Submission, abject
Just a little more about Sholto. It doesn’t seem to have gone very well for him – the comments at the New Statesman are scathing, and Google blogsearch turns up only more scathe, no pleased cries of “At last somebody talking sense about sharia.” He must be feeling sadly disappointed in the multicultural broadmindedness and flexibility of – of – well of everybody but himself, I guess. There’s one comment at the NS that looks favorable at first blush, but when you read on it becomes obvious that it’s a parody. So Sholto is 0 for 0 with the “let’s look at the good side of sharia” enterprise.
Back to the article for a moment.
The example of Saudi Arabia undoubtedly has much to do with this [distaste for sharia]. Yet it is important to stress that to look at that country and then assume that its version of sharia is the only one, or the one to which Muslims all secretly aspire, would be akin to holding up a vision of Torquemada’s Inquisition and concluding that this was what real Christianity was.
So the Saudi version of sharia is not the only one; so what other version is there? He never says. He says that in Malaysia non-Muslims are allowed to ignore it, but he doesn’t point to some other kind of sharia that is benign and fair and reasonable and just the right kind of thing. Actually he doesn’t even say that the Saudi version is not the only one, he just says what it would be like to assume that it is. Maybe that’s because even he doesn’t actually believe that there is a different one, he just wants his readers to think so. Tut tut, Sholto.
He commented only once, and concluded with something really silly when he did:
There are plenty of atheists and anti-religious writers who appear in the NS – surely you don’t object to the debate being a bit wider than that?
Yes, I damn well do, when “a bit wider” means “pro-sharia.” The NS is supposed to be a left-wing magazine and there are some things that are not left-wing by any definition. Sharia is right-wing; it’s savagely, harshly, vengefully right-wing, and there is nothing left-wing about it. Nothing at all. The New Statesman is a disgrace.
I know everyone here knows this, but it must be pointed out every time a commentator fails to acknowledge it: this statement overlooks the Muslim women, gays, apostates and other undesirables who are not allowed to ignore it (Sharia). You know, anyone but the males in power. Why do people consistently fail to see this? It’s not good enough to say “it only applies to Muslims.” “Muslims” does not describe a homogeneous “community” of free agents with identical interests. The interests of women, gays, and others are in direct contradiction to the interests of the ruling male theocrats.
Sigh. Headdesk.
In case I wasn’t clear, “commentator” refers to Byrnes, not Ophelia. I noticed this in his original piece before Ophelia paraphrased it, but didn’t comment immediately.
Byrnes must have decided that he loves Big Brother.
Malaysia is often trotted out by sharia apologists as a relatively benign and wellfunctioning example of an ‘islamic’ country. Some of us happen to know much more about Malaysia than the morons the NS employs to write its drivel.Malaysia has become a nightmare state in recent decades and that is pretty much due to the malign influence of islamism. Non muslims and muslims do not live in isolation from each other and nonmuslims are disadvantaged when disputes are taken to sharia courts where they are effectively nonpersons, even more than muslim women and apostates tend to be. Some of these cases have been dicussed on B&W previously. In fact so well do some nonmuslim men understand the nature of the ‘justice’ that sharia courts dispense that they have converted to islam, predivorce, often secretly, to have it all…pulling the rug out from their unsuspecting wives’ and children’s feet. Sharia in all of its legal forms is nasty and meanspirited, a male bully’s wetdream. Byrne’s wife, if he has one, would do well to avoid trips to good ol M’sia.
Byrne hasn’t made the debate wider, he’s made it wide of the mark…
Mirax, thanks for that. Too often any criticism of religion is put down to ignorance (usually ignorance of “culture” rather than religion). When in fact, as Byrnes demonstrates, it takes more ignorance to defend the indefensible.
As I’ve said before (post on Hitchens), the left is more of a culture or a family of often contradictory beliefs/clichés than a definite philosophy. For the last 100 years the Western left has showed a tendency to romanticize or idealize or at least relativize what is exotic or different: first, the Soviet Union; then, China and Cuba and now, Islam or Native-American cultures. The logic seems to be: things here (in the West) are not as good as they (the mainstream media, the official discourse) claim that they are. Ergo, things there (the Soviet Union, Islam) are not as bad as they claim that they are. The logic is faulty of course. I’m not claiming that the right evinces better logic or a more consistent discourse.
