Sunday, June 22, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

by Independent

Thanks to Michael Murray for the link.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/i-despise-islamism-ian-mcewan-faces-backlash-over-press-interview-852030.html

'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

He defends fellow writer Martin Amis against racist charge and condemns religious hardliners

By Peter Popham in Rome and Thais Portilho-Shrimpton

The novelist Ian McEwan has launched an astonishingly strong attack on Islamism, saying that he "despises" it and accusing it of "wanting to create a society that I detest". His words, in an interview with an Italian newspaper, could, in today's febrile legalistic climate, lay him open to being investigated for a "hate crime".

In an interview with Guido Santevecchi, a London correspondent for Corriere della Sera, the Booker-winning novelist said he rarely grants interviews on controversial issues "because I have to be careful to protect my privacy". But he said that he was glad to leap to the defence of his old friend Martin Amis when the latter's attacks on Muslims brought down charges of racism on his head. He made an exception of the Islamic issue out of friendship to Amis, and because he shares the latter's strong opinions.

"A dear friend had been called a racist," he said. "As soon as a writer expresses an opinion against Islamism, immediately someone on the left leaps to his feet and claims that because the majority of Muslims are dark-skinned, he who criticises it is racist.

"This is logically absurd and morally unacceptable. Martin is not a racist. And I myself despise Islamism, because it wants to create a society that I detest, based on religious belief, on a text, on lack of freedom for women, intolerance towards homosexuality and so on – we know it well."

McEwan – author of On Chesil Beach and the acclaimed Atonement and Enduring Love – has spoken on the issue of Islamism before, telling The New York Times last December: "All religions make very big claims about the world, and it should be possible in an open society to dispute them. It should be possible to say, 'I find some ideas in Islam questionable' without being called a racist."

But his words in the Corriere interview are far stronger, although they do fall short of the invective deployed by Martin Amis. He has said "the Muslim community will have to suffer until it gets its house in order", and told The Independent's columnist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, a Muslim, in an open letter: "Islamism, in most of its manifestations, not only wants to kill me – it wants to kill you."

McEwan's interviewer pointed out that there exist equally hard-line schools of thought within Christianity, for example in the United States. "I find them equally absurd," McEwan replied. "I don't like these medieval visions of the world according to which God is coming to save the faithful and to damn the others. But those American Christians don't want to kill anyone in my city, that's the difference."

But McEwan's specific irritation is reserved for those who find ideological grounds to condemn his and Amis's views. "When you ask a novelist or a poet about his vision regarding an aspect of the world, you don't get the response of a politician or a sociologist, but even if you don't like what he says you have to accept it, you can't react with defamation. Martin is not a racist, and neither am I."

Elsewhere in the interview McEwan serenely predicted the Balkanisation of the United Kingdom. "Great Britain is an artificial construction of three or four nations. I'm waiting for the Northern Irish to unite with the Irish Republic sooner or later, and also Scotland could go its own way and become independent."

Does the prospect disturb him? "No," he replied, "I think that at this point we should start to reflect on Englishness: this is the country of Shakespeare, of Milton, Newton, Darwin..."

To have your say on this or any other issue visit www.independent.co.uk/IoSblogs

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Sunday, June 22, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 278 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #197493 by mordacious1 on June 22, 2008 at 8:57 am

Uh oh. Here comes the "Islam isn't a race, so you're not a racist if you slam them" posts. Hey, if you you remove the I in Islam, you get slam. They're asking for it.

Balkinization of GB. OK, this guys last name IS McEwan. Ha, Ha.

Other Comments by mordacious1

2. Comment #197495 by Richard Dawkins on June 22, 2008 at 8:58 am

Yesterday was Ian McEwan's sixtieth birthday.

Many Happy Returns, Ian, and congratulations on taking a stand against the contemptible vileness of Islamism. "Hate crime?" How utterly, spectacularly ridiculous.

Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

3. Comment #197497 by HourglassMemory on June 22, 2008 at 9:02 am

I agree with everything Ian said. (and Happy belated Birthday, Ian!!!)

People gasp at anything that comes close to criticizing religion, especially Islam. They're always afraid Islam will come nock on their doors and explode or something.
They put their hands in front of their mouths like very uptight women of the 18th century.

Get over it! Deal with it! Be adults and don't start getting all primordial and emotional on people.

