Views about Chris Hitchens, please!

[Errata]

I make no secret of the fact that I have many and deep concerns about Islam and its effect in the modern world, particularly in my case its effect on social and political life in the UK. I am not an "Islamophobe" (since that implies an irrational fear - I do not fear Islam nor are my concerns irrational) nor do I subscribe to the methods or message of any groups such as the EDL or the BNP. I can argue my own case, thank you, and do not need to hitch my wagon to any such organisation.

I do not think that Islamic extremists are not "real" Muslims. I understand and acknowledge the violence, the insularism, and the oppression inherent in the Koran. Many Muslims in fact have a lot to answer for. But does Islam? Does Judaism or Christianity? Our books contain very similar content.

A woman in Judaism is unclean one week out of every month, cannot participate in any ritual or service of the religion, must cover her hair. She is the property of men, bartered by men. She has no legal recourse against men, and she pays the price for their abuse of her. If she is sold into prostitution, she will be killed. If she leaves an abusive husband for another man, she will be killed. If she is raped while married, she will be killed. If she is raped before marriage, she must marry her rapist. This is not enlightened stuff. Sharia Law is actually far more feminist. Jews have been commanded to kill the unbelievers, Christians have made quite a name for themselves killing unbelievers (and even believers who were simply written of as "foreign"). Muslims have been commanded to kill unbelievers.

So it's not the Koran that's the problem, because our books are the same, and we don't do that. Nor is it the practice of the religion itself, since I have a good many devout Muslim friends who mean me no harm, and do not feel commanded by their faith to do me harm. I am great friends with a local Imam since we work on a bunch of projects together. We argue about Israel, and it's always from a human rights perspective. This is a guy who grew up in Saudi Arabia, got his religious education in Iran (under the Shah) and has no problem with me or mine. They explain away their archaic laws the same way we explain away ours. In fact, the exact same way, since we compared.

Fundamentalism may be the problem, but maybe not. I have met fundamentalist Muslims, and they aren't fond of me in any way. But I was never offered violence, merely polite requests to not do certain things because I'm contaminated or something. I didn't ask. I have been offered violence by fundamentalist Christians on any number of occasions, some by word, some by deed, some put me in the hospital twice. The irony is that I have been assured by Priests and Ministers that these were not the acts of real Christians, yes they reject the same argument for Muslims. I don't know why. And there are fundamentalist Jews, but they aren't violent, and they don't go back to following all of the laws handed down to Moses. Mainly you never see them, because they are extremely isolated by choice. Now a fundamentalist Christian should be almost the same as a fundamentalist Jew, but they aren't, and I think the reason why is the actual problem. It's all about personal choice. And fear.

People who are ruled by fear adopt adaptations of their religion that justify that fear. A Jew can't really adopt an aspect of Judaism that justifies fear, unless the fear is that of the unknown. Because we are taught pretty early that we have no idea what happens when we die. The righteous are rewarded, we don't don't how they are rewarded, or even what makes a person righteous, because it has never been exclusive to Judaism. And since there hasn't been a smiting in ages, we don't even know if god is still wrathful. The best a Jew can manage is an isolated little society free of the temptations and possible contamination by outsiders to follow the path of righteousness as best they know how. Kind of like a ruder Amish. Zionism by the way, totally different, and not religious.

Fundamentalist Christians are absolutely ruled by fear. And while the New Testament doesn't offer a lot to be afraid of, Early Christianity certainly did. People are afraid of what they don't understand. To the extent that there is common joke amongst my set "I don't understand it! KILL IT!" Fortunately for the redneck southern fundamentalist Christians we have 'round these parts, the things they don't understand and fear have clear solutions in the bible. They are disgusted by, and afraid of homosexuals. But that's okay, because they are an abomination. They are afraid of the power that women hold over them, but that's okay, because the bible says they are the weaker sex who should stay pregnant and in the kitchen. In this particular part of the world, fundamentalist Christians are afraid of Jews. They say we rule the world, they say we control the money, but the truth is that we have the value of education drilled into our heads from day one, and they reject curiosity and advanced education as irrelevant and threatening to the word of god. So we Jews catch a beating "because we killed Jesus" but really because they are threatened by people smarter than they are. They just can't justify beating other Christians who are smarter than they are. Every single thing these nut job Fundamentalist Christians insist on serves no purpose other than to soothe fear, and feel more powerful. They are trying to order their world so that they aren't afraid of their environment, they have control of their environment, and incidentally aren't going to go to hell.