For the last 100 years the Western left has showed a tendency to romanticize or idealize or at least relativize what is exotic or different…
Quite true. It’s kind of odd that people who decry Bush’s ‘fee speech zones’ and other wrong headed but mild methods of suppression of dissent will turn a blind eye and romanticize Cuba where people get jailed for decades for writing a paragraph critical of the state.
In the end there seems to be a kind of ‘if I disagree with it, it’s not really left’ in the argument. Left and right are an overly simplistic convenience. In fact there are serious wack jobs in both camps, and people who make a lot of sense in both camps.
mirax, I’ve been hoping you would chime in ever since I read Sholto’s absurd post. I hope you said this on his post, too, where he will probably see it!
Left and Right are best thought of as two poles on an economic axis that intersencts a perpendicular liberal-authoritarian axis.
Left authoritarians occupy one quadrant vertically adjacent to left-liberals but horizontally adjacent to right-authoritarians and diagonally opposite to socially liberal libertarians.
It doesn’t break down as precisely as that and I expect you could throw in a few more orthogonal axis for faith vs science, etc. but it’s a useful way of reminding yourself that sharing one value with someone does not mean you are poles apart on another.
Sorry, meant *not* poles apart on another.
Byrnes is studiously avoiding answering legitimate questions posed by Ophelia and others about the oppressive nature of Sharia when it comes to women. Why is he doing this? These are not “provocative” questions; they’re foundational and they really do need to be addressed. Is it just that he’s incapable of saying, “I didn’t consider that, but I should have, and it changes my perspective.”?
Presumably, if sharia is only imposed of Musims in Malaysia I’d be okay publishing some Motoons there?
Have left comments on the constitutional amendments by Mahathir in 1998 that destroyed the independence of the judiciary and expanded the scope of the sharia courts on the Spittoon, Ophelia. The NS blog, well, I am hesitant. Dont want to get into something that is just going to enrage and sadden me. Had a death in the family – my kid brother- and have enough emotions to deal with.
How does one deal with a blithering idiot like Sholto B and the cynical editors of the NS, Independent, Guardian et al who encourage this?
oh joy, the third installment of this dreary series is on and sholto is unhappy that people have made fun of his name. Completely ignores the arguments against his opinion pieces and carries on vacuously. A billion plus people want sharia (hugely controversial and condescending view of muslims) thus, some of it must be peachy, applepiey and mushy lovingkindness. Naysayers are just haters who are for the clash of civilisations and the return of the crusades. Namechecks B&W and harry’s place. Appears put out by the criticism. Exceedingly strange.
Oh jeezis, how awful, mirax. Sympathies.
Oh, has he – I saw where he said he was about to. Back to the wretched NS for an update then.
How does one deal with this, indeed – other than by doing one’s best to say how disgusting it is.
Oh, fuck. Fuck fuck fuck!!
He is just appalling.
Is it worth using the terms “left” and “right” any more, Shatterface? It’s more than two hundred years since the Frsnch Revolution, when they originated. Your own economic and authoritarian/liberal divisions create contradictions- are “big state” fascists economically left or right? There are more important political divisions to be made now- such as between totalitarian and not totalitarian or based on religious presuppositions and not.
He really is a smug git isn’t he ? Adopting an air of amused detachment in the face of his accusers, he will answer them all of course in due time and when he sees fit but for now he has far less important things to do.
Appalling isn’t the word for that man. Obviously, his review of your book was not a one off. He’s completely off his rocker. The strange thing is that he thinks that because Palestinians have voted for Hamas, the AKP in Turkey, and other governments are trying to hold their finger in the dyke to prevent the tyranny of Sharia, there must be something good about it, as mirax says — and yes, sympathy to mirax on his loss — a kid brother, that’s hard. The man’s completely mad. Millions voted for Hitler too, and a lot of people actually thought there was something to be said for the man. Mackenzie King got all warm and fuzzy when he thought of him (WW II Prime Minister of Canada). He had support in Britain, France, Italy, the Arab world (now that should ring a bell somewhere), etc. etc. With that much support, couldn’t be a bad thing, now, could it? It doesn’t work that way, Sholto. Open your eyes and look around.
