Rencently, I was spurred into watching a "debate" between Christopher Hitchens and Chris Hedges, as posted within this entry. I am familiar with the participants and have gleaned useful information from each of their works on occasion. The editing is rather choppy and it is evident any rebuttal has been deleted so I am not in a position to defend Mr. Hedges, however, Mr. Hitchens' understanding of Islam and what it represents reduces him to the level of an ignoramus, insofar as his knowledge of Shari’ah and jihad are concerned...
Hitchens obviously takes his fiqh lessons from Osama bin Laden and the like, who, it should be noted, have had no formal instruction on the classical sciences of Islam. Along the massive attack being waged by the right against Islam and Muslims, and the mainstream media bias that pervades our sources of information, it is all the more vital that people like Hitchens take the time to investigate the accuracy of what is being touted as “Islamic.” Instead, he takes his lessons from people like Limbaugh and bin Laden, one of whom is a trained windbag and the other an accountant by profession, both of whom are buffoons.
It's no wonder that Hitchens served as the mouthpiece for the Bush administration and pushed so hard for the invasion of Iraq. He failed to consult experts on the issues conjured up by the administration and went full bore trying to convenience the left and other liberals to support the war cry of the conservatives. He does the same with his tirades against Islam and Muslims. He shows no sign of knowing what jihad actually is nor can he offer any critical insight into the fatalistic errors on behalf of those arguments that attempt to justify suicide bombings.
To break it down:
Christopher Hitchens: is (was) the Bush administration on a Christian crusade in Iraq?
Perhaps not, although Bush did say on 60 Minutes that his "Heavenly Father" advised him to invade. We also know that nut jobs like O'Reilley, Coulter, Limbaugh, and Savage all argue that it is a fight against Islam. Whether or not this was the intent of the former administration, is speculative. Certainly, however, the views espoused by the idiots named above, were to the advantage of the Bush administration. Furthermore, many troops have said they are on a mission from Christ and the Americans who plaster their cars with bumper stickers that read, "God Bless Our Troops”, along with crucifixes, intertwined with yellow ribbons, most definitely send a message that this is a religious crusade.
CH: This is an effort to bring about secularism...
Sadaam was a secularist. What the war has brought (as was predicted by anyone paying attention) has been an influx of terrorists who think it is their duty in life to kill anyone with a different point of view (that is, if this wasn't started as some failed, clandestine COINTELPRO-style method to divide the people, gone awry). According to Iraqis with whom I spoke prior to the invasion, had they been allowed to rise up on their own (as was attempted in '91 but allowed to fail under the watch of Bush Sr. who denied access to weapons depots- much akin to the Bay of Pigs slaughter), they would have toppled the regime, as had happened with similar despots of the past. The bottom-line, however, remains with the Iraqi people, which is what kind of government do they want? That is up to no one but the people of Iraq; not by a handful of individuals propped up by the US, or western intellectuals who believe they know what is best for others. If one wants to exalt the qualities of secularism in Iraq, there are two angles. One is pre-war Iraq, under Sadaam. The other is what we see now: an influx of alcoholism, drug use, and prostitution. I fail to see the advantage here. According to the CDC, annual alcohol-related deaths in the US number in the 80,000s (2.5 million worldwide, according to the World Health Organization; alcohol is more harmful than heroin or crack, according to a recent study published in the Lancet Medical Journal), STDs are out of control, as are other ills resulting from promiscuity. No, I do not see the advantage of exporting western values to Iraq- especially by force.
CH: On the manifestos of the suicide bombers....
These people are misled into believing that there is heavenly reward awaiting them in the Akhirah. Not only that, most of them are not religious- I suggest the film Paradise Now for a look into the motivation of these individuals. Furthermore, just as in the case of bin Laden, these people have actually neglected the responsibility they have as Muslims to study under learned persons to understand their faith. There is no valid excuse for their actions. Do I understand it? Yes. Is it right? No. Islam is not a “have it your way” ideology. There are specific rules for engagement and rules against vigilantism.
CH: Excusing evil Jihad and Mullahs' preaching....
