GLEN GREENWALD AND THE NEW APOLOGISTS
Two articles in the
Guardian this week, the first a very long, windy and tedious piece by Glen
Greenwald, you can read it here, (though you will require forbearance and a
high tolerance for repetition and the non sequitur :-
The second short sharp and
to the point:-
Greenwald’s piece is part
of a wider movement seeking to present hostility toward Islamism in particular
and Islam in general as a) racist and b) part of an imperialist plot aimed at
world domination by the west.
 |
| Sam Harris |
I do not intend here to go over Greenwald’s
article, dissecting his all too oft repeated arguments, I fear to do so would
induce in me a draining away of the will to live. So I am grateful for one Charles Kingsley who sums up the piece
perfectly in the comments section.
‘It
makes the case fairly well that he is extremely hostile to Islam... but we are
supposed to just take it on faith that 1.he is wrong, and 2. it is because of
bigotry? Show me an article that addresses Harris' actual issues with Islamic
doctrine and one that avoids making assumptions about the man's personal
motivations - this one is irresponsible.’
Of course Greenwald like all
the apologists of his ilk commences with the obligatory, and in this case
dishonest, throat clearing
‘Nobody is contesting it,’
really? And who incidentally gets to decide what is and what is not legitimate?
Mr Greenwald’s argument of course boils down to the assertion that all
religions are equally bad,- though one always detects a slight change of tone,
an added touch of cultural deference
when he talks about Islam;- thus we are supposed to conclude that the Christian
Right in the US poses as great a threat to our civil liberties and security as
militant Islam. Though the last time bombs were set off on the London Underground
in the name of Jesus escapes me.
To advance his argument Mr
Greenwald and his kind need to avoid or simply deny some inconvenient truths. Firstly to ignore the fact that the
overwhelming slaughter of Muslims being carried out in the world today, from Afghanistan Iraq Pakistan Mali
Secondly that we are, in reality witnessing a civil war within Islam; with many brave Muslims fighting for freedom from religious tyranny against the fanatics who hold the 'true faith.' Though liberal or secular Muslims within the Islamic world will find no support or succour from the likes of Mr Greenwald, who are more likely to condemn them as tools of western imperialism.
Secondly that we are, in reality witnessing a civil war within Islam; with many brave Muslims fighting for freedom from religious tyranny against the fanatics who hold the 'true faith.' Though liberal or secular Muslims within the Islamic world will find no support or succour from the likes of Mr Greenwald, who are more likely to condemn them as tools of western imperialism.
An aspect of this struggle
for freedom is illustrated in the second piece, and for the same reasons as I have just highlighted. I was not surprised that the now pygmy sized New Statesman
was critical of the protest. In reality much of the left leaning space within western society is occupied by apologists for religious bigotry and tyranny.
[1] As it happens there are
some statements made by Sam Harris that I would disagree with but in his
central hostility to Islamic doctrine I believe that he is correct.
[2] It is not my intention
here to defend drone strikes, the extra judicial element of which is deeply
concerning, However in a war zone it seems to be a preferable tactic to select
pinpoint targets rather than to carpet bomb.
Having visited this page I would be grateful for your feedback, either tick one of the boxes below or make a comment via the comments button.
