‘An ocean of illegitimacy’
In an essay on the Iranian uprising, Martin Amis pays tribute to a society where ‘people go on pilgrimages, not only to the shrines of their martyrs and imams, but also to the shrines of their poets’ and explains why Ahmadinejad is the Islamic Ronald Reagan. Here’s the first para:
The writer Jason Elliot called his recent and resonant Iranian travelogue Mirrors of the Unseen; and I am aware of the usual dangers associated with writing about the future. But what we seem to be witnessing in Iran is the first spasm of the death agony of the Islamic Republic. In this process, which will be very long and very ugly, Mir Hossein Mousavi is likely to play a lesser role than Neda Agha Soltan, whose transformation (from youth, hope, and beauty, in a matter of seconds, to muddy death) unforgettably crystallised the core Iranian idea – the Shia tragedy and passion – of martyrdom in the face of barbaric injustice. Neda Soltan personified something else, too: the modern.
There’s already a response from Abbas Barzegar who derides Amis as – oh, you’ll never guess – a ’secular fundamentalist’, and claims that the Islamic regime is a ‘viable alternative’ to the ‘liberal intellectual tradition’ and ’its secular humanist hegemony’. Protestors on Tehran’s streets may disagree.
(Image: Iranian Freedom blog)
ganselmi said,
July 18, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Hi this is ganselmi from Iranian Freedom – would you be willing to add my blog to your roll? I will add yours to mine as we seem to inhabit many similar corners of the blogosphere (HP, Z Word, etc.)…
Thanks!
Jim Denham said,
July 18, 2009 at 4:18 pm
I found Abbas Barzegar’s comment that “nothing could sound worse than an English writer in the 21st century defining the essence of a foriegn people”, very interesting.
Leaving aside the first and most obvious point, that Amis nowhere claims to “define the essence” of the Iranian people, but is talking about universal values, does Barzegar’s comment mean that no-one from *any* given country can comment upon the affairs of “a foriegn people”? In which case, so long international solidarity.
Further, similar, stupidity from Too Thick over at the amusingly-named ‘Socialist Unity’ blog:
“Got to go! Just noticed that the fantastically ignorant and bigoted Martin Amis is “writing” on Iran in today’s Guardian. As usual, the Moronic Inferno should be a lot of fun. No doubt he’ll be as good as he was on Algeria. According to Amis, the anti-Islamist military, which was fighting an extremely dirty war against the fundamentalists, was in fact controlled by the fundamentalists! Likewise, the IRA was under the control of Lord Mountbatten.
Comment by Tawfiq Chahboune — 17 July, 2009 @ 6:56 pm
Are jeremy’s books as gripping as hers?”
Lobby Ludd said,
July 18, 2009 at 9:23 pm
“Universal values”
What are they then? Were I to search for them I wouldn’t start with a light-weight like Martin Amis.
maxdunbar said,
July 18, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Actually Amis does attempt to define the Iranian national conscious. But you’re right, the kind of intellectual non-interventionism Barzegar promotes doesn’t exactly encourage solidarity.
Sue R said,
July 18, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Hi, y’all, it’s me again. Just wondered, would the Shia accept a Christian as a martyr, as my understanding is that Neda Soltani was a Christian.
Lobby Ludd said,
July 18, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Why does this matter?
Voltaire's Priest said,
July 20, 2009 at 12:07 am
Cos she’s nuts, clearly.
Eskimo Sue R said,
July 18, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Doesn’t matter to me, but I ain’t a God botherer. It’s just that Martin Amis is citing it in his piece quoted, and I felt like being pedantic.
Jim Denham said,
July 19, 2009 at 5:40 am
Lobby comments on “universal values”: “What are they then? Were I to search for them I wouldn’t start with a light-weight like Martin Amis.”
Amis may be a political lightweight but he’s very clear about democracy, freedom of expression, secularism, women’s rights, gay rights, etc. In my book that puts him head and shoulders above the apologists for clerical fascism and totalitarianism to be found in such dark places as ‘Seymour’s Tomb’ and Nooman’s ‘Stalinist Unity.’
Eskimo Sue R said,
July 19, 2009 at 12:04 pm
isn’t Mr Ludd being a hypocrite saying the religious persuasion of a person makes no difference? It very much does to a religious person (some religions more than others.). The belief that ‘all people are equal’ is very much a Judeao-Christian idea, andn I don’t see why we chould pretend otherwise. I’m all in favour of people practicing Islam, of there being extremist interpretations of it etc, but let’s be honest about what they believe.
