Archive for the 'Religion' Category

Muslim deviance and the slough of ignorance

Once again the CIA and MI6 are publishing dire warnings of the vitality of al Qaeda. Once again the Islamic world as a whole is being tarnished by association. US presidential contender John McCain is saying that America needs a leadership to confront the transcendent challenge of our time: the threat of radical Islamic terrorism. And the words still ring in our ears from Samuel Huntington’s treatise, The Clash of Civilizations, the book that in many ways triggered this paranoia that infects the politicians, the press and the public discourse. The underlying problem for the west is not Islamic fundamentalism, he wrote: it is Islam.

Few, if any, in the western leadership seem to make the point that al Qaeda is a deviant phenomenon within the Islamic world, just as Hitler was a deviant phenomenon within the Christian world (commentators seems to overlook Hitler’s early speeches calling on Catholic principles). But Islam has a much better record over the ages (despite its founder being far more warlike than the founder of Christianity) of dealing with its deviants who take violence to excess. Islamic culture has never been tolerant to Nazism, fascism or communism. Christianity has spawned all three. Buddhism failed to resist Japanese militarism and Confucianism provided hospitable to Maoism. Yes, there was Saddam Hussein, but he was an atheistic brute without an ideology.

Continue reading ‘Muslim deviance and the slough of ignorance’

Enough already with the smack, Shmu’el

There are less than 300 Jews in British prisons, and Samuel is almost certainly the only convicted (former) international drug trafficker amongst the ultra-Orthodox Hasidic Jews of Stamford Hill in north London. “The Prisoner,” episode one of Jews, a three-part BBC4 documentary which starts on Wednesday 18th June, charts Samuel’s mission to reassimilate into a community which is in many ways more challenging than his previous nine years of hard time in Brazilian, Israeli and English prisons.

“A yiddische, haddische boy, with the curls and everything, what did I know about drugs?” Samuel, 38, muses, whilst allowing that Hasidic garb is a good drug smuggling disguise only up to a point, since it led to 12 years in jail. “He’s obviously unique: there isn’t another such case” his brother explains, adding that returning to a “very disciplined lifestyle” in a closed community with strict rules, severe dress code and segregation of the sexes will be very different from prison. Samuel must wear an electronic tag for five months following release, but this is almost unnecessary: everybody knows each others’ business in an enclave where people live according to rules fashioned in 18th-century eastern European villages.

The 20,000 Stamford Hill Hasidim have rarely been documented, much less filmed, by outsiders. Televisions are not encouraged in private homes. The internet is anathema. Women must not look men in the eye, and wear wigs and hats—in case the wigs are too realistic. One pious soul spends her days sewing up slits in skirts. Children wear tights from the age of three. People sway and mutter in constant prayer, including before and after using the toilet. While forgiveness and charity are part of the community ethic, Samuel himself must now choose between his former outlaw life and religious conformity. Having lived among criminals, not to mention non-Jews, he will never recover the carefree innocence of the young people scurrying about in black hats and coats, staring at the ground.
Continue reading ‘Enough already with the smack, Shmu’el’

A Cairo conversion

In 2005, Hugh Miles moved to Cairo to work as a freelance journalist, and fell in love with a doctor. They decided to get married. There was just one problem: the Koran forbids marriage between Muslim women and non-Muslim men (Muslim men, on the other hand, can marry outside the faith, so long as the woman in question is either Christian or Jewish). Miles, therefore, decided to convert to Islam, and in this month’s Prospect he writes an entertaining account of the process. Readers may be surprised by how simple becoming a Muslim is, at least at the Al-Azhar University in Cairo (elsewhere it is more arduous). Little evidence of any religious commitment is required, and the whole thing takes less than two hours. The piece is based on the final chapter of Miles’s new book, Playing Cards in Cairo, an account of his year in Egypt (published by Abacus).  

Hitchens, Obama and Jeremiah Wright — oh, and John Gray

With his unerring eye for trouble, Christopher Hitchens was already writing about Obama’s relationship with the Rev Jeremiah Wright and the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago 2 1/2 months ago (”Identity Crisis”, Slate, 7.1.08 — see Hitchens’ own website, http://www.hitchensweb.com/).

The American media took a little longer. Now they’ve found Wright they are not going to let go. He is straight from Fox TV’s central casting. Christmas has come early for the American Right. Obama did a good piece of damage limitation (turning Jon Stewart and other liberal well-wishers to soppy goo) . He did the only thing he could: turn the debate into one about whuite guilt and race in America and he did it with considerable seriousness and eloquence, high on five dollar words and low on specifics as is his wont. But this will only work for those who are backing him. For others, the speech was not a turning point. The Rev Wright and his Afrocentric theology will follow Obama to Denver and all the way through the presidential campaign (if he gets that far). The Republican columnists and TV pundits are all set.

Why did Hitchens get there first? Because he has no time for religion. He could sense trouble a mile off:

“Much or most of what Trinity United says is harmless and boring, rather like Gov. Mike Huckabee’s idiotic belief that his own success in Iowa is comparable to the “miracle” of the loaves and fishes, and the site offers a volume called Bad Girls of the Bible: Exploring Women of Questionable Virtue, which I have added to my cart, but nobody who wants to be taken seriously can possibly be associated with such a substandard and shade-oriented place.