"Hate crime"?? I really don't know how to respond, except to shake my head.
Ian says it best: "When you ask a novelist or a poet about his vision regarding an aspect of the world, you don't get the response of a politician or a sociologist, but even if you don't like what he says you have to accept it, you can't react with defamation. Martin is not a racist, and neither am I"

It's not about race, it's not phobia. It's the reputation Islam has and how it makes itself known around the world.
And all people say is "That's a fringe bit of the "real" religion". "Real Religion"? "Real Religion" to me sounds like Plato's solids, or "Perfect Platonic Concepts". Then everyone starts claiming they have the right one, that they've accessed the real thing. And the one you hold is the only real thing that explains the world! And people clearly get different experiences, thus different "Real religions". You generate needless conflicit. Because of fairy tales!

Religion is such a fertile ground for needless retardants for civilization.

If Ian and Martin are racists because of their stance on Islam, then they're racists in relation to Christianity and Hinduism and so on.
I find this "Gasp!" reaction to be such a limited view of the matter. It gets so focused on the "Oh, it's Islam. Don't say that."

And also, people shouldn't be so attatched to their beliefs(but religious traditions have made it obvious that you should care about these Ultimate answers and that you should put your emotions into them).
One has to allow his/her mind to be dynamic and allow for change. If Science ever taught me anything, it was that. There's nothing wrong with change.

Yet, religion provokes the opposite in people. It demands a dogmatic stability of mind and makes people dependent of it almost irreversibly.
And it gets people stuck on that mode of thinking while clinging on to fairy tales, to questions whose answers they think are actually going to concern the lives of the hairless apes of planet Earth.
It's limiting to a level that saddens me. It's very close to being child-like. (I often find myself making comparisons bewteen the mental development of a human, and the entire history of the human species. I've concluded that if you were to try and find an equivalent bewteen the two, Mankind would be entering its teens at this moment. If not already in its 14's/15's.)

I mean, I think I would be correct in thinking that Ian would be against this mode of thinking, which is child-like and is fertile ground for things like the clear surpression of women(with the excuse of eliminating certain urges and behaviours from both sexes that could supposedly "degrade" their view of a "perfect society").

Does standing agaisnt this make you a racist?
I don't think so.
It makes you an unbiased rational thinker, if anything.

Other Comments by HourglassMemory

4. Comment #197500 by mordacious1 on June 22, 2008 at 9:04 am

My wife started reading a book by Ian McEwan yesterday. She said "This guy is great, ever hear of him?". Duh, honey do you ever listen to anything I say, yes he is great, the rest of his books are on that shelf there.

Happy B-day. Many more years of producing wonderful work.

Other Comments by mordacious1

5. Comment #197502 by beelzebub on June 22, 2008 at 9:10 am

Mordacious1 said:
"Uh oh. Here comes the "Islam isn't a race, so you're not a racist if you slam them" posts. Hey, if you you remove the I in Islam, you get slam. They're asking for it.

Balkinization of GB. OK, this guys last name IS McEwan. Ha, Ha."

Not sure where you are coming from, Mordacious1? Are you seriously siding with those who would split the whole of Humanity into two groups - 'Whites' and 'Everyone Else'?
A curiously 'Racist' position to take, no?
We are talking about religion here, not 'Race' (Whatever the heck that is!). If a religion has to resort to accusations of 'Racism' to defend itself, then it cannot have much faith in it's own position, can it?

Other Comments by beelzebub

6. Comment #197503 by Layla Nasreddin on June 22, 2008 at 9:10 am

"Oh, that's not 'true' Islam! 'True' Islam is wonderful and peaceful and tolerant!"
"Then why are there all these lunatics saying otherwise? Why are so many of them mullahs, imams, and ayatollahs, people who have dedicated their lives to studying Islam and the Qur'an?"
"Because that's not the 'real' Islam!"
"How do you know?"
"How dare you make such Orientalist, Islamophobic accusations against my faith! How dare you try to judge Islam by Western standards--that's typical European imperialism! You're not Muslim, you don't understand!"

Of course, that was a gross oversimplification, but the same "defenses" always seem to come up!

I'm waiting for the Northern Irish to unite with the Irish Republic sooner or later

I don't know...I believe there are more than a few Northern Irish who think that would be a very bad thing indeed!