If the Mullahs are teaching that the murder of civilians is justified, they are indeed preaching evil. Again, Islam has drawn clear lines for military engagement and the Qur'an is very clear about the sin of aggression. Neither the Mullahs, who propagate otherwise, nor is Hitchens himself speaking from any position of authoritative understanding.
CH: Terrorist would like to kill everyone in this room...
Perhaps. It should be noted that as misguided as bin Laden's theology happens to be, never has he made the case for a world caliphate. What he has demanded is for western powers to cease their occupation of Muslim lands. His (unqualified) fatwa, to “kill all Americans” was specific to the occupation of Muslim lands, which was given prior to 9-11 as a warning to avert an attack; to ignore him, western interests would be (and have been) attacked first in the lands of occupation and later on US soil. This is not unlike the Japanese warning the US in 1941 that trade interference in Japanese-occupied China would result in an attack on American forces; thus, Pearl Harbor. Furthermore, never have the terrorist groups in Palestine commanded an attack against the US. Moreover, while I remain skeptical about placing the blame on bin Laden for 911, the fact that he found the attacks praiseworthy demonstrate his lack of humanity. The fact that he denied involvement can only suggest that he is either not true to his unflinching adherence to take responsibility for what he believes to be just, and would therefore demonstrate a lack of faith in his convictions or he was simply not involved. Had the US adhered to international law in its attempt at his capture, the truth would have likely already been known. Instead, we ignored the Taliban’s demand for evidence of a crime in exchange for his extradition, as well as their offer to hand him over to a neutral third party for trial. Instead, we find our forces caught up in a quagmire with no end in sight.
CH: Their own racism...
What? Again, his warped understanding of Islam is glaring. The Qur'an is in line with what the human genome project confirmed a decade ago, i.e., race is an artificial construct with no basis in reality (or science). Anyone who asserts racism is part of Islam is as worthy of ridicule as a fool dawning a bed sheet in front of a flaming cross, praying to a white Jesus.
CH: Circumcision is good, masturbation is bad...
Circumcision is not to be performed on people as he describes, i.e., ‘hacking the genitals of a child with a sharp stone.’ It is a procedure that has taken place within the monotheistic traditions for millennia. The benefits are many, not the least of which is hygiene. In fact, the medical establishment has advised the practice be implemented in places where AIDS and other STDs are rampant. In Islam, masturbation is associated with the inability to control ones desires and is deemed sinful, however, there is an exception for people who may be deterred from engaging in fornication to release of sexual tension, as it is consider the lesser of two evils. Again, this is in line with the majority of psychologists who warn against the sociological and psychological effects of over indulging in pornography and self-gratification.
CH: Iraq would have been represented on the UN's Special Committee on Disarmament... we cannot use the word "totalitarianism" about a religion that actually conducts jihad, totalitarianism, etc...
How to make sense of the way he lumps together statements about the disarmament committee and the rest, I'm not entirely sure, so I'll address the latter. First, again Hitchens knows nothing about jihad. Secondly, the totalitarianism that exists today in Muslim lands is almost exclusively propped up by the west. In fact, in places like Egypt, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, the governments are considered “good”, despite them being corrupt to the extreme. People in Egypt are tortured for having beards considered too long; women in Turkey who chose to wear hijab are not allowed to enroll in public universities and are exempted from being employed by the state. Saudi Arabia is about as totalitarian is they come and yet, aside from Israel, they're our closest allies, hence, the huge record-breaking arms deal recently contracted. Is Islam responsible? One simply has to read the history of pre-colonial Islamic states to understand that the current situation is directly related to post-colonial rule.
To sum it up, Christopher Hitchens does not know what he's talking about insofar as Islam is considered. The average schmo who pledges allegiance to Rush Limbaugh may be excused for devising such an ill-gotten premise, however, someone of Hitchens' intellectual prowess should be better read before going on about things he is not qualified to discuss. As far as his opponent, Chris Hedges, the only statement that was not cut was his comment comparing Hitchens to Rudyard Kipling. Why he failed to respond to the final comments, I can't say. Did he express any support for suicide bombers? I don't know as his comments were edited out. What I can say is that Hedges is equally unqualified to talk on the subject of Islam beyond any superficial commentary. If this is an attempt to make a case justifying terrorism (as was implied by Hitchens’ comments), he is categorically wrong.