His conclusion is really off the wall:
No one wants a clash of civilisations, but when one of them wants to impose Sharia law on anybody, it’s time to put a stop to it. This is not about civilisations. This is about reasonable morality, freedom and human rights. Fuck Sharia. Eloquent word that! (I mean ‘fuck’, of course.)
The problem with seeing the left in terms of economic proposals (more social spending) is that there is another element in what we might call the real existing left, and that element is what leads Brynes to support Sharia. There is a pro-third world tendency in much of the real existing left, which believes that those whom Fanon called “the wretched of the earth” (who these days are sometimes not so wretched in terms of gross national product per capita, e.g. United Arab Emirates) can do no wrong, while the masters of the universe (say U.S., U.K., Israel, and their allies) can do no right.
Yes, but of course even with the third world thing, they’re hopelessly confused, because it’s not as if by saying “hooray for sharia” they are doing the wretched of the earth a big favor. What they’re doing is ignoring more than half of the wretched of the earth (women, gays, infidels, liberal believers, people who want to change their religion, secularists…). They are, stupidly, treating the wretched of the earth as if they were all identical units with identical wants and hopes and dreams and with identical amounts of power. They are treating the wretched of the earth as if they were all equally wretched and all for the same reasons, when in fact lots of the wretched of the earth are made wretched by the people in that big palace in the middle of town, or by their husbands, or by the imam.
To think that hugging Islam is the same thing as solidarity with the powerless and oppressed is to fail to think properly.
Dave allen, who called himself a practicing atheist, was banned from Irish TV because of his renowned mockery of Catholicism. I wonder is Sholto getting a dig in there by quoting “May your God go with you”? Is there a subliminal message, vis a vis, Catholicism and OB? Anyway, if your was not in the phrase, invariably, it would be a typical Irish expression, taken from Gaelic. ‘May God’ is used all the time. Dia duit God to you. Dia is Muire duit God and Mary to you. (reply) Go mbeannaí Dia duit May God bless you. Go mbeannaí Dia is Muire duit May God and Mary. Nothing unique to the Irish, but I expect it was synonymous with the comedian. Crikey, if he were alive today what a different story it would be. ‘May the cat eat you and the devil eat the cat’ (Go n-ithe an cat thú is go n-ithe an diabhal an cat). (^.^)\ smile!
OB: I agree with you. The “third world solidarity” attitude is patronizing towards the actually existing people of third world countries, who, as you say, are not identical units with identical wants, but individuals with the capacity to choose their life-styles, if given the chance. In a certain sense, the worst of the “third world solidarity” attitude is racist in that it sees third world people as a mass of identical units and is marked by a first-world disdain for actually existing people of the third world, in all their human variety. At times, said attitude becomes frankly ridiculous: I recall an “idealist” young woman from Berkeley, California who wrote an online love-poem to Hezbollah (after Hezbollah “resisted” the Israeli invasion). I tried to explain to her who Hezbollah is, that they are capable of acts of brutal terrorism that makes the worst of Mossad look like the Red Cross and that Hezbollah would cut her liberated, Berkeley, California throat if they had the chance, but it was no use.
‘Is it worth using the terms “left” and “right” any more, Shatterface? It’s more than two hundred years since the Frsnch Revolution, when they originated. Your own economic and authoritarian/liberal divisions create contradictions- are “big state” fascists economically left or right?’
Economic models seem to have converged on corporatism so I’d agree Left and Right are not so relevent distinctions these days, they are more a matter of degree or marketing
‘There are more important political divisions to be made now- such as between totalitarian and not totalitarian or based on religious presuppositions and not.’
The totalitarian/not totalitarian axis is what I meant by the authoritarian/liberal axis.
David Colquhoun says that a 2nd-year student told him that people like him (Colquhoun) would be executed when Britain becomes an Islamic republic. That was a nice thing to say, wasn’t it?
Incidentally, I don’t see anything specifically wrong with the New Statesman offering a platform for other views. Plenty of objections to the views themselves of course! Object to them while you still can.
The New Statesman isn’t a general-interest magazine, it’s one with a particular political stance. It shouldn’t give a platform for views that are antithetical to that stance. It’s incoherent and misleading.