Happy Birthday!

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

7. Comment #197504 by Sargeist on June 22, 2008 at 9:10 am

I'm not sure what this "Islamism" is. Is it a word that people have invented so that they can criticise Islam without making it sound like they are? Does it just mean "those bits of Islam that exist but no one wants to admit to, because they'd show themselves up to be the nonsense-loving cretins that they really are"?

Well, I obviously think so.

I despise Islamism, but I also despise Islam, and Catholicism. And I'd probably despise Anglicanism, if I could pin it down.

Are we not allowed to express our dissatisfaction with *anything* these days?

Other Comments by Sargeist

8. Comment #197505 by the great teapot on June 22, 2008 at 9:12 am

Oh yeah that's right hit the soft targets.
You wouldn't say that about Isl.. oh, sorry I keep getting my religions mixed up.

Other Comments by the great teapot

9. Comment #197506 by Cartomancer on June 22, 2008 at 9:12 am

Highly amusing, isn't it, that people can talk about McEwan's dislike of islamism as a possible "hate crime" while simultaneously ignoring the much more hateful things that are the stock in trade of every islamist you're ever likely to meet.

It's yet another case of the ghastly double standards religion expects and receives in public discourse. Imagine if Ian McEwan had written a book which said "I think all women should wear veils and stay at home, men should beat their wives and all homosexuals and infidels should be shot", and then some bearded mullah had retorted "we dislike Ian McEwan and his readers intensely and would stand up to the kind of world he envisions". Would the mullah then be guilty of a hate crime?

Other Comments by Cartomancer

10. Comment #197507 by TeraBrat on June 22, 2008 at 9:12 am

Is anyone surprised at the Muslims reaction? They will distort anything to make it sound like they are being victimized.

Happy B-day Ian.

×¢×" ×ž××" ×•×¢×©×¨×™×

Other Comments by TeraBrat

11. Comment #197508 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 22, 2008 at 9:13 am

Professor Dawkins, may I respectfully suggest that you pen a letter of solidarity for this man? Your name means alot and they wouldn't dare pull this stuff on you.

The really frightening thing is that this is hardly the first such case. A finish blogger was sentenced to two and a half years in prison for, quote "insulting Islam", close quote. We have all these campaigns assuring us that Islam is peaceful, and we have these EU directives and so on.

Our elites seem to be falling over themselves in a haste to surrender.

And what's really wierd is that he used this term 'Islamism'. There's no such thing. Osama bin Laden doesn't call himself an Islamist. Neither does Ahmadinedjad, or Nassan Hasrallah, or any of the others. They call themselves Muslims, and they have added nothing to Islam. They're just following the words in the Qur'an, Hadith and Sira.

A good definition of the dividing line between freedom and tyranny is when the government prohibits free speech. I wonder when it will be time, if it's not time already, to begin thinking of us as under Islamic occupation.

This has got to stop, and has got to stop right now, before the Jihad becomes impossible to resist.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

12. Comment #197510 by Jack Rawlinson on June 22, 2008 at 9:15 am

All of which only increases my already high level of admiration of McEwan. I spent a lot of time on blogs defending Amis too. The idiotic response his words generated amongst the apologists for Islam and the hand-wringers of the soft left-liberal end of the political spectrum (and I'm a lefty myself) was disgraceful.

I wholly agree with this statement of McEwan's:

"And I myself despise Islamism, because it wants to create a society that I detest, based on religious belief, on a text, on lack of freedom for women, intolerance towards homosexuality and so on. We know it well."

Well, some of us know it well. And others are too blinkered and politically straitjacketed to see it.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

13. Comment #197511 by History_Junky on June 22, 2008 at 9:16 am

As a person with parents from India i think i should hire myself out to atheist writers so I can say bad things about Islam for them.

I bet I could make quite the living.

Other Comments by History_Junky

14. Comment #197512 by Sargeist on June 22, 2008 at 9:17 am

Criticise a white person for their bad behaviour and it is ok, because you are attacking the person.

Criticise a non-white person for their behaviour, and you're attacking their culture and trying to impose your Western ways on them. Don't you know that you don't have a monopoly on ways of behaving? Don't you try to use your colonial attitudes on me. Blah blah.

Or, that's how it comes across to me. And others no doubt.

