology, “they’re only bad because we expect them to be bad”.
The cultural elite has “fears” about lots of things, but most of the objects of those fears don’t respond by driving giant incendiary bombs into airport terminals, or chucking firebombs at the offices of book publishers, etc.
> a few individuals’ desire to protect it from ridicule
Is this based on any hard stats? Are you referring to the perpetrators of such acts, or to them and their supporters, or to them and their supporters and their sympathizers, or to them and their supporters and their sympathizers and to those who choose to look the other way? To whom, exactly, does this “few” refer?
“It was Random House’s caution, fuelled by the doubts of one non-Muslim academic, which transformed Sherry Jones’s book from what sounds like a fairly run-of-the-mill novel into an internationally talked-about possibly violence-inducing text”
So if the publisher had embarked upon a high-profile, nation-wide advertising campaign it would have failed to irritate the thugs? It was all the dithering combined with the doubting by a non-Muslim academic, that caused people to want to commit murder?
“It was their safety-first, censorious instincts which guaranteed the book would become a flashpoint issue for Islamists whose Offence Antennae are permanently switched to overdrive”
That argument sounds little different to “She was wearing a short skirt and so deserved it”. I think you’re missing the point. Random House should have the right to take any business decisions they like without fear of being attacked. They should have the right to indulge their “safety-first, censorious instinct”, whether we agree with it or not, just as Theo van Gogh had the right to make the film he made. The fact (if we accept the claim) that Random House’s exercise of their instinct has led to this response just kind of underscores the main problem here, IMO.
What a despicable article. The sub-text is surely that a lack of respect for holy texts is a moral failing for which death is a not unreasonable consequence.
Fatwa envy is becoming a bit of an over-used term, but I suspect it is valid in this case.
> What a despicable article. The sub-text is surely that a lack of respect for holy texts is a moral failing for which death is a not unreasonable consequence.
Don, that is exactly what I was thinking. It sounds like he’s pining for the days before rationalism draggged his own murderous credo kicking and screaming into the modern era. Oh for the days when it was acceptable to torture and put to death the blasphemers!
I suspect he will regret writing this post. His evident contempt for secularism, his cowardly and invalid attack on a man already in a mortally perilous position, his (presumably willful) misrepresentation of just what it is that secularists find so unacceptable about radical Islam (here’s a clue, Mr Howse, it’s not the beliefs, it’s the behaviour), his lack of anything approaching condemnation around the sentence “So van Gogh was killed.”, his isolating that sentence for effect (as if intended as a lesson and a warning), all seem to be merely a step away from the type of writing that leads to one receiving an invitation for interview at one’s local police station.
This was an astonishingly reactionary rant. Reactionary in the sense of pre-Enlightenment! I half expected him to sign off with “Descended from apes?! Really!”
> Death is less – text is more. – in my summation.
Marie-Therese, indeed! If the Telegraph had any sense, on Monday they will invite him to seriously contemplate spending more time with his family.
…And also suggest to him that he join The Tablet – where, I am sure, he will, by it, (with outstretched RC arms) be made very welcome.
Thank you, Eric.
public modesty in the depiction of women….
Speaking of which:
So much for depth perception. Still, I love it when a woman shows a little bit of iris. Cor!
One whole eye! Hussies! Sluts!
Is Sheikh Muhammad al-Habadan for real? Does this cleric realise that ones’ eyes (two) are said to be the window of our soul and in turn they are also our own little window to the world. It’s through ones’ eyes that we see the beauty of the world: the colours, the shape, and the words written in books – or even warning signs. That’s why we have to take care of them all the time. Many even bank on their jobs with their eyes, If Muslim women were to look out at the world with one eye only, they, inevitably would permanently damage their eyes This Muslim cleric in Saudi Arabia who has called on women to wear a full veil, or niqab, that reveals only one eye is obviously living in some kind of cuckoo land.
“Sheikh Muhammad al-Habadan said showing both eyes encouraged women to use eye make-up to look seductive.’
What dreadful sins they are committing in luring men with their lustful made-up eyes.
Now, where did I leave my false eyelashes at all?
Irish male politicians wear eye make-up for the cameras. Do Saudi Arabian men follow suit, i wonder?
Eye makeup? It was Uta Ranke-Heinemann who tells the story, I believe, of the monk in the Middle Ages who complained of the lacivious women who hung their underthings on the line, tempting poor celibate monks to lives of riot and concupiscence.
