Hitchens: Bombing Women

[Dr Dave]

From Slate:

Don't Mince Words
The London car-bomb plot was designed to kill women.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, July 2, 2007, at 1:11 PM ET

Why on earth do people keep saying, "There but for the grace of God …"? If matters had been very slightly different over the past weekend, the streets of London and the airport check-in area in Glasgow, Scotland, would have been strewn with charred body parts. And this would have been, according to the would-be perpetrators, because of the grace of God. Whatever our own private theology or theodicy, we might at least agree to take this vile belief seriously.

Instead, almost every other conceivable explanation was canvassed. The June 30 New York Times report managed to quote three people, one of whom attributed the aborted atrocity in London to Tony Blair's foreign policy; one of whom (a New Zealand diplomat, at that) felt "surprisingly all right about it"; and one of whom, described as "a Briton of Indian descent," was worried that "if I walk up that road, they're going to suspect me." The "they" there was clearly the British authorities, rather than the Muslim gangsters who have declared open season on all Hindus as well as all Jews, Christians, secularists, and other kuffar or infidel filth.

On the following day, July 1, the same newspaper informed us that Britain contained a "disenfranchised South Asian population." How this was true was never explained. There are several Muslim parliamentarians in both houses, often allowed to make the most absurdly inflammatory and euphemistic statements where acts of criminal violence are concerned, as well as several districts in which the Islamic vote keeps candidates of all parties uneasily aware of what may and may not be said. True, the Muslim extremist groups boycott elections and denounce democracy itself as profane, but this does not really count as disenfranchisement.

Only at the tail end of the coverage was it admitted that a car bomb might have been parked outside a club in Piccadilly because it was "ladies night" and that this explosion might have been designed to lure people into to the street, the better to be burned and shredded by the succeeding explosion from the second car-borne cargo of gasoline and nails. Since we have known since 2004 that a near-identical attack on a club called the Ministry of Sound was proposed in just these terms, on the grounds that dead "slags" or "sluts" would be regretted by nobody, a certain amount of trouble might have been saved by assuming the obvious. The murderers did not just want body parts in general but female body parts in particular.

I suppose that some people might want to shy away from this conclusion for whatever reason, but they cannot have been among the viewers of British Channel 4's recent Undercover Mosque, or among those who watched Sunday's report from Christiane Amanpour on CNN's Special Investigations Unit. On these shows, the British Muslim fanatics came right out with their program. Straight into the camera, leading figures like Anjem Choudary spoke of their love for Osama Bin Laden and their explicit rejection of any definition of Islam as a religion of peace. On tape or in person, mullahs in prominent British mosques called for the killing of Indians and Jews.

Liberal reluctance to confront this sheer horror is the result, I think, of a deep reticence about some furtive concept of "race." It is subconsciously assumed that a critique of political Islam is an attack on people with brown skins. One notes in passing that any such concession implicitly denies or negates Islam's claim to be a universal religion. Indeed, some of its own exponents certainly do speak as if they think of it as a tribal property. And, at any rate, in practice, so it is. The fascistic subculture that has taken root in Britain and that lives by violence and hatred is composed of two main elements. One is a refugee phenomenon, made up of shady exiles from the Middle East and Asia who are exploiting London's traditional hospitality, and one is the projection of an immigrant group that has its origins in a particularly backward and reactionary part of Pakistan.

To the shame-faced white-liberal refusal to confront these facts, one might counterpose a few observations. The first is that we were warned for years of the danger, by Britons also of Asian descent such as Hanif Kureishi, Monica Ali, and Salman Rushdie. They knew what the village mullahs looked like and sounded like, and they said as much. Not long ago, I was introduced to Nadeem Aslam, whose book Maps for Lost Lovers is highly recommended.

He understands the awful price of arranged marriages, dowry, veiling, and the other means by which the feudal arrangements of rural Pakistan have been transplanted to parts of London and Yorkshire. "In some families in my street," he writes to me, "the grandparents, parents, and the children are all first cousins—it's been going on for generations and so the effects of the inbreeding are quite pronounced by now." By his estimate and others, a minority of no more than 11 percent is responsible for more than 70 percent of the birth defects in Yorkshire. When a leading socialist member of Parliament, Ann Cryer, drew attention to this appalling state of affairs in her own constituency, she was promptly accused of—well, you can guess what she was accused of. The dumb word Islamophobia, uncritically employed by Christiane Amanpour in her otherwise powerful documentary, was the least of it. Meanwhile, an extreme self-destructive clannishness, which is itself "phobic" in respect to all outsiders, becomes the constituency for the preachings of a cult of death. I mention this because, if there is an "ethnic" dimension to the Islamist question, then in this case at least it is the responsibility of the Islamists themselves.

