Sordel was surprised to hear that Terry Jones, infamous Python and driving force behind blasphemous satire The Life of Brian, is at it again with his plans to burn the Qur'an.
Except it's a different Terry Jones: a Terry Jones hitherto occluded by the heavy shadow of his irreverent namesake, and now crawling from beneath it with a packet of matches and the desire to be martyred.
This Terry Jones believes in keeping up with The (other) Joneses. In this case Jim Jones, whose inventive marketing campaign for Kool Aid came at the expense of his followers in the Peoples Temple Agricultural Project. That all occurred in some hellhole in Guyana. Terry, however, has established his church in a city in humid subtropical Florida. The city is called Gainesville, and has presumably been popping up with unusual frequency on Google Maps for users throughout the Middle East and Asia.
Oh yes, the Dove World Outreach Center (or the Dove World Trade Center Outrage, as it will surely be rechristened) is indeed reaching out to the world with its message of peace, reconciliation and lighter fuel accelerant.
The real question that is prompted by this folly is not, however, to wonder why this is being done (given the number of nutcases in the world I'm surprised that it isn't done every day) but to wonder how. Sordel is a cultured fellow, but never owned a Qur'an until well along in years.
Back in what we will term for the sake of argument were the Good Old Days, when women decided to burn their bras, there were bras enough to burn. When the American flag is burnt, or draft cards, or Beatles albums, there is a presumption that someone in possession of the combustible material already had it to hand before settling on this means of disposal.
Do we really believe that Christians of this rabid hue have been hoarding multiple copies of the Qur'an prior to determining upon this process? Or that sympathetic devotees of The Prophet, alternatively, have been supplying their third and fourth best copies for charitable disposal?
No, surely Qur'an sales have rocketed in Florida in recent weeks, as Terry takes delivery of large cartons of books paid for by his extremist donors.
Because when you're out to save souls, saving the forests comes a distant second.
"Where they burn books they will soon burn people", wrote Heine. It may surprise you to discover that the occasion for that famous quotation was the burning of the Qur'an.
Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Black Balls For White Supremacists?
Short of having a peerage, could Gordon Brown be less democratic? As an MP for a Scottish constituency he, like so many of his auld acquaintances, owes his place in the Commons to a West Lothian bye. He was never elected to his place as leader of the Labour Party, and never elected to be prime minister either. If he wants someone in the cabinet but can't get them elected (such as Peter Mandelson) he hands them a peerage. Moreover, at a time when it is painfully obvious to everyone that he can command the support neither of the country nor his own party (nor, quite possibly, his own cabinet), he clings on to power with the same Nanny-knows-best logic as his predecessor.
This is the man showing a new zeal for parliamentary reform.
It is interesting that he - and others - have been attacking the old abuses of the Commons with the emblem of a "gentleman's club". This comparison suits the class war mentality that he and Baron Mandelson seem to believe plays to a Great British Public resentful of privilege, yet it also seems a remarkably thin comparison. Gentlemen's clubs are, it is true, known for their leather armchairs, but extensive redecoration of the Commons is scarcely affordable, let alone necessary. Clubs are also known for their sleepy atmosphere, but - given the tireless energy that the members have been putting into their expenses - clearly there has been little time for napping between debates.
Moreover, it is worth bearing in mind that gentlemen's clubs supply a luxury that is paid for by its members, and not taxed out of the pockets of those milling outside its doors. People don't enter gentlemen's clubs to make money; they generally have it on the way in and somewhat less of it on the way out.
Presumably the basis of the comparison, then, is this: clubs are exclusive. They keep out the people who don't "fit".
It is interesting, then, that recent news has taught us a lot more about the ways of democracy with regard to the BNP. Evidently the other political parties have been colluding to run additional candidates in areas of local BNP strength in order to dilute their vote. There is, in short, a conspiracy against the BNP. When Nick Griffin said last night that the egg-throwers were only doing what the major political parties wanted them to, he was far-right on the money.
Now, I can't say that I like the BNP much, but amongst the reasons for Hitler's rise a prominent one was the defects of the Weimar Republic, and the roots causes of support for the BNP are not so distant. The Labour government spent years whipping up anti-Islamic sentiment in an effort to persuade us that fighting a war abroad was the only way to prevent domestic terrorism here. It was shameful fear-mongering, and has resulted in a country where dislike of foreigners now has an institutional root. Open the door to xenophobia (for contemptible political ends) and racist politicians will squeeze through.