All this easy talk about being a “uniter” and not a “divider” is piffle if people are talking out of both sides of their mouths. I have been droning on for months about how Mitt Romney needs to answer questions about the flat-out racist background of his own church, and about how Huckabee has shown in public that he does not even understand the first thing about a theory—the crucial theory of evolution by natural selection—in which he claims not to believe. Many Democrats are with me on this, but they go completely quiet when Sen. Obama chooses to give his allegiance to a crackpot church with a decidedly ethnic character.”

This is the point which John Gray completely missed in his long diatribe against Hitchens and fellow atheist writers like Dennett and Dawkins (The Guardian Review, March 15). The real problem with religion is that so many religious figures are drawn to hate and intolerance and division instead of understanding and compassion. They say things like ‘God damn America’. Obama can’t distance himself enough from this because he knows how much he depends on ministers like Wright, who have built up hugely popular congregations, to champion him come election time. So instead he talks about how Wright ’spoke to me about our obligations to love another, to care for the sick and lift up the poor, ‘ ‘who helped introduce me to my Christian faith’. McCain’s team, as you read this, are lining up the video clips of these words to run against Wright’s choicest quotes.

The tragedy is that Wright and the American Right are made for each other. Both will use God and religion to justify words of hate and intolerance. What was wise and brave in Obama’s speech will be forgotten and the fear is that this will leave a legacy of bitterness and resentment across much of Black America for years to come, long after the media herd have moved on and Jeremiah Wright is forgotten by everyone outside south Chicago.

Happy Maewyn Succat’s day

Even Google have joined in with today’s remembrance of Maewyn Succat, the 5th century Briton who converted much of Ireland to Christianity. It was a mission whose somewhat unpromising roots lay in his kidnapping, aged 16, by pirates who sold him into Irish slavery. Having escaped at the age of 22 (thanks to a tip from God), he returned home, studied religious matters diligently and passionately, and eventually returned to Ireland with the Pope’s backing and an evangelical mission he discharged with great effectiveness for almost 30 years.

St Patrick, as he is better known, is a much-loved saint—not least by those nice fellows at Guinness and whoever owns the patent on the colour “shamrock green.” You’ll find few more profound takes on today’s global significance, however, than this meditation from the Stuff White People Like blog which, as ever, concludes with a handy hint for would-be whitey-lovers:

Most of the time, white people consider celebrations of European heritage to be racist unless they omit large swathes of the 16th through 20th centuries. But since the Irish never engaged in colonialism and were actually oppressed it is considered acceptable and encouraged to celebrate their ancestry. For this reason, 100% of white people are proud to claim that they are somewhat Irish.

A big part of St. Patrick’s Day is having white people feel particularly upset at the oppression of their ancestors that has in no way trickled down to them. If you find yourself talking with a white person who tells you about how their great grandfather was oppressed by both the English and the Americans, it is strongly recommended that you lend a sympathetic ear and shake your head in disbelief. It is never considered acceptable to say: “but you’re white now, so what’s the problem?”

It is also worth nothing that on this day, there is always one trump card that never fails to gain respect and acclaim. When you are sitting at an Irish bar and someone orders a round of Guinness, you must take a single sip and while the other white people are savoring their drink, you say: “mmmm, I know it sounds clichéd, but it really is true. Guinness just tastes better in Ireland”…

It is also strongly encouraged that you memorize the lyrics to “Jump Around.” It will come in handy.

In the interests of full disclosure, I have about 500 years of English blood trickling through me, with a dash of Scotch and a (possibly mythical) Mediterranean sailor. I have never been to Ireland, I do not know the lyrics of “jump around” and—like many of my white friends—I like Stuff White People Like.

Cameron and polygamy

The furore caused by the Archbishop of Canterbury’s widely (mis)quoted comments on sharia law dominated the first in a series of RSA lunchtime events yesterday, held in conjunction with the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).

David Cameron gave the keynote speech, arguing, much as David Green does in this month’s issue, that accommodating sharia law in Britain (to any greater extent than it already is) would institute a “legal apartheid” —only reinforcing the “cultural apartheid” which already exists in parts of the country. Invoking testimonies from recent visits to Bradford and Derby, he claimed the “state multiculturalism experiment” has failed: it has resulted in the alienation of minority communities, and reinforced difference where there should be consensus. What we need instead, he said, is a more robust sense of shared national identity.

Despite his claim that such an idea comes “naturally” to Conservatives, there is of course virtually no distinction between the main political parties on this issue. Cameron himself praised David Blunkett’s introduction of citizenship ceremonies, and nearly all the points made in his speech echoed the noises that Labour policy wonks have been making for quite some time.