The most noticeable thing about all theocracies is their sexual repression and their directly related determination to exert absolute control over women. In Britain, in the 21st century, there are now honor killings, forced marriages, clerically mandated wife-beatings, incest in all but name, and the adoption of apparel for females that one cannot be sure is chosen by them but which is claimed as an issue of (of all things) free expression. This would be bad enough on its own and if it were confined to the Muslim "community" alone. But, of course, such a toxin cannot be confined, and the votaries of theocracy now claim the God-given right to slaughter females at random for nothing more than their perceived immodesty. The least we can do, confronted by such radical evil, is to look it in the eye (something it strives to avoid) and call it by its right name. For a start, it is the female victims of this tyranny who are "disenfranchised," while something rather worse than "disenfranchisement" awaits those who dare to disagree.

Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and the author of God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2169592/

[rollhead]

If it wasn't for Mammon, we wouldn't be having such a problem with Allah.

[groover]

I think it has more to do with Muslim men who resent the behaviors that women are allowed in Western society than any issue with Allah, rollhead.

[Paul B]

Once again Hitchens proves himself one of the most astute commentators on Islam today. Would that more followed his lead.

[Monte Smith]

I hadn't thought about it as Hitchens has framed it, Ladies Night, but BBC News was interviewing people in the area and the person that I noticed was a young Muslim woman who had been at the club.

It's true what you get if sharia creeps in to your neighborhood. It's one long, dark night for the ladies. And all the kids turned on to martyrdom. Rock the Casbah.

[Jeffrey Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Paul B

Once again Hitchens proves himself one of the most astute commentators on Islam today. Would that more followed his lead.

Especially in regards to the war on terror.

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by rollhead

If it wasn't for Mammon, we wouldn't be having such a problem with Allah.

That's just dumb, Rollie. The kindest word I can think of to describe these guys is "atavistic." It's a famous problem: How do we maintain an open, modern society while allowing meatheads from the Seventh Century to go about following their own distinctly non-modern traditions? This is where I get lost in the whole business about respecting cultural differences. I don't respect the culture these guys promulgate. Their attitude towards women is simply unacceptable in the 21st Century.

[Jeffrey Wozniak]

And blowing up anyone who isn't a radical Muslim isn't too cool either.

[Hudson Boy]

I've been following some threads, elsewhere, that include comments by natives of Scotland, and other UK citizens. They're getting pretty fed up with what's been going on, not just about the airport attack - and the Scots are the wrong people to get on the bad side of.

[Sandi22]

Yes, even the Commanche, our most warlike and dangerous tribe of Indians called them "The Bloody Scott's", they had a healthy fear and respect for them, and they are still thought of as being pretty tough I hear.

I doubt that even they will have much influence over what the Muslims do in Scotland though, as that was then, and this is now. Laws might change to make things safer, but they're a sensible lot, the Scots; so who can guess what the out come of Muslims going after Scot blood will bring about?

[Jeffrey Wozniak]

Maybe it's getting to the point where the free world has had enough?

One can only hope.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by Sandi22

Laws might change to make things safer, but they're a sensible lot, the Scots; so who can guess what the out come of Muslims going after Scot blood will bring about?

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Sandi22

...but they're a sensible lot, the Scots; so who can guess what the out come of Muslims going after Scot blood will bring about?

You gotta be shitting me.

[Sandi22]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

You gotta be shitting me.

Every country has their nutty aunt in the attic.

[Sandi22]

Originally Posted by jesus marion joseph

He wishes. Post his mug shot.

[jesus marion joseph]

That *is* his mug shot!

[Dr Dave]

He's a mug, all right.

[Douglas]

Posted on the wrong thread

Douglas
Registered User



Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: 10 floors up
Posts: 2,254

[Nim Chimpsky]

Originally Posted by Paul B

Once again Hitchens proves himself one of the most astute commentators on Islam today. Would that more followed his lead.