If all Muslims aren't a problem, then Islam isn't the problem. It doesn't allow for violence any more or less than Christianity, Judaism, Daoism, ancestor worship. And if White Muslims aren't a problem, and African Muslims are less of a problem, and Indian Muslims aren't a problem, And Chinese Muslims aren't a problem... If it's Middle Eastern Muslims that are a problem, then it probably has a lot more to do with them being Middle Eastern than Muslims. Middle Easterners face similar problems, have similar histories, similar complaints, been the victims of similar injustices. It's not surprising that their fundamentalism is the same. But in a way, it's very similar to Zionism. The religious aspect of Zionism is that god promised the Jews that particular land. The real motivation of Zionism was that Jews increasingly had nowhere to go, and finally said "if not now, when?" and they went. It was a way to feel safe. But it wasn't a religious movement. Yet Zionists are the most unyielding zealots in all of Judaism. People in the middle east don't feel safe. They feel occupied even when they technically aren't, they are deprived, their "oppressors" have all the wealth, all the power. They are Zionists, they are taking back their own countries. And it's great if part of the Koran supports their actions, but they would do it if it didn't. But, Islam is what they have that we don't. It has to be what makes them superior, because nothing else can.

[DVV]

Southern Sudanese people also know what it feels like.
Actually, you have so many reasons to be joyful.

[DVV]

I
To be brutally honest, and I am not admitting something I am proud of here, I get the tiniest bit of satisfaction that Christians find themselves persecuted. I don't think it's okay. Not even a little. But there is a tiny part of me that thinks "Good. Now you know what it feels like".

You're not brutally honest, but brutally ignorant.
Eastern Christians know what it feels like for centuries.
They have suffered in the Middle Ages, suffered under Sadate, suffered before the Arab Spring.
And for the record, "Copts" means "Egyptian".

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Errata!

I cannot help asking you the following question;

What do you feel about that, that both Martin Luther King and the ku-klux-klan justified their actions in the 1960s with The Bible?

All the best
Jukka

[Errata]

There is an ethnic/religious cleansing going on in almost every muslim country. Nobody cares about. Eastern christians are killed, insulted, compelled to flee their own countries.
Better be a Palestinian in Israel than a Christian in Gaza.
But here again, it must be the fault of the Spanish Inquisition.

I am hoping that since the advent of revolution in a lot of these countries that this too shall pass. One of the most powerful images of the Arab Spring was during the protests in Tahrir Square, it was time for Muslim prayers. The Copts formed a protective ring around these prostrate Muslims, to shield them from harm. Later, when there was yet another attack of the Copts (in Alexandria I think) for the first time in a long time there was very vocal outrage from the Muslim community, and demands that the responsible parties be punished. Nationalism trumped religion. It's a crack in the wall. Hopefully it can get widened into a door.

To be brutally honest, and I am not admitting something I am proud of here, I get the tiniest bit of satisfaction that Christians find themselves persecuted. I don't think it's okay. Not even a little. But there is a tiny part of me that thinks "Good. Now you know what it feels like". There is another tiny part of me that wonders where the hell your outrage was when Jews were suffering the exact same fate in these countries, and were left to die. And where is your outrage for those suffering far worse, but not because of their religion, but because of their heritage, or their nationality, or their sex, or their location? I live in the South, and there is a lot of Christianity here that is not benign. And these people act like the way Copts are treated is the worst thing in the history of ever. And it's not. It's bad. Make no mistake. But I don't understand how people can think that a group of people who typically (though not always) are victims of property damage are more deserving of American action than those in the Sudan, who have been literally decimated. Hate is hate. I get it's more personal when it happens to your own kind, but that doesn't make it worse, or more actionable.