Hitchens obviously takes his fiqh lessons from Osama bin Laden and the like, who, it should be noted, have had no formal instruction on the classical sciences of Islam. Along the massive attack being waged by the right against Islam and Muslims, and the mainstream media bias that pervades our sources of information, it is all the more vital that people like Hitchens take the time to investigate the accuracy of what is being touted as “Islamic.” Instead, he takes his lessons from people like Limbaugh and bin Laden, one of whom is a trained windbag and the other an accountant by profession, both of whom are buffoons.
It's no wonder that Hitchens served as the mouthpiece for the Bush administration and pushed so hard for the invasion of Iraq. He failed to consult experts on the issues conjured up by the administration and went full bore trying to convenience the left and other liberals to support the war cry of the conservatives. He does the same with his tirades against Islam and Muslims. He shows no sign of knowing what jihad actually is nor can he offer any critical insight into the fatalistic errors on behalf of those arguments that attempt to justify suicide bombings.
To break it down:
Christopher Hitchens: is (was) the Bush administration on a Christian crusade in Iraq?
Perhaps not, although Bush did say on 60 Minutes that his "Heavenly Father" advised him to invade. We also know that nut jobs like O'Reilley, Coulter, Limbaugh, and Savage all argue that it is a fight against Islam. Whether or not this was the intent of the former administration, is speculative. Certainly, however, the views espoused by the idiots named above, were to the advantage of the Bush administration. Furthermore, many troops have said they are on a mission from Christ and the Americans who plaster their cars with bumper stickers that read, "God Bless Our Troops”, along with crucifixes, intertwined with yellow ribbons, most definitely send a message that this is a religious crusade.
CH: This is an effort to bring about secularism...
Sadaam was a secularist. What the war has brought (as was predicted by anyone paying attention) has been an influx of terrorists who think it is their duty in life to kill anyone with a different point of view (that is, if this wasn't started as some failed, clandestine COINTELPRO-style method to divide the people, gone awry). According to Iraqis with whom I spoke prior to the invasion, had they been allowed to rise up on their own (as was attempted in '91 but allowed to fail under the watch of Bush Sr. who denied access to weapons depots- much akin to the Bay of Pigs slaughter), they would have toppled the regime, as had happened with similar despots of the past. The bottom-line, however, remains with the Iraqi people, which is what kind of government do they want? That is up to no one but the people of Iraq; not by a handful of individuals propped up by the US, or western intellectuals who believe they know what is best for others. If one wants to exalt the qualities of secularism in Iraq, there are two angles. One is pre-war Iraq, under Sadaam. The other is what we see now: an influx of alcoholism, drug use, and prostitution. I fail to see the advantage here. According to the CDC, annual alcohol-related deaths in the US number in the 80,000s (2.5 million worldwide, according to the World Health Organization; alcohol is more harmful than heroin or crack, according to a recent study published in the Lancet Medical Journal), STDs are out of control, as are other ills resulting from promiscuity. No, I do not see the advantage of exporting western values to Iraq- especially by force.
CH: On the manifestos of the suicide bombers....
These people are misled into believing that there is heavenly reward awaiting them in the Akhirah. Not only that, most of them are not religious- I suggest the film Paradise Now for a look into the motivation of these individuals. Furthermore, just as in the case of bin Laden, these people have actually neglected the responsibility they have as Muslims to study under learned persons to understand their faith. There is no valid excuse for their actions. Do I understand it? Yes. Is it right? No. Islam is not a “have it your way” ideology. There are specific rules for engagement and rules against vigilantism.
CH: Excusing evil Jihad and Mullahs' preaching....
If the Mullahs are teaching that the murder of civilians is justified, they are indeed preaching evil. Again, Islam has drawn clear lines for military engagement and the Qur'an is very clear about the sin of aggression. Neither the Mullahs, who propagate otherwise, nor is Hitchens himself speaking from any position of authoritative understanding.
