Wednesday, September 28, 2016   

  Home     About     Guest Editorials     Advertise     Blog     Site Map     Links     Contact      Subscribe RSS      Subscribe Email  
Home » Loonwatch.com

Haroon Mughal: Why Christopher Hitchens Writes About Things He Doesn’t Understand: Tunisia, Islam, and Sources

21 January 2011 Loonwatch.com 4 Comments Email This Post Email This Post

Christopher Hitchens is a much loved public figure, his hard hitting and biting humor have made many of us laugh and he is great to watch in debate. Unfortunately, his image at times precedes actual facts and Haroon Moghul really slams him in a recent piece about Hitchens article on Tunisia and Islam.

Hitchens took a professor’s word that she had been sentenced to death by an Islamist by the name of Rachid Ghannouchi. He didn’t do his homework of course because if he did he would realize that Rachid Ghannouchi is one of the most liberal “Islamists” out there, akin to the AKP in Turkey.

Why Christopher Hitchens Writes About Things He Doesn’t Understand: Tunisia, Islam, and Sources

by Haroon Mughal

I’m not a fan of Christopher Hitchens. I found this absurdly decontextualized piece by Hitchens, written for Vanity Fair in 2007, all but fawning over the dictatorial delights of Tunisia–people can hold hands, so it’s okay if they can’t vote–and was especially amused by this passage:

Mongia Souaihi cheerfully explained to me the many reasons why the veil is not authorized by the Koran and why she is in danger for drawing this conclusion in print. “The fundamentalists from overseas have declared me to be kuffar—an unbeliever.” This I know to be dangerous, because a Muslim who has once been declared to be an apostate is also a person who can be sentenced to death. “Which fundamentalists? And from where overseas?” “Rachid Ghannouchi, from London.” Oh no, not again. If you saw my “Londonistan” essay, in the June Vanity Fair, you will know that fanatics who are unwelcome in Africa and Arabia are allowed an astonishing freedom in the United Kingdom.

Tunisia’s Islamist Ennahda (Renaissance Party) has long been symbolized by Rachid Ghannouchi, among the most liberal Islamists in the world. His opinions would certainly not jive with those of hardline Islamists in places like Pakistan. Yet here is Hitchens, taking at face value the word of a professor who certainly serves at the pleasure of one of the most politically oppressive states in the world, talking smack about a religious figure who is identified as an enemy of the state.

Wouldn’t a good journalist at least try to investigate? I mean, why would you, for example, swallow, hook, line and sinker, the words of a hardline Iranian cleric about a dissident Iranian religious thinker in London? Isn’t it odd that she says the fundamentalists (plural) are after her, but then names only one, who might also be opposed to her because she is giving religious cover to tyranny?

But Hitchens is more concerned with satisfying his bias than with actually figuring out what’s going on. Or maybe we should believe everything Vladimir Putin’s appointees have to say about Putin’s enemies. All the more pathetic because Ben Ali came to power, in 1987, in part over regional concerns over Islamic parties, specifically including Ennahda. The extent of Hitchens’ effort is a pathetic, ‘Oh no, not again,’ which brings to mind the TV news journalist I heard a few days ago who, on hearing that 49 of 50 states were covered by snow for the first time ever, said, ‘Go figure.’

What does he get paid to do?

Hitchens also gets the causality wrong:

To the west lay the enormous country of Algeria, again artificially prosperous through oil and natural gas, but recently the scene of a heinous Islamist insurgency that—along with harsh and vigorous state repression—had killed perhaps 150,000 people.

The Islamist violence started after the state canceled elections. Why mention the Islamist violence as if it preceded, or precipitated, the state violence? The state didn’t repress the insurgency; the state was repressive, repressed the results of elections, which in turn led to a civil war, in which the state didn’t just repress an insurgency, but actively contributed to its prolonging by refusing to create any political space for dissent and debate.

The audacity of ideology.

Oh, and the word isn’t “kuffar,” it’s kafir. Kuffar is a plural form. I certainly hope Hitchens screwed that up. At least, I wouldn’t be surprised. (In his silly book ‘God is not Great,’ Hitchens proudly boasts how he knows the Arabic world ‘Al-’ means ‘The’).

Share/Bookmark




4 Comments »

  1. Hitchens is a Zionist propagandist of the worst kind! These warmongering self-appointed hate messengers would use anything to promote their Zionist agenda. Islamophobia is one of their tools. Nuff said!

  2. What exactly is good, humanizing, creative, intelligent, freeing, or honest about Islam? I can’t find any redeeming qualities for either being a Moslem or protecting Islam on any level.

    Islam raped, murdered, tortured, and thieved its way across one third of the world, and continues to do so today. So, what is the point of defending Islam?

    Its become obvious that Islam is a religion of small men, with tiny penises, who wish to control women, and make them submit to them as human slaves. Does does state that women are only 2/3rd human, and because Allah made them “inferior” men must “maintain” (enslave) them. Beginning with Surah 4:32, the Koran states women are to be subjected by men, who if they don’t obey, are to be beaten with a “green stick.” How intelligent is that?

    Furthermore, the entire concept of Islam and jihad is to force or manipulate the rest of us by any means necessary, including immigration and over breeding into local populations to force the rest of us to Islamacize (i.e. translations to “submit”) ourselves to them and the local Imam who will control ever aspect of our lives. Islam is the religion of those with out-of-control egoes. It is primitive, nonsensical, unscientific, and enslaving.

    Why would anyone in the 21st century want to defend Islam?

    Judy Weismonger PhD

  3. “He didn’t do his homework of course because…”

    What do you mean “of course’ ?

  4. Hey Judy – who was the President of the largest Muslim nation in the world in 2001?

    Don’t confuse Arab tribal culture with Islam in the rest of the world.

Have your say!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>