Perhaps you could explain why you think this Paul because this article seems reactionary to me. It's just an excuse for a rant. And it's not about Islam but a small part of what makes up Islam in one small country.

Like so many other journalists, politicians and commentators I've been hearing on the radio over the past few days, Hitchens doesn't need to wait for the facts to emerge (remember that no one has actually been charged for these attempted bombings) when he can speculate and let off some steam at the same time.

[groover]

Originally Posted by Nim Chimpsky

Perhaps you could explain why you think this Paul because this article seems reactionary to me. It's just an excuse for a rant. And it's not about Islam but a small part of what makes up Islam in one small country.

Like so many other journalists, politicians and commentators I've been hearing on the radio over the past few days, Hitchens doesn't need to wait for the facts to emerge (remember that no one has actually been charged for these attempted bombings) when he can speculate and let off some steam at the same time.

It's not just the bombings he's reacting to, and it's more than a small part of the Islamic culture. Re-read his last paragraph, then read this:

Revealed: rising toll of deaths before dishonour

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/17/nhonour117.xml
By Olga Craig, Sunday Telegraph

Last Updated: 12:56am BST 17/06/2007
Page 1 of 3

In pictures: Victims of honour killings The death threats drop through Jasvinder Sanghera's letter box at least twice a week. More often than not, when the notes are particularly vicious, they are accompanied by a smearing of filth across her windows. When she drives, Miss Sanghera constantly monitors the cars behind, frightened that she is being followed by a murderer. Constant threats: Jasvinder Sanghera launched her campaign after her sister burnt herself to death In such a terrifying situation, one would expect her to turn to her extended family for comfort. But for Miss Sanghera this is not an option: the harsh reality is that her family despise her just as much as those who threaten her life. Her "crime" was to defy the strict dictates of her Asian family and refuse a forced marriage. At 16, she ran away from home rather than marry a man she had seen only in a photograph. Since then, having witnessed the suicide of her sister, who poured paraffin over her body and set herself alight to escape a forced marriage, she has set up Karma Nirvana, a support group charity that helps women flee forced marriages and those who risk becoming victims of family "honour" killing. The shocking truth about the crime was thrown sharply into focus last week when Mahmod Mahmod, 52, and his brother, Ari Mahmod, 51, were convicted of the murder of Mahmod's daughter Banaz Mahmod, 20, for "dishonouring" the family by walking out of her arranged marriage and having a relationship with another man. A third man, Mohamad Hama, 30, earlier pleaded guilty to her murder. advertisement A Sunday Telegraph investigation has established that honour killings are increasing rapidly in Britain. Home Office statistics suggest that there are 12 such murders each year. However, according to research, the true figure is much higher. At a conference in Southampton last week, police chiefs revealed that they are re-examining 2,000 deaths and-murders between 1996 and 2006 to establish whether they involve honour killings. So far, 19 have now been found to be honour killings. A further 20 involved some element of "honour violence". The string of deaths is likely to include some that were previously deemed suicides but have been found to be forced suicides and murder disguised as suicide. To combat the escalating crime, dedicated teams of senior prosecutors will be deployed in Britain's honour killing hot spots this month in an effort to boost conviction rates and give victims more protection. At first, a pilot scheme involving 20 policemen will concentrate on four hot spots - London, the West Midlands, West Yorkshire and Lancashire. Chief constables across the country will work with the Home Office and voluntary agencies to try to identify women at risk from violence from their families. Plans to be published soon by the Association of Chief Police Officers will tell forces to follow new risk assessment models to ensure women are taken seriously if they complain of family violence. A special unit has been created by the Foreign Office to travel around the world seeking British-born Asian women who have been forced into marriage. It operates mainly in Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Kenya and Yemen. Officials from the local British embassy or consulate co-operate with police to identify these women and, if they are clearly being held against their will, bring them home to Britain. "The official figure of 12 [honour killings] is but the tip of a very big iceberg," says Miss Sanghera, who has written an autobiography, Shame, based on her own family experiences of "honour" violence. Her charity sees almost 1,000 women each year who have been threatened with death, beaten, starved, kidnapped and brutalised by their families for refusing or escaping forced marriages. "Often women are forced into committing suicide," she says. "Or they are murdered and the killing is made to look like suicide, which is the verdict recorded.