Other Comments by Sargeist

15. Comment #197515 by decius on June 22, 2008 at 9:23 am

Fanusi,

do you have a link to that story, please?

Other Comments by decius

16. Comment #197516 by robotaholic on June 22, 2008 at 9:24 am

I love people who tell it like it is - and it seems like British people do it best!

Other Comments by robotaholic

17. Comment #197517 by phil rimmer on June 22, 2008 at 9:25 am

Very Many Happy Returns to Ian McEwan.

I have been a great fan of his since his earliest short story days. I was astonished by "On Chesil Beach." I know of no other writer of such calm, clear compassion.

He more than any knows the value of what we have built for ourselves.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

18. Comment #197518 by TeraBrat on June 22, 2008 at 9:28 am

Sargeist

Western civilization has a history of foisting itself on foreign civilizations and forcing Christianity on them. While I agree about despising Islam because they are blood thirsty murderers you can't deny that many civilizations such as the Native Americans and Hawaiians have not been decimated by Western Civilization and Christianity. Can you blame other cultures for being touchy about it?

Other Comments by TeraBrat

19. Comment #197519 by mordacious1 on June 22, 2008 at 9:28 am

beezlebub

You totally misinterpreted my post. It was a reference to several other threads where posters argued endlessly about whether slamming islam is racist. My position, in previous threads, was of course not. Sorry, sometimes I'm just talking to frequent posters, that would get the joke, and forget that there are others who might take it the wrong way...But thanks for making my point, and starting the Islam isn't a race post again.

Other Comments by mordacious1

20. Comment #197520 by Dax on June 22, 2008 at 9:29 am

I don't like his body of work, but I do like McEwan's remarks here. In fact, I totally agree with him. I despise Islam. I despise Christianity. I despise Judeism. I despise new age malarkey. Does this mean I despise the people who are practicing these beliefs? Some, I do... most I just pity for they are trapped in their blind faiths and beliefs, unable to get out.

People should realize that criticizing a religion or other belief is not the same as bashing the practitioners of said religion / belief.

And yes, those fundamentalist Christians in the US are not out to kill is (yet?), but we've experienced Islam's hateful attitude towards a free society on the first hand: 9/11, Madrid, London, Glasgow (luckily it failed), riots in Paris, Mohammed Bouyari, Danish Cartoon Riots, Salman Rushdie's Fatwa, etc. etc. etc.

Other Comments by Dax

21. Comment #197522 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 22, 2008 at 9:35 am

Sure thing, Sargeic. Here it is in finnish:

http://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/artikkeli/Internet-kirjoittelu vie tamperelaismiehen vankilaan/1135236788703

And here's a translation:

http://vasarahammer.blogspot.com/2008/06/finnish-blogger-sentenced-for-two-years.html

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

22. Comment #197523 by Sargeist on June 22, 2008 at 9:36 am

Tera,

I'm afraid that I do not have a great in-depth knowledge of history, but I don't think that what we did hundreds of years ago matters all that much in terms of how people should react to our words now. I am not expecting people in Mongolia or Macedonia to rampage into England and rape/kill people who do not submit to them, but there's a bit of a history of that.

Other Comments by Sargeist

23. Comment #197529 by eno on June 22, 2008 at 9:48 am

Great stuff. McEwan is talking sense and its about time others joined him. Most people feel the same about the privileges Islam and Christianity gets here in England but most are scared to criticise because many Islamists murder people who disagree with them.

The UK is suffocating in multiculturalism and anyone who stands up against it are shouted down by bleeding heart liberals.

Some of us have had enough.

Other Comments by eno

24. Comment #197530 by zoltix on June 22, 2008 at 9:48 am

Fanusi's post (comment 11) has to be supported.

McEwan has made a brave and important contribution to the task of exposing the totalitarian ideology of Islam.

A current and aggresive aspect of jihad is the suppression of criticism of islam.
The counter to attacks of this nature have traditionally been led by writers, artists and intellectuals. This is no exception and McEwan's interview reported in a national newspaper is to some extent a turning point.

The opportunity has to be taken to make it clear that we understand the aims of Islam and are opposed to it's activity.

I realise that he has made some distinction by using the term islamism but his clear vision of the danger is an important step.

I don't think it's necessary to repeat the horrors of Islam in this forum but I would add that there are others who understand them also.