Indeed, there seemed to be more (polite) distance on the issues discussed between the members of the EHRC delegation than between the line taken by Labour and the Conservatives. The event was chaired by the EHRC’s new communications director, Kamal Ahmed, and led by Trevor Phillips, and the main feature of the discussion was a rather timid disagreement about architecture. Cameron (borrowing chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks’s metaphor), argued that Britain should not be like a hotel, as it is now, but a “house we build together”. Ziaddin Sardar took exception to the analogy, and proposed instead a “garden” – one that is not owned by anyone, and is able to grow organically, in any direction.

But in the end it was clear that everyone did at least agree on one matter: none knew what the Archbishop meant to say in his speech, nor in his subsequent “clarifications.”

In fact, the only real frisson worth mentioning came from the Conservatives’ own ranks, when, in the question and answer session, Cameron appeared to misspeak himself and come our in favour of polygamy—causing panic among the blue-rinse delegation in the audience. He quickly corrected himself.

What should have caused much more concern, however, was when the Tory leader argued we have “much to learn” about citizenship ideals from the America. The US is a country that is still deeply culturally segregated, and where the “value” of patriotism has been so deeply inculcated in its citizens that they dutifully re-elected their Commander-in-Chief, even after it was obvious he had led them into a disastrous war.

Then again, we British did the same, and we don’t even have the excuse that we grew up to pledging allegiance to our flag every morning.

Charles Taylor

The new issue of Prospect features a portrait of the Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor, one of the most significant and original thinkers writing in English today. The peg for the piece is the publication of Taylor’s new book A Secular Age, which attempts to place modern-day secularism in its contemporary context by tracing its development from the Reformation through the Enlightenment and the Romantic era to the present day—a project which, Taylor suggests, can help us better understand the relationship of contemporary secularism to the modern age.

Taylor is a practising Catholic, and his book can in some way be seen as a polemic against what he would presumably see as the dogmatic atheism of Dawkins, Hitchens et al. But the book also fits into Taylor’s broader corpus, and in particular his attempts, most clearly expressed in his 1989 book Sources of the Self, to describe the historical evolution of the self, which in a sense provides the conceptual underpinnings for the new book by showing how the idea of the self, and the self’s relationship to the outside world, both natural and supernatural, has developed over the last 500 years or so.

Taylor fans should also check out our exclusive interview with Taylor, carried out by Prospect editor David Goodhart, our official in-house philosopher AC Grayling and others.

UPDATE I’ve just been sent this:

Thank you for your attention to Charles Taylor and A Secular Age. You and the readers of your blog might find this of interest. The Immanent Frame hosts an extensive discussion of Taylor’s A Secular Age, including contributions from Talal Asad, Robert Bellah, Wendy Brown, Craig Calhoun, Jose Casanova, Charles Taylor, and many others.

Jonathan VanAntwerpen
Social Science Research Council

The colours of jihad

images1.jpgThe Frontline Club in London serves as a place of repose for swashbuckling foreign correspondents as well as a venue for internationally themed film screenings and talks. The building is lovely, it has a pleasant restaurant attached, and its programme of events is consistently impressive.

But the cover story of the club’s January newsletter reads like something straight out of the Onion. Headlined “Drawing the Jihad,” the piece, by Canadian journalist Nancy Durham, describes the latest weapon deployed by Saudi Arabian authorities in the war against Islamic terrorism: art therapy. Durham got a sneak peek inside a secure art therapy centre, just north of Riyadh, in which convicted terrorists are “groomed for a return to society” by art therapist Awad Alyami.

Durham describes how one of the detainees, Mohammed, showed her his work: “an abstract paper canvas smeared with intense red and purple tones.” Clearly pleased with this expressionist masterpiece, Mohammed “smiled,” and explained that it represented his “negative energy.” But, warns Durham, not all the artwork is this easy to understand. She describes watching two detainees draw “lines, curves and dots in shades of pink and blue,” but doesn’t venture an interpretation. Perhaps the prohibition on visual depiction found in more fundamentalist interpretations of Sunni Islam inhibits the jihadis from giving their negative energies a more concrete visual expression.

Nancy Durham will apparently be speaking at the Frontline club in early February.

Divine punishment

Continuing today’s theme of religious hatred, Crooked Timber links to a list of the “nine most badass Bible verses.” Forty lashes for misnaming a teddy bear might sound harsh, but it’s a clip around the ear compared to this, from Numbers:

Then the LORD said to Moses, “Say to the assembly, ‘Move away from the tents of Korah, Dathan and Abiram’.…

As soon as he finished saying all this, the ground under them split apart and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them, with their households and all Korah’s men and all their possessions. They went down alive into the grave, with everything they owned; the earth closed over them, and they perished and were gone from the community.

The failure of Britz (2)

Channel 4 went big on Britz, describing it as must-see, water-cooler television for the post-7/7 generation. I was happy to give up four hours to see anything that Peter Kosminsky had written and directed. The Government Inspector, his thoughtful, sparse telling of the death of David Kelly was one of the highlights of 2005.

But I was disappointed by Britz—on three levels. Continue reading ‘The failure of Britz (2)’



Gift Subscription

Bad Behavior has blocked 1618 access attempts in the last 7 days.