Lobby Ludd said,
July 19, 2009 at 11:59 pm
I don’t understand this at all. What makes me a ‘hypocrite’ for wondering why the religion of a murdered demonstrator is of dubious relevance?
Do Shia Muslims allow that Christians may be ‘martyrs’? Don’t know. Can a non-Catholic become a Catholic ’saint’, pretty sure not.
So what is the issue here, Sue?
ganselmi said,
July 19, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Sue,
Although I was born and raised in Islam, I’m not a practicing muslim. If you visit my blog http://www.iranianfreedom.wordpress.com, you’ll see that I’m a vehement critic of political Islam and Islamism. That said, I do want to contest your suggestion that the notion that we are all born equal is exclusively Judeo-Christian and therefore absent from Islam. There is a lot of textual evidence in the Qur’an and the Hadiths showing Muhammad, for example, insisting that his flock sit in a circle because no single point in a circle is dominant over the others, etc.
Now that doesn’t mean that the vision of equality advanced in Islam is necessarily fully compatible with what is advanced by liberal democracy. But then again, nor is the original, Judeo-Christian vision of equality fully compatible with liberal democracy.
Sue R said,
July 19, 2009 at 7:25 pm
I’m sorry ganselmi, I know people such as yourself are very brave and are risking an awful lot to introduce freedoms that we had to fight to win in the West, but I hate the way Muslims always feel it necessary to reference any development back to their holy books. Where is the Judeo-Christian version of inequality not compatible with liberal democracy? (I do not mean this aggressively, I am merely curious.).
maxdunbar said,
July 19, 2009 at 7:36 pm
The idea that Christianity is the basis of liberal democracy is simply fantasy.
ganselmi said,
July 19, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Sue, just a few examples:
‘Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.’ (Ephesians 5:22)
‘Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable.’ (1 Peter 2:18)
‘God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”‘ (Genesis 2:18)
I’m not saying Christianity is incompatible with liberal democracy. I realize and respect the Christian vision of universal equality in Christ, etc. and I can see how Christian ideals contributed to the development of democratic ideas and practices. But you have to admit that contemporary liberal democracy also has roots in the Enlightenment, which involved the leaving behind of some of the more obscurantist elements of Christianity. If sound like I’m criticizing Christianity here, let me assure you that I hope (and pray) Islamic societies can undergo a similar process before it’s too late.
Tawfiq Chahboune said,
July 26, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Jim,
Are you saying that Amis didn’t claim that the Algerian military was controlled by the Islamic fundamentalists they were busy fighting? As is the case with almost everything you write, it’s not that you have no idea what you’re talking about but that you change the subject as soon as you are rumbled. Why is that? Here is the evidence:
Martin Amis: “And we now know what happens when Islamism gets its hands on an army (Algeria)… the result was fratricide, with 100,000 dead…”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/sep/10/september11.politicsphilosophyandsociety
But watch carefully, readers, how Jim Denham will now change the subject. He’s been rumbled, but will he apologise and accept he’s mistaken? Don’t count on Jim Denham possessing anything like moral integrity or intellectual honesty. Perhaps you can see why it is, despite numerous provocations, I don’t bother with Jim Denham. I have far more important things to do than waste my time decontaminating Jim Denham’s knowing mendacity and toxic nonsense.
The ignorant usually are more cocksure of their arguments. But in your case, Jim, you have a tendency to back down in the strangest fashion: you resort to name calling, racism, etc. Your ignorance may be shocking, but your behaviour is a wonder.
PS. There is a term for people who make fun of foreign-sounding names (especially since you are so extaordinarily stupid that you are incapable of understanding anything as difficult as pronunciation). It surely won’t be long before you start calling me Kunta Kinte. If I change my name to Kunta Kinte, will you change your name to Jim Davidson, your intellectual hero?
Best wishes,
Tawfiq Chahboune
Jim Denham said,
July 26, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Err…Too Thick: if you object to anything I’ve said, my offer to you to have a public debate stands.
So let’s have that debate! When and where?
Tawfiq Chahboune said,
July 26, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Readers, as was predicted, Jim Denham changes the subject. The defence rests, your honour.
Jim Denham writes: “…if you object to anything I’ve said, my offer to you to have a public debate stands.”
This is absolutely extraordinary! When I prove what I wrote about Amis (see the link above) to be correct, rather than gracefully accepting that he’s made a mistake, Jim Denham responds with a demand for a “public debate”! We need a “public debate” to go over Amis’s ignorant musings in the Observer? A column that is readily and openly available for all to read and judge for themselves?