The fascist parties have made gains by attacking Islam on the grounds that muslims are foreigners.
McEwan was very clear about the non racist opposition to Islam, and this gives a real opportunity to show the apologists (left, right and centre) that Islam can be opposed from an anti-totalitarian point of view.

Those of us that have any contacts in the political/ national arena might consider asking them to support McEwan in addition to personal efforts.

Other Comments by zoltix

25. Comment #197531 by TeraBrat on June 22, 2008 at 9:48 am

Sargeist,

We're in Iraq right now imposing our rule and forcing them to become a democracy.

The Vietnem war, Korean war and first gulf war were all in the last century. We were less invasive in those wars but we stuck our noses in other peoples business for our own reasons. Historically speaking Western Civilization were obnoxious bullies. I'm not an historian (shudder-I hated history in school), but, I know enough history to know that much.

Other Comments by TeraBrat

26. Comment #197532 by mordacious1 on June 22, 2008 at 9:49 am

Sargeist

If you click on "other comments by Tera" at the bottom of her post, you can get caught up on her stance on "what happened a hundred years ago", and the responses to it.

Tera

ooops, the above comment sounds snide. Don't mean it to be, I actually enjoyed the banter between you and Al and others.

Other Comments by mordacious1

27. Comment #197534 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 22, 2008 at 9:51 am

Welcome aboard, zoltix.

The fascist parties have made gains by attacking Islam on the grounds that muslims are foreigners.

This is exactly what I have been worried about for a long, long time. If this problem isn't addressed by the mainstream political parties, it will be addressed by far nastier individuals.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

28. Comment #197536 by Sargeist on June 22, 2008 at 9:54 am

Hi Mordacious,

Everyone has their "pet project". One of the things I find most interesting about the discussions here and at, say, Pharyngula, is that we all like to think we're nicely rational about things, but there are those personal bugbears that make some of us totally blind to evidence or argument. Whether it's abortion, or a Jewish state, or peak oil, or veganism, or animal testing, or moral relativism, or a whole host of other things. Trouble is, we're not good at noticing what our own blindness is. Mine is probably that I cannot see how vaguely wishy-washy I tend to be.

Other Comments by Sargeist

29. Comment #197538 by mordacious1 on June 22, 2008 at 9:58 am

Sargeist

Second your statement, except last sentence.

Other Comments by mordacious1

30. Comment #197539 by aheggie on June 22, 2008 at 9:58 am

The very fact that it takes courage to speak out, like McEwan has in defending his colleague, is testimony to the fear factor this intolerant, insecure faith has instilled in society by resorting to threats and violence when challenged.

Sam Harris is right in advocating the need for an avalanche of criticism from a large front of society. Change will not occur by cringeing, silent resentment alone.

Other Comments by aheggie

31. Comment #197540 by TeraBrat on June 22, 2008 at 9:58 am

Sargeist,

Are you wishy washy or contemplative? There's a huge difference.

Other Comments by TeraBrat

32. Comment #197541 by Sargeist on June 22, 2008 at 9:59 am

Fanusi,

What you're saying ties in well with History_Junky's suggestion that some obviously brown people could stand up and be counted as being against Islam. My girlfriend is from South East Asia, and when she hears various Polish people in her workplace complaining about what it is like in England she can (and does) say, "Well if you hate it so much, why don't you go home?" without anyone thinking she's being a right-wing nutcase.

Other Comments by Sargeist

33. Comment #197542 by Sargeist on June 22, 2008 at 10:02 am

Tera,

The real life me is far more strident and abusive, but when typing things to this site I feel I ought to try to back things up. But this causes me trouble, since I have almost no knowledge of anything at all except theoretical physics. So, even though I do have reasonably established positions on, say, abortion, they're not things I can back up with any real conviction, and I tend to be able to see the other person's side too much.

"A person who sees both sides of an argument sees nothing at all" is a quote from someone or other.

Other Comments by Sargeist

34. Comment #197543 by Border Collie on June 22, 2008 at 10:02 am

My, my, seems like more and more people and groups have difficulty with the truth being stated. Every totalitarian whatever wants to shut the artists (and rationalists) up first. Pathology just doesn't like looking into that mirror. And while we're all sitting around equivocating, worrying, nervously twitching and sanctimoniously posturing in our politically correct neuroses, the Islamists are loading their AK's and strapping bombs onto their fourteen year old boys and girls. Am I saying the West is perfect? Not by any means. But, the spreading ocean of poison known as Islam is NOT a mirage. Right on, Salman, Ian, Richard and all others who promote sanity on this planet!