That being said, I work with a lot of refugee programs. Kurds, Copts, Sudanese, Jews, homosexuals, albinos. No one deserves that.

[The Good Michael]

This just in: I suggested a Halloween party for my teachers where we would dress like pirates and go drinking, dining, and dancing. The idea was met with open arms and we will do it. After I brought up the idea, one woman came to me and told me that she couldn't go out with us. The reason is that her husband has suddenly become a devout Muslim and has explained to her that her place is in the home. I tried to advise her, but there is little to say because it is withing her to decide what to do. There is no Sharia law here and she has her choice.

The point is this, of all the religions that I know of, Islam has much more latitude for dipping into the vast dark pits of inequity, bigotry and hatred than others because it has a propensity to want to make things as they were 1500 years ago. Progress is spotty and nearly unnoticeable because they must all think of themselves as brothers and are afraid to voice opinions that might make them condemned. It isn't that bad in America, of course, but when East meets Islam, it's Hell for anyone not on the Mohamed Express.

Mike

[The Good Michael]

There is an ethnic/religious cleansing going on in almost every muslim country. Nobody cares about. Eastern christians are killed, insulted, compelled to flee their own countries.
Better be a Palestinian in Israel than a Christian in Gaza.
But here again, it must be the fault of the Spanish Inquisition.

This absolutely true. In Ethiopia, Muslims were met with open arms and allowed to form communities in this massive Christian country. In Egypt orthodox Christians are hated and despised, and their one opportunity make a little money, through the raising of swine, has been taken from them and the swine slaughtered. In Nigeria, Christians are constantly under attack, dying in droves. In Syria they are also hated. When there are two man-made religions and one is opposed to violence, guess which one wins. More proof that man creates religion to fit his prejudice.

Mike

[DVV]

I'm in complete agreement, Chris.

[Chris Scott]

There is an ethnic/religious cleansing going on in almost every muslim country. Nobody cares about. Eastern christians are killed, insulted, compelled to flee their own countries.
Better be a Palestinian in Israel than a Christian in Gaza.
But here again, it must be the fault of the Spanish Inquisition.

The situation you describe is dire and for some reason either under reported or not reported at all.
Can I make one elementary point which has been levelled at me by e-mail (not from anyone on this site I hasten to add!)
I make no secret of the fact that I have many and deep concerns about Islam and its effect in the modern world, particularly in my case its effect on social and political life in the UK. I am not an "Islamophobe" (since that implies an irrational fear - I do not fear Islam nor are my concerns irrational) nor do I subscribe to the methods or message of any groups such as the EDL or the BNP. I can argue my own case, thank you, and do not need to hitch my wagon to any such organisation.
However any time I or any other person raise concerns about Islam and its effects we are labelled, in the Pavlovian manner of the multicultural bandwagon and its vocal "anti fascist" supporters, as "racist," the most damning of modern labels. Incidentally, I find it ironic in the extreme that "anti fascist" groups march in support of a faith that is the bedrock of some of the most oppressive and "fascist" regimes in the world.
For those who don't grasp it, I will explain slowly one more time.
Islam is a religion, a belief system. Indeed it is one of Islam's boasts that it has followers and converts in every country from every ethnic group. There are Arab muslims, Caucasian muslims, Chinese muslims, Slavic muslims, African muslims, Russian muslims, Indian muslims - I think you probably get the point.
Muslims are NOT a racial or ethnic group. I repeat - Muslims are NOT a race - they are a multiracial, multilingual group whose only commonality is their faith system.
Therefore to use the term "racist" of someone who criticises or raises concerns about Islam is not only totally inappropriate it is, in fact, completely meaningless in that context.
But as "racist" is the most damning and readily used insult in the modern world of correctness and fear of offending, it slips readily to the tongue even when its use is nonsensical.
The other two favourite labels for those who dare to raise concerns about Islam are "bigoted" and "ignorant." For plenty of examples of these (and a plethora of non stories) see the Islamophobia Watch website.