Continued
1
2
3
Next page


Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence. For the full copyright statement see Copyright

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by Nim Chimpsky

Perhaps you could explain why you think this Paul because this article seems reactionary to me. It's just an excuse for a rant. And it's not about Islam but a small part of what makes up Islam in one small country.

Like so many other journalists, politicians and commentators I've been hearing on the radio over the past few days, Hitchens doesn't need to wait for the facts to emerge (remember that no one has actually been charged for these attempted bombings) when he can speculate and let off some steam at the same time.

Well said.

[Nim Chimpsky]

Originally Posted by groover

It's not just the bombings he's reacting to, and it's more than a small part of the Islamic culture. Re-read his last paragraph, then read this:

Revealed: rising toll of deaths before dishonour

Thanks but I read it carefully enough the first time and I certainly don't need to read an article from the Telegraph to get a representative picture of what's going on in Britain's (and only Britain) Muslim community. The headline that would balance this out would read something like
Millions of Muslims go about daily business without doing anyone any harm
... but that's not going to happen, is it.

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by Nim Chimpsky

Perhaps you could explain why you think this Paul because this article seems reactionary to me. It's just an excuse for a rant. And it's not about Islam but a small part of what makes up Islam in one small country.

Like so many other journalists, politicians and commentators I've been hearing on the radio over the past few days, Hitchens doesn't need to wait for the facts to emerge (remember that no one has actually been charged for these attempted bombings) when he can speculate and let off some steam at the same time.

I'm always fascinated by apologists for terrorism. Well, no surprise; when the do-gooders show up to the party anything goes.

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by Nim Chimpsky

Millions of Muslims go about daily business without doing anyone any harm

Very true, but do you deny that the influence and acts of many people acting in the name of Islam poses a disproportionate threat compared to other religions in this historical moment, that these acts are done in the name of the religion and have the tacit support of many in the community who otherwise go about their daily business, and that contemporary Islam is a culture or group of cultures in which widespread institutional sexism exists?

[Jeffrey Wozniak]

Islam LOVES women. They rank women #498, right behind cattle and dogs.

[Nim Chimpsky]

Originally Posted by Paul B

I'm always fascinated by apologists for terrorism. Well, no surprise; when the do-gooders show up to the party anything goes.

I don't see how this answers my question.

[Noj]

I think the problem is there are Muslim leaders who approve of terrorism, and they are much more vocal than the majority of the Muslim population. Therefore, it creates the distinct impression that these thug leaders speak for all Muslims. Peaceful Muslims need to speak out against violent Muslims. It would be a meaningful, constructive dialogue to start in the Muslim world in the hopes that the peace-loving Muslims could show solidarity against the violent imbeciles who give them all a bad name.

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by Nim Chimpsky

I don't see how this answers my question.

I didn't know you asked one, you simply accused Hitchens of ranting about terrorists. The general tone of your comment(s) is one of seeking to condone their acts, because it's really the evil West that is to blame.

[Nim Chimpsky]

Originally Posted by Paul B

I didn't know you asked one,

I asked you to clarify why you think that Hitchens is one of the most astute commentators on Islam today.

Originally Posted by Paul B

you simply accused Hitchens of ranting about terrorists.

I did no such thing. Where in anything that I've said on this thread have I mentioned terrorists?

Originally Posted by Paul B

The general tone of your comment(s) is one of seeking to condone their acts, because it's really the evil West that is to blame.

I question the validity of Hitchens comments and this makes me an apologist for terrorism? That's not so much jumping to conclusions as being jet-propelled with a blindfold.

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by Nim Chimpsky;653239...

I did no such thing. Where in anything that I've said on this thread have I mentioned terrorists?

Well, the people Hitchens is writing about--you know, the ones who just planted car bombs in the middle of London--are terrorists, so presumably that's what were talking about here.

Originally Posted by Nim Chimpsky;653239...

I question the validity of Hitchens comments and this makes me an apologist for terrorism? That's not so much jumping to conclusions as being jet-propelled with a blindfold.

Calling him a ranter and implying the perpetrators may be innocent is essentially condoning their behavior. You'd rather rail against Hitchens than against a bunch of cold-blooded killers.