Other Comments by Border Collie

35. Comment #197544 by Sargeist on June 22, 2008 at 10:04 am

mordacious,

I should also say that I was referring to myself with the "moral relativism" bit. Although I also think I am a bit of a "logical positivist", but I gather that that has been discredited.

Other Comments by Sargeist

36. Comment #197551 by TeraBrat on June 22, 2008 at 10:14 am

Sargeist,

That's a better attitude than a lot of people have. Jumping in and stating facts with no back up is the worst thing you can do. If you want to express an opinion then express it as an opinion not a fact. It also helps to google things and see if you can find backup for your ideas ;-). Google is your friend. Just be careful and look at a few sources if it's something you are totally unfamiliar with. Not all websites are created equal. Wikepedia can be biased and wrong sometimes. The science portions are usually pretty sound.

Other Comments by TeraBrat

37. Comment #197552 by felandath on June 22, 2008 at 10:18 am

As a "Muslim Atheist", I feel there is no chance of dialogue between the rest of the World and Islam, if we get offended at even the slightest suggestion of Islam being spoken about in a negative connotation.

I love my Muslim brothers and sisters. But,I am convinced that the root cause of their suffering is Islam. It pains me to see the Muslim world implode because of its hyper-sensitivity. The western world must be ashamed for allowing themselves to be dragged by the balls by these fanatical verminous scum who get offended for nothing.

I am a Muslim. But I am with you Ian and Martin. I am dying to hear what Christopher will certainly say soon in defense of his comrades.

Other Comments by felandath

38. Comment #197553 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 22, 2008 at 10:18 am

BorderCollie here's an excellent lecture on the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKWf7iX6ru0&feature=related

Sargeist, three words: Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

39. Comment #197555 by Sargeist on June 22, 2008 at 10:18 am

Something about this article bothers me. Have I missed it, or does the article not actually report any backlash, but simply says that McEwan "might" be liable to prosecution under the hate laws while not indicating whether this is at all likely, possible, or whether anyone has yet reacted to the interview?

It's like putting up a big banner saying: "Please instigate a backlash" and then being surprised when it happens.

Other Comments by Sargeist

40. Comment #197560 by TeraBrat on June 22, 2008 at 10:22 am

felandath,

It sounds like you are saying that the only way to beat Islam is with an outright war that would result in the deaths of thousands. I hope I misunderstood you

Other Comments by TeraBrat

41. Comment #197564 by FightingFalcon on June 22, 2008 at 10:29 am

I smell a hate crime brewing! How long before McEwan gets dragged before the UN Human Rights Council?

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

42. Comment #197566 by Steve Zara on June 22, 2008 at 10:30 am

I can't see a "hate crime" prosecution against someone as well-respected as McEwan proceeding. At least I hope not.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

43. Comment #197569 by felandath on June 22, 2008 at 10:36 am

@ TeraBrat

"felandath,

It sounds like you are saying that the only way to beat Islam is with an outright war that would result in the deaths of thousands. I hope I misunderstood you "

Wow mate! Where did u get that from. Yes u have certainly misunderstood me. I have nowhere suggested a war on Muslims. What i said was that Muslims are suffering because of their own faith. There is sadly no chance of reform from within given the brutal nature with which dissent is addressed.

The distinction must be clearly drawn between Muslims and the faith of Islam. Most of the Muslims are a prisoner of their own faith and don't even know it.

Islam as an ideology must be combated from the outside. Maybe the "avalanche" of criticism from the non-Islamic world will force at least the moderate Muslims into introspection.

I am a humanist. I don't wish for the destruction of any human being. Btw - I am not sure if either of Amis or McEwans' articles had alluded to the inevitable death of 1000s. In which case, I wouldn't accept that portion of their diatribe. :)

Other Comments by felandath

44. Comment #197594 by bugaboo on June 22, 2008 at 11:06 am

42. Comment #197566 by Steve Zara

"I can't see a "hate crime" prosecution against someone as well-respected as McEwan proceeding. At least I hope not."