[DVV]

There is an ethnic/religious cleansing going on in almost every muslim country. Nobody cares about. Eastern christians are killed, insulted, compelled to flee their own countries.
Better be a Palestinian in Israel than a Christian in Gaza.
But here again, it must be the fault of the Spanish Inquisition.

[Limehouse]

Personal insight into what Islam is doing these days:

Kazakhstan was of course, part of the Soviet Union. As such, it was an atheist state for the most part. After the dissolution, people grabbed hold of old practices with orthodoxy for the Russians, Islam for the Kazakhs and all other faiths for the various minority groups. For the Kazakhs, Islam was just an idea and they didn't practice it with any vigor. They drink a lot, smoke a lot of pot (blamed on the Russians who get it from Afghanistan and ship it down), and see tons of prostitutes, preferring to keep their women virginal. Lately, mullahs have been coming into the country and preaching. Young people are picking some of the fundamentalism up because that is what the mullahs preach, and Kazakhs can't be arsed to read things themselves. ( I know this because I teach these people). There have been several little fundy cells cropping up her and there. It scares the haves because these cells are made up of the have nots.

Now as for the Turks: Turkey is a secular state. A certain group of Islamic businessmen have been opening international schools all over Central Asia. The idea is to educate everyone in Turkish and English. Anyone with money sends their kids to these schools, called 'Gulen' schools. They emphasis is on science and English with Turkish being also mandatory. I taught at one in Tajikistan. Instead of being some sort of advanced school, it's actually run by fundamentalists and all teachers, except the foreign, English teachers, must be Muslim to work there. I'm in the air about this kind of movement. I don't agree with any schools based on religion. In my school I taught social studies, but I wasn't allowed to talk about religion because, I was told, the students already have their beliefs.

Mike

Thanks for this interesting insight Mike. Although Soviet Russia and its associated states was officially atheist, there were strong underground organisations that kept various religious faiths going. I vaguely knew a man who spent some years in jail for smuggling bibles into the Soviet Union.

I teach a lot of Polish and Lithuanian students. They tell me that since the break away from Soviet control, the catholic church has almost a stonghold on the people and their lives are almost as restricted as they were under communism. For example, a student of mine was deeply troubled because her sister (still living back in Poland) had been terribly verbally abused by her priest for seeking IVF treatment. I thought that was very sad.

What is even more interesting is that when the people leave Poland to live elsewhere (there are lots of them in here in the Fens working in agriculture) they actually fully embrace their catholic faith, they don't reject it. The catholic church here has grown sixfold and has to run four of five services on a Sunday morning to accommodate everyone. The difference is it's not so oppressive here.

Regards

Julie

[Errata]

When a small, indigent, peripatetic population is trying to establish itself in a new and hostile homeland what does it need almost beyond anything else? Numbers, new settlers to swell its ranks and ensure its hold on its new territory, by force of arms if necessary. So there will be stern injunctions against any activity which militates against procreation. That is the origin of the Old Testament injunction, albeit that it was written long after the events it portrays.

Would it surprise you to learn that I was taught that the injunction against homosexuality has less to do with procreation and more to do with separating the practices of Judaism from other religions? The typical translation you get of the passage in Numbers is "Cursed be he who lieth with another man, for it is an abomination." In the Hebrew, it is "Cursed be he who lieth with another man as though he were a woman, for it is an abomination." And I should also point out that having sex with sheep is perverse, but not an abomination. The word abomination is kind of specific in the Torah. It doesn't mean really awful, or even especially damning. It pretty much applies to practices that are linked with other religions of the day, as those practices are seen as corruptive. Our dietary restrictions fall into three categories. Things we didn't know existed, things that are actually bad for you from a food safety standpoint, and things that are in other religions rituals. Eels for example. Eating them was a part of certain ceremonies that required a phallic symbol. So we can't have them. Not that I mind, cause I know what eels eat, and I'll pass.