Another factor to consider here is politicians tend to be made in the image of the tactics used against them, and the eggs are only the latest of the harassment used upon Nick Griffin, who has been unsuccessfully prosecuted for inciting racial hatred twice and was, of course, prevented from attending the vote count on Sunday at his first attempt by the mob demonstrating outside.
According to Wikipedia, Nick Griffin has a Boxing Blue from Cambridge. He apparently took up the sport after a "brawl with an anti-fascist". He will learn and employ tactics appropriate to those used upon him.
It goes without saying that there is no moral equivalency between racial hatred and spangly loo-seats but I do have a nagging fear that the true threat to the British political system is not the people clamouring to get into our parliament but the people fighting so ignobly to stay there.
This is the man showing a new zeal for parliamentary reform.
It is interesting that he - and others - have been attacking the old abuses of the Commons with the emblem of a "gentleman's club". This comparison suits the class war mentality that he and Baron Mandelson seem to believe plays to a Great British Public resentful of privilege, yet it also seems a remarkably thin comparison. Gentlemen's clubs are, it is true, known for their leather armchairs, but extensive redecoration of the Commons is scarcely affordable, let alone necessary. Clubs are also known for their sleepy atmosphere, but - given the tireless energy that the members have been putting into their expenses - clearly there has been little time for napping between debates.
Moreover, it is worth bearing in mind that gentlemen's clubs supply a luxury that is paid for by its members, and not taxed out of the pockets of those milling outside its doors. People don't enter gentlemen's clubs to make money; they generally have it on the way in and somewhat less of it on the way out.
Presumably the basis of the comparison, then, is this: clubs are exclusive. They keep out the people who don't "fit".
It is interesting, then, that recent news has taught us a lot more about the ways of democracy with regard to the BNP. Evidently the other political parties have been colluding to run additional candidates in areas of local BNP strength in order to dilute their vote. There is, in short, a conspiracy against the BNP. When Nick Griffin said last night that the egg-throwers were only doing what the major political parties wanted them to, he was far-right on the money.
Now, I can't say that I like the BNP much, but amongst the reasons for Hitler's rise a prominent one was the defects of the Weimar Republic, and the roots causes of support for the BNP are not so distant. The Labour government spent years whipping up anti-Islamic sentiment in an effort to persuade us that fighting a war abroad was the only way to prevent domestic terrorism here. It was shameful fear-mongering, and has resulted in a country where dislike of foreigners now has an institutional root. Open the door to xenophobia (for contemptible political ends) and racist politicians will squeeze through.
Another factor to consider here is politicians tend to be made in the image of the tactics used against them, and the eggs are only the latest of the harassment used upon Nick Griffin, who has been unsuccessfully prosecuted for inciting racial hatred twice and was, of course, prevented from attending the vote count on Sunday at his first attempt by the mob demonstrating outside.
According to Wikipedia, Nick Griffin has a Boxing Blue from Cambridge. He apparently took up the sport after a "brawl with an anti-fascist". He will learn and employ tactics appropriate to those used upon him.
It goes without saying that there is no moral equivalency between racial hatred and spangly loo-seats but I do have a nagging fear that the true threat to the British political system is not the people clamouring to get into our parliament but the people fighting so ignobly to stay there.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
She's "Got A Little List" (She Never Would Be Missed)
Until yesterday I am not sure that I had heard of Michael Alan Weiner. I had heard of Fred Phelps, because Louis Theroux made a television programme about him called The Most Hated Family in America. I imagine that we'll be hearing more of both of them, though, because the UK government has determined that there was some slender political advantage in naming them as people not welcome here.
Where is the Minister for Stop & Think when you need her?
It goes without saying that the policy of naming these undesirables has been placed in the safe keeping of Jacqui Smith, a politician of whom no news would be good news indeed. Instead of sitting in a corner crying (as any normal human being would with her recent record of catastrophe), the Home Secretary has popped her head above the parapets long enough to champion this list, and someone has even given it the name of "UK's Least Wanted." This suggests that someone in government thought that the idea was good enough to merit a snappy title.
So, of course, the news today is that Michael Alan Weiner is threatening to sue someone for defamation. Given that he has a hugely successful radio show and lives in a country with no shortage of lawyers, I favour his chances of dipping his hands into the pockets of British taxpayers at some point in the near future with a rapacious enthusiasm previously reserved for members of our own parliament.
Even should he fail (perhaps the case will never be brought, perhaps the lawyers for the Crown will be so greased by our money as to slip through his fingers) the net result of all this will be that Britain will extend its reputation as a country where the government is so terrified of dissenting views that it would rather ennoble them with an arbitrary and incompetent ban than expose them to the light of day. Personally, I never heard of a country that banned entrance to a campaigner of any sort without thinking that it was dictatorial and cowardly.