I don't know Steve. I have to admit that a part of me would love to see this going to court-bring it on!!
It would alert the majority of the population to what is going on here. McEwan is also much loved among the religious apologists on university campuses in the UK from what ive seen.

Other Comments by bugaboo

45. Comment #197595 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 22, 2008 at 11:07 am

It sounds like you are saying that the only way to beat Islam is with an outright war that would result in the deaths of thousands. I hope I misunderstood you

I hate to be the wet blanket, but far, far more than mere thousands have died in the millenial conflict with Islam. And even today far more have already died in conflicts between Muslims and infidels and between Muslims. The Sunni/Shia fratricide is just one example.

But you are basically right. Military warfare isn't going to save us, and is probably the least of the methods we need to use. Here are my suggestions:

1. We place a moratorium on Muslim immigration, halting it for at least twenty years, if not indefinetly, until we've sorted out the problems with the ones we already have. We should try, as much as possible, to reverse this immigration. One thing we can do is to make it plain that all Muslims need to choose between the constitution of the country they inhabit and the Shariah, and any Shariah supporters will loose their citizenship and be sent to a Muslim country of their choice.

2. We need to take away the money weapon, by any means necessary. One thing that's essential is a Manhatten-style energy project to get us off oil. We should also put the cash squeeze on Muslim bigshots whenever possible. "So Prince Adbul Yermami, you charge us a hundred and fifty times what it costs to produce that oil? Fine. When you need medical treatment in a Western hospital, we'll charge you the same markup. Same if you want to send your kids to Western Unis, which could do with the money. Oh, and you want to buy another private jet? They just got very expensive." And also make it very clear that, just as the allies seized German property during the second world war, anyone of these well-heeled sheiks found in bed with the jihadis will very rapidly loose his california mansion, his switzerland estate etc.
Of course, another part of that is explaining to nations like Pakistan and Egypt that if they don't knock it off with allowing Jihad and Islamic supremacism to be preached in their mosques and madrassahs then they won't recieve a penny of Infidel aid (just a disguised version of Jizyah anyway).

3. Many countries already have laws that allow for the confiscation of property used to deal drugs. We should use this as a model and seize and tear down any Mosque or Madrassah that advocates Jihad or Shariah supremacism.

4. We need to support non-Muslim minorities in Muslim states. For example, ignoring the plight of Iraq's Christians and Yezidi (and the couple of Jews still left) is a disgrace.

5. Conversely, we should help those non-Arab Muslims that are suffering because of the Arab supremacism that is part and parcel of Islam (google 'Islam as a vessel of Arab supremacism' - it'll make your hair stand on end). For example, we can push for an independent Kurdistan, as long as it guarantees the freedom of non-Muslim minorities (see point 4). We can help out the black Muslims of the Sudan, and the Berbers, and every similar group while making it plain that what they suffer is all a result of this Arab Supremacism (we wouldn't even need to do that much there. The blacks of the Sudan are so fed up with the Arabs that they've dropped their arabic names for ones like "Colin Powell" and "George Bush". I'm not kidding). The rule of thumb should be: anything that breaks up and weakens the dar al-Islam is a good thing.

6. Similarly we should protect those dissidents fighting against Islam. It's another disgrace that we can find trillions to pour down the sinkhole of Iraqi democracy while not being able to spare the cash for some really tough guys to guard Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan etc. Also, we should support the Iranian diaspora that has very heavily renounced Islam, and is fighting against it.

7. Above all, what we need is an aggressive and continuous campaign of cultural imperialism, to firstly discredit Islam, and secondly to wake Infidels up to its nature. One great example would be heavily subsidizing the printing of books by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Robert Spencer, Wafa Sultan, Bat Ye'or, Ali Sina etc. Spread 'em around, give 'em away free. The more people know, the safer we'll be. Organize something like 'Radio Free Europe' where the truth about Islam is continuosly told. Get versions in Arabic, Urdu and Farsee, and target Muslim states. Christian missionaries are already having a huge impact in Africa and even, via radio and internet, in Iran where the penalty for apostasy is death. Why should the Christians be alone in this? Why shouldn't atheists get onboard?

The key point to remember is that noone is as much a victim of Islam as the Muslims themselves, who have had their right to happiness and a good life robbed from them by a demented doctrine from a seventh century warlord. Helping them break out of their mental prison is right, just and proper.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

46. Comment #197598 by TeraBrat on June 22, 2008 at 11:09 am

Islam as an ideology must be combated from the outside. Maybe the "avalanche" of criticism from the non-Islamic world will force at least the moderate Muslims into introspection.