Again, here is the evidence. Martin Amis: “And we now know what happens when Islamism gets its hands on an army (Algeria)… the result was fratricide, with 100,000 dead…”
And here is the link to the original: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/sep/10/september11.politicsphilosophyandsociety
But no, apparently we need a “public debate” to thoroughly investigate Amis’s scribblings. While we’re at it, we should call upon the services of New Scotland Yard and MI5 for the forensic investigaton, while some literary theorists are approached to tell us what Amis “really” means. What madness. What unimaginable madness! Readers, now you can see why I don’t bother with Jim Denham. Does anyone blame me?
Jim Denham said,
July 26, 2009 at 9:44 pm
No, Too Thick: we need a public debate because you, initially challenged the AWL, saying something like (the exact words can be checked) you looked forward to dealing with the AWL. I then challenged you to a debate, and you backed out. That’s where things stand, pal.
Put up or shut up, Too Thick. And stop playing the race card, you pathetic charlatan.
Jim Denham said,
July 26, 2009 at 11:28 pm
And. Too Thick: if you want to accuse me of racism, I (again) challenge you to do so in a public forum; I’ll chew you up, and spit you you out:. You will never survive that accusation, Too Thick.
Harry Tuttle said,
July 27, 2009 at 4:25 am
Tawfiq Chahboune wrote:
Again, here is the evidence. Martin Amis: “And we now know what happens when Islamism gets its hands on an army (Algeria)… the result was fratricide, with 100,000 dead…”
Isn’t it possible that he meant the Islamists got their hands on an army, as in paramilitary forces and other irregulars, rather than the Algerian army? Would you not describe the GIA as an army?
Lobby Ludd said,
July 27, 2009 at 9:26 pm
A public debate between Jim Denham and Tawfiq Chahboune?
Fuck me, that sounds interesting. Do you get paid for attending?
Jim Denham said,
July 27, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Lobby: if Too Thick agrees, *i’ll* pay to attend. But he won’t.
Tawfiq Chahboune said,
July 29, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Jim,
I can quite understand why it is that few people take you seriously. But you yourself don’t take seriously what you write. Here is what you wrote: “…if you object to anything I’ve said, my offer to you to have a public debate stands.” Read that again. The operative word here is “anything”.
The context is Martin Amis. Nevertheless, you write that a public debate is necessary if I disagree with “anthing” you ever say. Now you claim that this necessary “public debate” is about something else entirely. Your readers will no doubt get mightily confused by what you consider to be arguments. Presently, you are merely chewing and spitting yourself out. You are a very uselful ally in making Jim Denham look like an ass. Congratulations and thank you.
You’re a very confused and unstable individual, and for your own mental health I should stop responding to your bizarre and self-destructive attacks.
Best wishes,
PS. Apologies for the late reply. As I have indicated many times, I am a very busy individual. Knowing that I have no time for the total farce that would be a “public debate” with someone as ignorant as yourself (or indeed anyone), you are able to bluster about my cowardice in refusing to meet you in a “public debate”. Everyone can see that – except you. Stop embarassing yourself. It is a pitiful sight.
As to the charge of racism. Martin Amis wrote that he wants Muslims, specifically non-white Muslims, “discriminated” against (he also went on to say that as a community they should be punished for Al Qaeda’s terrorism). I pointed this out. You intervened to say that Amis is absolutely right. Clearly, defending dicrimination against Muslims is at the very least bigoted. Defending discrimination of non-white Muslims is bigoted and racist. That is to say, skin colour has now entered the equation. Hence the charge of racism. If I had the time, I’d dearly love to see you explain in a “public debate” how discrimnation on the basis of skin colur is not racist. You don’t seem to understand that this is the very definition of racism, and it is something you defended on what is essentially a public forum – the SU blog.
Readers will again note how in any further “reply” Jim Denham will scream about anything but the arguments at hand. An instructive sight.
sackcloth and ashes said,
July 30, 2009 at 11:21 am
Er, Too Thick, you seem to have flunked basic comprehension 101. Here’s the full quote from Amis’s piece in the ‘Guardian’:
‘And we now know what happens when Islamism gets its hands on an army (Algeria) or on something resembling a nation state (Sudan). In the first case, the result was fratricide, with 100,000 dead; in the second, following the Islamist coup in 1989, the result has been a kind of rolling genocide, and the figure is perhaps two million’.
Note the fact that the article says ‘an army’ not ‘the army’. ‘An army’ can mean a regular force or insurgents (e.g. the GSPC and GIA). ‘The army’ means the regular armed forces of the state of Algeria.
You’re a bit of a dipshit, aren’t you?