Louis Theroux made Fred Phelps look sinister and unbearable; Jacqui Smith has made him look like a martyr for freedom of speech.
The most worrying element in this, however, is the views for which Weiner has been banned. He is opposed to gay marriage but not apparently to homosexuality in general: a fairly bland view for an American right-winger. He has said some pretty ignorant things about autism, but hardly the sort of thing that posed a risk to public order more grave than a rowdy protest. He is opposed to immigration, which should surely put him and Jacqui on the same page.
He is reputedly anti-Arab and anti-Islamic.
Bingo.
The suspicion dawns that Weiner was not on the list for any especially grave or worrying views that he might hold, but in order to establish that the list of the UK's Least Wanted was not missing a final word: Muslims. Most of those on the list with viable militant credentials are indeed Muslims (not you, Mike Guzofsky) and there is a strong sense that the raison d'etre of the list is an attack on Islamic extremism to which some other names have been scraped up in the interests of apparent balance.
The only potential upside of this list, then, is the publication of a photograph of Jacqui Smith alongside the headline "UK's Least Wanted". With any luck it will be a photograph of the entire cabinet.
Where is the Minister for Stop & Think when you need her?
It goes without saying that the policy of naming these undesirables has been placed in the safe keeping of Jacqui Smith, a politician of whom no news would be good news indeed. Instead of sitting in a corner crying (as any normal human being would with her recent record of catastrophe), the Home Secretary has popped her head above the parapets long enough to champion this list, and someone has even given it the name of "UK's Least Wanted." This suggests that someone in government thought that the idea was good enough to merit a snappy title.
So, of course, the news today is that Michael Alan Weiner is threatening to sue someone for defamation. Given that he has a hugely successful radio show and lives in a country with no shortage of lawyers, I favour his chances of dipping his hands into the pockets of British taxpayers at some point in the near future with a rapacious enthusiasm previously reserved for members of our own parliament.
Even should he fail (perhaps the case will never be brought, perhaps the lawyers for the Crown will be so greased by our money as to slip through his fingers) the net result of all this will be that Britain will extend its reputation as a country where the government is so terrified of dissenting views that it would rather ennoble them with an arbitrary and incompetent ban than expose them to the light of day. Personally, I never heard of a country that banned entrance to a campaigner of any sort without thinking that it was dictatorial and cowardly.
Louis Theroux made Fred Phelps look sinister and unbearable; Jacqui Smith has made him look like a martyr for freedom of speech.
The most worrying element in this, however, is the views for which Weiner has been banned. He is opposed to gay marriage but not apparently to homosexuality in general: a fairly bland view for an American right-winger. He has said some pretty ignorant things about autism, but hardly the sort of thing that posed a risk to public order more grave than a rowdy protest. He is opposed to immigration, which should surely put him and Jacqui on the same page.
He is reputedly anti-Arab and anti-Islamic.
Bingo.
The suspicion dawns that Weiner was not on the list for any especially grave or worrying views that he might hold, but in order to establish that the list of the UK's Least Wanted was not missing a final word: Muslims. Most of those on the list with viable militant credentials are indeed Muslims (not you, Mike Guzofsky) and there is a strong sense that the raison d'etre of the list is an attack on Islamic extremism to which some other names have been scraped up in the interests of apparent balance.
The only potential upside of this list, then, is the publication of a photograph of Jacqui Smith alongside the headline "UK's Least Wanted". With any luck it will be a photograph of the entire cabinet.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Lost In Transliteration
However frivolous it may appear to defend the ampersand, the appearance of language on the page does matter, and nowhere more conspicuously than with regard to the perpetual familiarity of Judaism and the perpetual strangeness of Islam in a Christian cultural context.
Within my lifetime, it was once regarded as perfectly proper to speak of Moslems and their holy book, the Koran. These days, however, some Muslims regard the former transliteration as offensive, it having gone the way of Peking and Bombay. Their holy book is The Qur'an. For Western readers - an increasing number of whom are challenged by the distinction between it's and its - the presence of this apostrophe (representing the Arabic letter hamza) is an obstacle too far. For all that Muslims regard their theology as fraternal to Christianity, there is little chance on casual acquaintance that an English-speaking Christian would recognise this while coughing up a glottal stop.
