Author: Christopher Hitchens
Publication: SecularHumanism.org
Date:
URL: http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/hitchens_22_4.html
(The following article is from Free
Inquiry magazine, Volume 21, Number 4.)
The French novelist Michel Houellebecq,
whose fictions have become celebrated for their unsparing accounts of sexual
and political anomie, is now facing trial on one count and widespread vilification
on another. In both cases, his trouble arises from what is loosely called
anti-Muslim or anti-Arab sentiment. In a recent interview, he referred
to Islam as "the most stupid of all religions." In his latest novel, Platform,
his leading character expresses delight whenever he reads that "a Palestinian
terrorist, or a Palestinian child or a Palestinian pregnant woman had been
gunned down in the Gaza Strip."
The French courts have agreed to
hear a formal case brought against Houellebecq for the first remark, which
is charged as "racism" by four French Muslim organizations. One can make
the clear objection to this that expressions of contempt for religion are
by definition not racist (unless leveled at religions like the Dutch Reformed
Church or the Mormons, which used to be racially exclusive). In the second
case it ought to be an axiom that an author is not ipso facto responsible
for the thoughts of his characters. The supposedly blasphemous reflections
about Muhammad's wives in The Satanic Verses, for example, occur during
the dream of a man described as mentally deranged.
But essential distinctions of this
kind have little appeal to the righteous. Even in America, still protected
by its First Amendment, there is a tendency to assume that anti-Muslim
and anti-Arab feeling is the same, even though most Arab-Americans are
Christian (as are perhaps 20 percent of all Palestinians), and even though
Islam advertises itself as a universal religion. One unhappy consequence
of this is that secular and liberal critics often watch what they say,
thus leaving the field to fundamentalist Christians, who often attack Islam
in the most scabrous and abusive terms. The next stage is, rather depressingly,
a counter-attack by aggrieved American Muslim organizations which, rather
than exposing the absurd theology of the Christian loons, claim that it
is by definition "hurtful" or "offensive" to attack any religion at all.
Thus, under the cover of pluralism
a number of dogmatic orthodoxies acquire an undeserved respect and protection.
An early example of this was the "shocked" reaction in 1987 when a Jerry
Falwell clone named Bailey Smith observed that "God Almighty does not hear
the prayers of a Jew." This is the only instance known to me of an anti-Semitic
remark having a basis in fact. After all, there is no such person as God
Almighty and thus all prayer by all denominations has the same moral effect
as aerobic dancing, if not less. But not even secular Jews thought of making
this reply. Instead it was back to the discourse of injured innocence and
"insensitivity."
I would not want the job of deciding
which monotheism, let alone which faith, was "the stupidest." For one thing,
one becomes lost in an Aladdin's cave of multiple choice. I do not think
that Islam is dumber than, for example, the output of the Jehovah's Witnesses.
But I was taken aback in a recent public debate on the aftermath of September
11 when, in answer to a question from the floor, I said that, if the Qur'an
was the word of God, it had been dictated on a very bad day. An audible
shock passed through a distinctly "Left" and "liberal" audience. And I
was promptly accused of "insulting a billion and a half Muslims": a charge
as absurd as it was flattering.
Islam makes very large claims for
itself. It claims direct divine revelation and inspiration and, depending
on which sura or hadith you emphasize, it appears to warrant or at least
countenance global proselytism. Its adherents can hardly complain if these
tenets are subjected to close scrutiny and even to vivid disagreement.
And perhaps a reader can tell me if there is any Muslim country where it
is a punishable offense to ridicule or denounce non-Muslim beliefs, including
agnostic or atheist ones. The only societies where such cases can be heard
are multi-religious systems, which are almost by definition based on secular
laws. Many such laws protect ethnic minorities from threat or intimidation,
precisely because a member of such a minority is vulnerable for something
that he or she cannot alter. That is not the case with weird and optional
belief, such as the conviction that one's presence on Earth is due to a
heavenly plan.
The British government, too, has
recently proposed a law to protect the feelings (or, if you prefer, to
subsidize the self-esteem) of religious groups. This would merely extend
an already stupid and anachronistic Blasphemy Act, which used to defend
the susceptibilities only of Christians and was thus sectarian as well
as censorious. But perhaps I can be forgiven for being especially sad about
the pious developments in France, which was the first European country
to emancipate the Jews and the first to proclaim a secular republic. It's
distressing to think that in the birthplace of Voltaire one could not safely
utter an equal-opportunity "ecrasez l'infame."
(Christopher Hitchens is a columnist
for Vanity Fair and The Nation and a professor of liberal studies at the
New School in New York. His most recent book is Why Orwell Matters.)