She tells another story too, of a nun who, having sucumbed to the attractions of a neighbouring swain, was forced, with her own hands, to castrate the man who had so ignobly, and against the purity of religion, seduced her.
Religion has all sorts of interesting secrets. Christopher Howse has not strayed very far from his roots. What is death in contrast to unfaithfulness to the ruler of all, after all?!
And lest we should think that only Islam and Christianity are prey to such inanities, here is a little treat from the Jews:
http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/world/2008/10/04/D93JN84O0_ml_israel_enforcing_modesty/index.html
Some people seem able to view the world in a way which comprehends killing for religion. They may not advocate it, but they ‘get’ it. They can empathise with the maniac who shot Theo.
Whose last words were reportedly, ‘Can’t we talk about this?’
Well, apparently we can’t, according to this current crop of tossers.
Well, and let’s be clear – lots of people do advocate it. Lots of people don’t, but lots of other people do. This isn’t a matter of ‘the odd psychopath or two’ as Jenavir put it on another thread.
“Religion has all sorts of interesting secrets.”
Yeah, if only those skulls, which, of yore, that were allegedly found in monasteries, could speak – skeletons galore from these religious ‘howses’ could reveal to all and sundry what a crop of ancient tossers these monks in fact were.
“Aquinas taught that women were defective human beings, morally, mentally, and physically, supporting their subordination to women” “What kind of God Does Human Rights Require.” Martin Palous’ on-line synopsis – has very interesting things to say, which are akin to this discussion (it is a bit too high brow for me, though) He also mentions Uta Ranke-Heinemann.
Yes, it’s not just the odd pscyhopath or two. I’ve been listening to Sarah Palin. She actually thinks she’s on God’s mission. Which mission? I wonder to myself. Couldn’t be the countdown to Armageddon, surely?! I get very uncomfortable when people start talking about religion, but even more uncomfortable when they start talking about God.
Hey, Marie-Therese, castrating swains is too highbrow for you!? But now, ‘tossers’ sounds very arcane. Definition?
OB,
Yes, a lot of people do advocate killing for god, and a lot take practical steps. I don’t underestimate them (I hope) but they are at least out in the open and we can see them for what they are. More troubling, in a sense, are the likes of Howse who see it as understandable, as an expression of deeply held beliefs, a to-be-expected response to intolerable offence etc.
I don’t think the freedoms we know are under threat from bombers and killers, or from foam-flecked ranters screaming ‘Kill,kill,kill.’ I do think they are under threat when broadsheet journalists and academics present this as a form of legitimate discourse which should be treated with respect and understanding.
The killers and open advocates of killing are a serious problem, but I do not believe a direct frontal assault on freedom of speech will make significant inroads. Those who look for ways to accomodate the killers, to empathise with them, to blame the victims of intolerance and bigotry for not understanding how ‘passionate’ or ‘profound’ is the sense of being offended, are a far more serious threat.
Don, well it partly depends on what you mean by ‘we.’ If you mean we in the developed world, you may be right – though I have to say I doubt it, because I think intimidation works; I think lots of people keep Van Gogh’s fate well in mind. But if you mean we humans, it’s another matter. There are lots of places where the freedoms we know are not just under threat but flat out unavailable. Think Parvez Embaksh for instance.
Yes, I did mean ‘we’ as in ‘we in the developed world’. Where there is no established tradition of free speech and thought, intimidation is horribly effective.
The murder of Theo Van Gogh was a dreadful event but the responses by the likes of Howse and Jayasekera give it a power it would not have otherwise had.
Roger – those aren’t my words but Brendan O’Neill’s, which I should have made clear by using quotation marks. I think his article on this is interesting, giving instances of how easily publishers, theatres etc carved in not just against actual physical threats but what they thought could be physical threats mixed with a desire not to be culturally insensitive.
If anyone wants to take this fight to the Torygraph readers, it might interest you to know that, unlike the other ‘broadsheet’ UK papers, all you have to do to get a Telegraph blog column like Howse’s is go to the ‘My Telegraph’ section of their website and set it up. Takes less than two minutes and off you go.
Really?! So Howse isn’t actually selected by the Telegraph, he’s just a volunteer like the rest of us?
Interesting!