Comments on: This New Century

By: dalal

dalal — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Interesting post. Giles Frazer had a column in the Guardian several days ago raising important questions about Salman Rushdie’s call for an Islamic “reformation”:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1550389,00.html
Much could be added to it, obviously; the point he makes that the Islam critics like Rushdie feel is in such tremendous need of reform “already resembles a reformed religion a great deal more than Rushdie acknowledges” is, if anything, understated.

By: sepoy

sepoy — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

I commented briefly on Rushdie elsewhere, so I will just say tht his article is filled with the same dogmatic, narrow-minded and ill-informed view of Islamic history that he wants “reformed” Muslims to wipe out. As in most discourses of this nature, Islam got fossilized in the 7th century and nothing ever happened until 9/11.
what-ever.

By: kabina

kabina — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

what abt his challenge to the legitimacy of islam as a “revealed” religion….what is a believer to do!!

By: Morcy

Morcy — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

I sort of commented on this in a post over here, but there are no trackbacks in the CM empire. So, well, there you go. It’s nothing special, just some late night connection making via Benjamin, but the point remains rather valid.

Even the Democrats/pro-peace/whatever people who act shocked/surprised at how this sort of stuff “still” happens are so doing because they refuse to reinvestigate their fundamental commitments to history. That is, they’re as guilty of making broad missteps (what for Bejamin, I suspect, would be of the “historicist” as opposed to “historical materialist” variety, but I’m not that sharp on him) on a fundamental level that will never provide an actual alternative, just the opposite side of the same coin.

That the US/Rushdie/whoever use the same language in discussing Islam as they did 100+ years ago, as a result, should not be surprising at all.

At least, that’s how I read this and the Benjamin I quote over on the other site.

By: Aamir

Aamir — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Morcy’s right. i don’t know nothing about history but Rushdie is all about distortion. and so are most of the people all around.

By: Luke

Luke — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

What, precisely, is wrong with elevating Charles Martel and others who fought back the Islamic invaders? They were not coming over to Europe to borrow a cup of sugar, you know, they were there to make the muezzin call out across the land - imperialism and bluster all of it.

And Rushdie’s calls for a ‘reformation’ (unfortunate word) are prompted by the recent events in London - when a bunch of nihilistic British Pakistani fascists slaughtered 55 people in suicide bombings.

So you hate on him because he seeks to examine the roots of this nihilism and volatile mixture of supremacism and violence?

Play the victim - ignore the truth.

Do you have any articles illustrating the attitude of the Islamic imperialists, on how they were to go out and make the infidel in all his shapes and faiths submit? A discourse that has been prevalent since the inception of Islam and contributes in many ways to the Islamist narrative today, and that may well have fired up the fascist suicide-slaughterers from Leeds?

Or is it too racist, colonialist, orientalist etc etc to ask such awkward question?

By: Saurav

Saurav — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Luke, try reading anything by Marc Sageman–it strikes me as more nuanced/rigorous than anything else I’ve seen by an American author. Ask whatever questions you want, but try finding better sources for a response than Rushdie.