Revelations. posted by Richard Seymour

What a waste. If only >Christopher Hitchens had asked, I could have written his article for him in advance. I knew, you see, that on this issue he would somehow find himself incapable of detecting anti-Muslim racism (because he is an anti-Muslim racist); that he would insist on the right to 'make fun' of religion (which he can if he really will and must, with my personal permission); that he would miss every single point of importance here; that he would take to vilifying Muslims; and that he would recall his better days when defending Salman Rushdie.

Here are a few snippets - treat it as a montage of predictable Hitchensian tics:

[T]here is a strong case for saying that the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, and those who have reprinted its efforts out of solidarity, are affirming the right to criticize not merely Islam but religion in general.

The prohibition on picturing the prophet—who was only another male mammal—is apparently absolute.

I, too, have strong convictions and beliefs and value the Enlightenment above any priesthood or any sacred fetish-object.

The babyish rumor-fueled tantrums that erupt all the time, especially in the Islamic world, show yet again that faith belongs to the spoiled and selfish childhood of our species.

But if Muslims do not want their alleged prophet identified with barbaric acts or adolescent fantasies, they should say publicly that random murder for virgins is not in their religion. And here one runs up against a curious reluctance. … In fact, Sunni Muslim leaders can't even seem to condemn the blowing-up of Shiite mosques and funeral processions, which even I would describe as sacrilege.

When Salman Rushdie published The Satanic Verses...[blah blah blah]

Rest assured that I am fully aware that some of my readers will look at Hitchens' article and agree with every word. Some of you, poor creatures, will actually admire what he has said, and repeat it to others as if it represented some form of adult wisdom. To you, I can only offer the hospitality of correctional facilities in my comments boxes. It's too easy to take Hitchens apart these days. Consider the assertion that Sunni Muslims are 'reluctant' to condemn attacks on Shiite mosques or affirm that virgins and paradise are not a reward for martyrdom in Islam. A second of thought might have told him not to be so ridiculous. However, a bit of research would have forcefully beaten it into him. You have to work pretty hard, in fact, not to be aware that Muslim religious leaders have condemned suicide attacks very forcefully, particularly the one that took place on September 11th. So, why must they plead innocence before Hitchens' tribunal? Why is it Muslims' responsibility to ensure they are not demonised? Do Jewish people have a similar responsibility to ensure they are not depicted as controlling Hollywood and the media etc? Do black people have a responsibility to ensure that they are not depicted as rapists and muggers? Or is one's first reaction to racism unconditional condemnation? Or take his assertion that the edict against depicting Muhammed is absolute: where, when? Is it hard to find depictions of Muhammed? Have they not been in circulation for centuries? Why have no protests been mounted over those? Why does the painfully apparent escape the one-man United Front Against Bullshit?

Hitchens is not the only one demanding that Muslims shape up and fly right. Thomas Friedman has been at it (again), and is ably despatched by Juan Cole. It's the same old business: demanding that Muslims prove their innocence, proclaiming madly that they haven't done enough yet. Of course, Muslim leaders haven't done enough. They will never do enough. They can't possibly do enough to satisfy the lust for abasement from those who applaud the destruction of whole cities (in Friedman's case whole nations) yet find that sense deserts them upon sight of a conflagration in the Danish embassy. Violence belongs, so much is apparent, to the White Man. Violence in 'our' hands is rational, instrumental, necessary, noble, compassionate even. In 'theirs' it is no more dignified than a tantrum, and no more compassionate than ritual sacrifice. It is a result of infantilism or some such thing.

Anyway, I've had enough of this topic. It has been rewarding, if I may put it like that, for the general revelations that it has induced. Liberals discovering that they don't mind a bit of Muslim-bashing (actually find themselves mildly amused by it); the AWL finding itself seduced by the thrill of same; putative Marxists and right-wing provocateurs conglomerating on the same bandwagon; otherwise calm and sensible commentators doing their nut at the sight of the rising brown tide.