I was taught that while Judaism certainly had a vested interest in keeping a stable population, we weren't hugely invested in growth. Still aren't. Birth control is not forbidden, abortion is considered sanctioned by the Torah, and while it is not in the Torah, the Jews of the day who had deformed or imperfect babies exposed them in the desert to die. Having sex with sheep is as non productive as having sex with another man, but is not an abomination. It's perverse. I can't say as I disagree, but there is no reason for any other kind of unproductive sex to be more hateful to god. So why is homosexuality an abomination? Technically, it isn't. We were taught that this is one of those laws that came about because it forbids us from doing something others were doing in a religious vein. It has to do with "Temple prostitution" which technically didn't exist in they way people think it did, but it did exist. There were sex practices in the cults of Ashera and Ba'al that required the participants to become embodied by the god or goddess, and sometimes recreate parts of the god or goddesses particular mythos. One of those practices, or so we were taught, involved men "submitting" to the god. "As though he were a woman". Which is why that seemingly repetitive bit is in there. That little bit of seeming reiteration and the fact that it is an abomination means that it's not homosexuality that is forbidden. It is a specific homosexual act that essentially requires role play that is used to honor other gods, and therefor is not allowed.

Is it a bunch of sophistry to allow us to believe that god doesn't hate gay people? Maybe. But most of Judaic practice is a bit of sophistry, since we didn't get any new instructions after the destruction of the last Temple as to what to do next. So we've been winging it for awhile.


I will now speak candidly - what pisses off a lot of British people is that many of those most critical of decadent, sexualised, binge drinking Britain not only choose to live here and be housed and have medical care but fight tooth and nail to stay here, often for years on end. You will now so often hear the two comments - "If they hate us so much why do they come here?" and "If I go to live or work in a Muslim country I have to abide by their rules and cultural sensitivities - why is that not the case with those who come here?"

You're not wrong. We have people like that here. And really the best explanation you can ever get on the matter is to ask a plain girl why she thinks all pretty girls are dumb. These people blame us for their problems. And they aren't entirely wrong to do so. They want what we have, the freedom, the opportunity, the options. Things they think we don't deserve because we took that away from them. They think we are wasting what we have with our frivolous attitude. They think they could do better with what we have if they had it. And maybe they could. It's not completely out of the question. Plain girls think that pretty girls are dumb because they can't handle the idea that there are people out there no more deserving than they are who get to have it all. These Muslims think we are wicked because they can't handle the idea that there are people out there no more deserving than the are who get to have it all. If beauty, no brains. If success, no morals. It isn't true of course, but sometimes people cling to those notions because it keeps them from just giving up. They have to believe that the world isn't that colossally unfair.

[DVV]

There are still people believing that Bin Laden or any other muslim terrorist are not real muslims and have misunderstood the message. It's cute. But they should read the Sira.

[The Good Michael]

Personal insight into what Islam is doing these days:

Kazakhstan was of course, part of the Soviet Union. As such, it was an atheist state for the most part. After the dissolution, people grabbed hold of old practices with orthodoxy for the Russians, Islam for the Kazakhs and all other faiths for the various minority groups. For the Kazakhs, Islam was just an idea and they didn't practice it with any vigor. They drink a lot, smoke a lot of pot (blamed on the Russians who get it from Afghanistan and ship it down), and see tons of prostitutes, preferring to keep their women virginal. Lately, mullahs have been coming into the country and preaching. Young people are picking some of the fundamentalism up because that is what the mullahs preach, and Kazakhs can't be arsed to read things themselves. ( I know this because I teach these people). There have been several little fundy cells cropping up her and there. It scares the haves because these cells are made up of the have nots.

Now as for the Turks: Turkey is a secular state. A certain group of Islamic businessmen have been opening international schools all over Central Asia. The idea is to educate everyone in Turkish and English. Anyone with money sends their kids to these schools, called 'Gulen' schools. They emphasis is on science and English with Turkish being also mandatory. I taught at one in Tajikistan. Instead of being some sort of advanced school, it's actually run by fundamentalists and all teachers, except the foreign, English teachers, must be Muslim to work there. I'm in the air about this kind of movement. I don't agree with any schools based on religion. In my school I taught social studies, but I wasn't allowed to talk about religion because, I was told, the students already have their beliefs.

Mike

[Chris Scott]

Hi Errata
With respects, injunctions in the Bible about mixed fibres and eating shellfish are not impacting negatively on people's lives, causing people to be persecuted or driven to suicide. No extremist Christian group is parading in the streets saying that those who eat shellfish will burn in hell. I agree that taking passages from any book in isolation is a risky pastime and this, coupled with the dangers of translation and transcription errors, can lead to some bizarre misinterpretations. There are two biblical passages quoted in support of the Judaeo Christian attitude to homosexuality. One is Old Testament - the famous passge in which it is called an "abomination" - and one in the letters of Paul.
One of the dangers of seeing the Bible or any other document as divinely revealed and infallible is that it can be seen as extratemporal (i.e. existing out side time) and therefore divorced from its historical context. In the case of both the Bible and the Koran their context and social setting are crucial.
When a small, indigent, peripatetic population is trying to establish itself in a new and hostile homeland what does it need almost beyond anything else? Numbers, new settlers to swell its ranks and ensure its hold on its new territory, by force of arms if necessary. So there will be stern injunctions against any activity which militates against procreation. That is the origin of the Old Testament injunction, albeit that it was written long after the events it portrays. The crucial period for the codifying and writing down of the Old Testament was the Exile in Babylon for 50 years, when the Jewish people were stateless, dispossessed and threatened. It is no coincidence that at this period the Biblical version of the Flood story was written down and is closely m odelled on the much older Babylonian epic version.
The injunction in Paul's letters has to be seen in the context of the increasing Hellenization of the Jewish world and the attempted resistance to this. From the full blown Hellenizing of Herod the Great down to the invasion of Antiochus this is a very important theme, compounded by the very important Jewish population in one of the great Hellenic centres, namely Alexandria. Paul's concern, like other early Christian writers and fathers of the Church, is more concerned with effeminacy rather than homosexuality per se.
Of course, the comment that taking a passage out of its context is risky. This applies equally to the instances of Messianic prophecy in the Old Testament. The passage about Bethlehem Ephrata is quoted in the Gospels but if read in its original setting and in context a very different picture emerges.
Despite my feelings about Islam I agree largely with what you say with one exception. We should be honest and say that the majority of our dealings with many of these countries is for one reason only - oil. I absolutely opposed the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan and if I had my way all our troops would be withdrawn tomorrow. We know what will happen within a year of withdrawal from Afghanistan, as is happening in Iraq. I am speaking now specifically for the UK and not "the West" when I say that we have no business being there, we are not the world's policeman and we have more than enough problems in our own country to deal with. When I vote in an election it is for a UK Government to run the affairs of the UK - not to sort out the problems of other countries. We have no place being there, we are not wanted there and so it would be to everyone's good if we left Muslim countries to sort out their own affairs. We have made bedfellows of appalling regimes such as Saudi Arabia and have happily traded, until the nuclear dispute, with the hideous theocracy in Iran. That country is not a few extremists wreaking havoc - it is state sponsored and state approved barbarity that hangs teenagers in public, hauling them up on cranes to die by slow strangulation because they are gay.
The one issue on which I have to disagree with you is when you said that Muslims would not say that the world should convert to Islam. That is the avowed aim as expressed in the Koran that any interaction with non believers should be based on the final aim of converting them to Islam. the now banned group Islam4UK had the avowed aim of establishing a "British caliphate" and there have been serious attempts within British cities to establish Sharia controlled zones in predominantly Muslim areas. There are still pressure groups in the UK - perfectly legal ones - that espouse this cause.
I will now speak candidly - what pisses off a lot of British people is that many of those most critical of decadent, sexualised, binge drinking Britain not only choose to live here and be housed and have medical care but fight tooth and nail to stay here, often for years on end. You will now so often hear the two comments - "If they hate us so much why do they come here?" and "If I go to live or work in a Muslim country I have to abide by their rules and cultural sensitivities - why is that not the case with those who come here?"