The Jews, of course, have the Tanakh. This title is the acronymic combination of Torah, Nevi'im and Ketuvim, but Western readers are more familiar with this document in the redaction that we know as the Old Testament. Since Western readers are happy to ignore the body of Jewish religious literature aside from the Tanakh, the only Jewish holy book that they are required to encounter is something translated from Greek by, um, Shakespeare. Even the name of the Judaic-Christian holy book, the Bible, is etymologically orthodox, comforting to those bibliophiles amongst us.
So, how absurd is it to treat the relative distances between the three major monotheistic religions as partly, perhaps largely, orthographic?
The counterargument, I suppose, is that the Tanakh became incorporated in the Bible because Jewish religious writings were constitutive to Christianity in a way that Islam (being historically later) could never be. Most Christians have (however inadvertently) a Tanakh in their home; few have a Qur'an. Islam was a world political force long after the Jewish Diaspora, leading to a clash of civilisations that established a long rivalry between Christian and Islam nations. Those looking for substantive reasons for Western Christians to feel that Jews have an underlying similarity to them have plenty of arguments to call upon.
In reality, however, the Tanakh and the Qur'an are not staggeringly different documents, and they draw upon similar material. Muslims draw on Jewish history just as much as Christians do and incidents such as Abraham's near sacrifice of his son (albeit of Ishmael rather than Isaac) is just one of the narrative focal points that are shared. Moreover, while Jesus finds a place both in Islam and in Christian-era Jewish teaching, Islam gives a far more prominent role to Jesus than Judaism does. Theologically speaking, Islam has a much more Christian mindset than Judaism does, not least because Judaism retains its focus on the fate of the Chosen People, whereas Islam and Christianity are both strongly transracial and evangelical religions.
Now that there is a U.S. president with a heteronymic name (however much people try to force it to conform to an Irish-American logic as President O'Bahmer) perhaps the alien nature of Arabic will be somewhat diminished in the public mind. Given, however, the reflex to which many Westerners appear to have become conditioned at hearing the declaration in Arabic that "God is great", there may be some work left to do in reconciling Western fear of the unknown.
Within my lifetime, it was once regarded as perfectly proper to speak of Moslems and their holy book, the Koran. These days, however, some Muslims regard the former transliteration as offensive, it having gone the way of Peking and Bombay. Their holy book is The Qur'an. For Western readers - an increasing number of whom are challenged by the distinction between it's and its - the presence of this apostrophe (representing the Arabic letter hamza) is an obstacle too far. For all that Muslims regard their theology as fraternal to Christianity, there is little chance on casual acquaintance that an English-speaking Christian would recognise this while coughing up a glottal stop.
The Jews, of course, have the Tanakh. This title is the acronymic combination of Torah, Nevi'im and Ketuvim, but Western readers are more familiar with this document in the redaction that we know as the Old Testament. Since Western readers are happy to ignore the body of Jewish religious literature aside from the Tanakh, the only Jewish holy book that they are required to encounter is something translated from Greek by, um, Shakespeare. Even the name of the Judaic-Christian holy book, the Bible, is etymologically orthodox, comforting to those bibliophiles amongst us.
So, how absurd is it to treat the relative distances between the three major monotheistic religions as partly, perhaps largely, orthographic?
The counterargument, I suppose, is that the Tanakh became incorporated in the Bible because Jewish religious writings were constitutive to Christianity in a way that Islam (being historically later) could never be. Most Christians have (however inadvertently) a Tanakh in their home; few have a Qur'an. Islam was a world political force long after the Jewish Diaspora, leading to a clash of civilisations that established a long rivalry between Christian and Islam nations. Those looking for substantive reasons for Western Christians to feel that Jews have an underlying similarity to them have plenty of arguments to call upon.
In reality, however, the Tanakh and the Qur'an are not staggeringly different documents, and they draw upon similar material. Muslims draw on Jewish history just as much as Christians do and incidents such as Abraham's near sacrifice of his son (albeit of Ishmael rather than Isaac) is just one of the narrative focal points that are shared. Moreover, while Jesus finds a place both in Islam and in Christian-era Jewish teaching, Islam gives a far more prominent role to Jesus than Judaism does. Theologically speaking, Islam has a much more Christian mindset than Judaism does, not least because Judaism retains its focus on the fate of the Chosen People, whereas Islam and Christianity are both strongly transracial and evangelical religions.
Now that there is a U.S. president with a heteronymic name (however much people try to force it to conform to an Irish-American logic as President O'Bahmer) perhaps the alien nature of Arabic will be somewhat diminished in the public mind. Given, however, the reflex to which many Westerners appear to have become conditioned at hearing the declaration in Arabic that "God is great", there may be some work left to do in reconciling Western fear of the unknown.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)