From my experience it works the opposite way.

When you critisize someone they "get offended" and rationalize their position by believeing you are an "idiot" "stupid" "imbecile"...Criticizing from the outside only strengthens a stance. What is needed is criticism from the inside if that's at all possible in this case.

The best thing we can do is develope alternative energy technologies so that we don't need their oil and without the money from the oil they won't be as dangerous to the rest of the world. I'm not sure what to tell you about the inner suffering. I've seen it personally and there's no solution without getting rid of the fundamentalists.

Other Comments by TeraBrat

47. Comment #197599 by Vaal on June 22, 2008 at 11:11 am

Good. About time some people grew a backbone and describe Islamism as it is. No doubt some demented mullah will stamp a fatwah on him, as they do on anyone who dares to criticize their backward religion. The more journalists and writers who stand up and confront medieval Islam and challenge the nonsense of "Islamaphobia" and the ludicrous call of racism the better.

I wonder how Winston Churchill, if he was alive today, would describe the cancer of aggressive fundamentalist Islam? I suspect he wouldn't pull any punches!

Other Comments by Vaal

48. Comment #197601 by felandath on June 22, 2008 at 11:17 am

@ Comment #197595 by Fanusi Khiyal.

Fanusi, I assume that you too were born into the Islamic faith. The points you have suggested are drastic, but most of it actually does make sense. While I admire your passion in taking on Islam at a global level, I myself am struggling to have this debate with my closest and otherwise sensible Muslim bretheren.

I notice that moderate Muslims are fairly open-minded, but even they drop anchor when it comes to a discussion on the short comings of the faith. Some of them do it out of fear of facing life without the crutch of false consolations And others because they are just too frikking touchy.

You and I need to find a way we can talk one on one with our moderate brethren first. Would love to hear your ideas on this. I take it that u have been thru the same struggle that I am currently going thru.

Other Comments by felandath

49. Comment #197604 by Barry Pearson on June 22, 2008 at 11:19 am

#197504 by Sargeist: Are we not allowed to express our dissatisfaction with *anything* these days?

#197508 by Fanusi Khiyal: A finish blogger was sentenced to two and a half years in prison for, quote "insulting Islam", close quote. We have all these campaigns assuring us that Islam is peaceful, and we have these EU directives and so on.

#197555 by Sargeist: Something about this article bothers me. Have I missed it, or does the article not actually report any backlash, but simply says that McEwan "might" be liable to prosecution under the hate laws while not indicating whether this is at all likely, possible, or whether anyone has yet reacted to the interview?

#197564 by FightingFalcon: I smell a hate crime brewing! How long before McEwan gets dragged before the UN Human Rights Council?

#197566 by Steve Zara: I can't see a "hate crime" prosecution against someone as well-respected as McEwan proceeding. At least I hope not.

I've said this before, and no doubt I'll say it again.

This is the current UK law (an amendment to the Public Order Act 1986 as a result of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006):

29J - Protection of freedom of expression:

"Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system".

You mustn't (with intent) incite hatred of a group of people defined by religious beliefs, but there is no law against massive criticism and insult to religions and religious practices. We can insult Islam, and I am not aware of any EU ruling that would contradict this law. The UN has no effect on the UK in this matter.

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

50. Comment #197605 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 22, 2008 at 11:20 am

What is needed is criticism from the inside if that's at all possible in this case.

I'm sorry, Tera but it's not. Islam is unreformable. All reformists have invariably been branded heretics and if they haven't been killed, their followers have been hunted to this day. Witness the Ahmadiyya. But let me take you up on this:

Criticizing from the outside only strengthens a stance.

Not necessarily. When you have six million Muslims a year in Africa alone taking their lives in their hands to leave Islam, you have a good reason to hope. Getting people to accept a tortured contradiction is far harder than getting them to make a clean break.

I wonder how Winston Churchill, if he was alive today, would describe the cancer of aggressive fundamentalism Islam?

Vaal we already know. Here's what he said:

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.â€¦A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities ... but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome. [The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pp. 248-50.]

Also, when he read Mein Kampf he called it: