(no subject)

[mrph]

Various newspaper pundits and bloggers (mostly non-UK) are talking about the "lack of condemnation" of the London bombings from the muslim community and the 'weak response' from official groups who did condemn it. Christopher Hitchens isn't the worst offender, but he deserves to be singled out for this particular piece:

Far more depressing are the insincere and inauthentic statements made by more "mainstream" types. The mayor of London, Ken Livingstone--another Blair-hater and another flirter with any local Imam who can bring him a few quick votes--managed to say that the murders were directed at "the working class," not the "powerful." That's true enough, but it doesn't avoid the implication that a jihadist bomb in, say, the Stock Exchange would have been less reprehensible. Another dismal statement, issued by the Muslim Council of Britain in concert with something called "Churches Together in Britain and Ireland," got as far as proclaiming that "no good purpose can be achieved by such an indiscriminate and cruel use of terror." This is to say too much and too little. It still hints that the purpose might be ill-served by the means. Further, it fails as an ecumenical statement in that it was evidently not submitted to Britain's large Jewish community for ratification. Why do I think that there were some in both the Muslim and Christian leaderships who thought that, in their proud "inclusiveness," they didn't need to go quite that far?

His comments on Ken Livingstone seem to be based on the fact that Ken's a dodgy leftie and therefore can't have meant what he quite clearly said. I'm not sure they justify a more extensive reply.

It's not like we expected Catholics to apologise every time the I.R.A. detonated a bomb, is it? So why the cherished myth that British Muslims need to condemn these atrocities, but aren't doing so (not actually true). But anyway...

"Nothing in Islam can ever justify the evil actions of the bombers" - Iqbal Saccranie

There you go. Another clear statement of condemnation from the Muslim Council of Britain. I'm sure it won't be enough for some people, of course.

And as for Churches Together using weak wording, Hitchens must have blinked and missed the next line in that statement:

"The scriptures and the traditions of both the Muslim and Christian communities repudiate the use of such violence. Religious precepts cannot be used to justify such crimes, which are completely contrary to our teaching and practice."

Sounds about right to me.

Come to think of it, if he's talking about the proud "inclusiveness" not including the Jewish community, he must have blinked again and missed the Chief Rabbi standing alongside the Archbishop of Canterbury and a spokesman for the Council of Mosques and Imams.

I don't know if that was a Churches Together statement (although it was rather more high profile than the one he quotes), but it's worth pointing out that Churches Together definitely have released some joint Jewish/Christian/Muslim statements of condemnation, too.

Comments

[deeply-spurious.livejournal.com]

Hitchens is (as I'm sure you know) a well known ultra right wing idiot - the fact that he is condemning Ken Livingstone's impassioned, articulate and effective response says it all really.

I agree that Muslim spokespeople have done as much as they could have done to condemn what happened. What is becoming increasingly clear, is that if there is to be any chance of preventing further such incidents, there is a need for Muslim communities to address the issue of extremists trying to influence their children... For this to happen, the rest of the country needs to embrace Muslim communities, not to reject or attack them. It would also be easier for Muslims to address the issue of extremism within their communities if the government didn't provide rhetorical ammunition for said extremists by needlessly attacking Muslim countries...

[zarbi.livejournal.com]

Hitchens is (as I'm sure you know) a well known ultra right wing idiot

The right wing one is Peter Hitchens, Christopher's brother. Christopher is normally pretty left wing, and he and Peter have had a long-term falling out over their difference in political views.

[deeply-spurious.livejournal.com]

Ah - I stand corrected - apologies for not paying proper attention...

[zarbi.livejournal.com]

It is understandable! I think the difference is that when Christopher writes something controversial, it is a deliberate and (usually) reasoned attempt to shake things up. His book about Mother Theresa was a good example. This is in direct contrast to Peter, who is a very nasty piece of work - a real Daily Mail rent-a-quote.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

Are you sure?

Sometimes Christopher Hitchens is right on the money, but he seems to spend so much of his time and energy savaging the people who are supposed to be his comrades I sometimes wonder what side he's on.

[zarbi.livejournal.com]

I'm sure that he and Peter have had a long-term row over politics. However, your description of Christoper sounds exactly right.

[sugarcrappies.livejournal.com]

Indeed. Murder is murder, no matter whose name it's commited in.

Last Night

[giggly-teapot.livejournal.com]

Okay so with M coming home today I thought I would ruin my reputation, whizz down to the local off-licence and buy some beer for his return.

Whilst in the Wine Shop, which is run by Paul who has an Asian background but is in fact a Christian who is married to a Hindu, some wonderful Chav's burst into the shop screaming Muslim go home..

Exactly what sort of orthodox Muslim would run a wine shop? I don't suppose that even entered their heads.

Re: Last Night

[mrph.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I see two different bunches of idiots have tried to firebomb Sikh temples, too.

Sometimes the human race really depresses me.

[zarbi.livejournal.com]

As usual for me, I have very mixed and confused feelings about this. I think that many Muslim leaders have done exactly the right thing. They have condemned the terrorism quickly and clearly, and I'm sure this has helped. There is a problem though, which is that there is no Muslim hierarchy. There is no equivalent of the Archbishop of Canterbury who can speak for all and reprimand those who disagree. For example, the Muslim Council of Britain is simply a lobby group.

I'm afraid I do find Ken Livingstone dodgy. He has done a great job in many ways, but every now and then he seems to go off the rails. His recent association with Dr al-Qaradawi, a cleric with appalling homophobic views, certainly makes me worry.

Compare this to Christopher Hitchens: "I know that homosexuality is a form of love, not just a form of sex, and thus that it deserves respect if not reverence."

I realise Hitchens can be highly controversial at times, but given the choice between him and Livingstone, I'd go with Hitchens almost every time.

[mrph.livejournal.com]

Almost every time, maybe - but not this time.

I think you're right about the Muslim hierarchy. It's not a good thing or a bad thing, it's just a feature that confuses many people - because it doesn't work the same way as most form of Christianity and they don't understand how the structure differs.

[zarbi.livejournal.com]

Yes - I was more arguing for the 'Ken Livingstone is dodgy' point of view. This does not mean he is wrong in this case. He has made some moving speeches about this attack.

As for the hierarchy; as I understand things has this lead to problems. With an organisation like the Church of England you generally know what you are getting, as vicars are appointed by bishops. This is different from Islam where Imams can be self-appointed, and can preach a wide range of views while still claiming this is the correct interpretation. This is, of course, not unique to Islam - some Christian traditions operate the same way. This lack of control can lead to the preaching of some very worrying views in any religion where it is the situation.