CH: Terrorist would like to kill everyone in this room...
Perhaps. It should be noted that as misguided as bin Laden's theology happens to be, never has he made the case for a world caliphate. What he has demanded is for western powers to cease their occupation of Muslim lands. His (unqualified) fatwa, to “kill all Americans” was specific to the occupation of Muslim lands, which was given prior to 9-11 as a warning to avert an attack; to ignore him, western interests would be (and have been) attacked first in the lands of occupation and later on US soil. This is not unlike the Japanese warning the US in 1941 that trade interference in Japanese-occupied China would result in an attack on American forces; thus, Pearl Harbor. Furthermore, never have the terrorist groups in Palestine commanded an attack against the US. Moreover, while I remain skeptical about placing the blame on bin Laden for 911, the fact that he found the attacks praiseworthy demonstrate his lack of humanity. The fact that he denied involvement can only suggest that he is either not true to his unflinching adherence to take responsibility for what he believes to be just, and would therefore demonstrate a lack of faith in his convictions or he was simply not involved. Had the US adhered to international law in its attempt at his capture, the truth would have likely already been known. Instead, we ignored the Taliban’s demand for evidence of a crime in exchange for his extradition, as well as their offer to hand him over to a neutral third party for trial. Instead, we find our forces caught up in a quagmire with no end in sight.
CH: Their own racism...
What? Again, his warped understanding of Islam is glaring. The Qur'an is in line with what the human genome project confirmed a decade ago, i.e., race is an artificial construct with no basis in reality (or science). Anyone who asserts racism is part of Islam is as worthy of ridicule as a fool dawning a bed sheet in front of a flaming cross, praying to a white Jesus.
CH: Circumcision is good, masturbation is bad...
Circumcision is not to be performed on people as he describes, i.e., ‘hacking the genitals of a child with a sharp stone.’ It is a procedure that has taken place within the monotheistic traditions for millennia. The benefits are many, not the least of which is hygiene. In fact, the medical establishment has advised the practice be implemented in places where AIDS and other STDs are rampant. In Islam, masturbation is associated with the inability to control ones desires and is deemed sinful, however, there is an exception for people who may be deterred from engaging in fornication to release of sexual tension, as it is consider the lesser of two evils. Again, this is in line with the majority of psychologists who warn against the sociological and psychological effects of over indulging in pornography and self-gratification.
CH: Iraq would have been represented on the UN's Special Committee on Disarmament... we cannot use the word "totalitarianism" about a religion that actually conducts jihad, totalitarianism, etc...
How to make sense of the way he lumps together statements about the disarmament committee and the rest, I'm not entirely sure, so I'll address the latter. First, again Hitchens knows nothing about jihad. Secondly, the totalitarianism that exists today in Muslim lands is almost exclusively propped up by the west. In fact, in places like Egypt, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, the governments are considered “good”, despite them being corrupt to the extreme. People in Egypt are tortured for having beards considered too long; women in Turkey who chose to wear hijab are not allowed to enroll in public universities and are exempted from being employed by the state. Saudi Arabia is about as totalitarian is they come and yet, aside from Israel, they're our closest allies, hence, the huge record-breaking arms deal recently contracted. Is Islam responsible? One simply has to read the history of pre-colonial Islamic states to understand that the current situation is directly related to post-colonial rule.
To sum it up, Christopher Hitchens does not know what he's talking about insofar as Islam is considered. The average schmo who pledges allegiance to Rush Limbaugh may be excused for devising such an ill-gotten premise, however, someone of Hitchens' intellectual prowess should be better read before going on about things he is not qualified to discuss. As far as his opponent, Chris Hedges, the only statement that was not cut was his comment comparing Hitchens to Rudyard Kipling. Why he failed to respond to the final comments, I can't say. Did he express any support for suicide bombers? I don't know as his comments were edited out. What I can say is that Hedges is equally unqualified to talk on the subject of Islam beyond any superficial commentary. If this is an attempt to make a case justifying terrorism (as was implied by Hitchens’ comments), he is categorically wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment