Top positive review
5 people found this helpful
on 8 February 2014
I sat on this for two years before finally reading it. It's not an easy read, and I didn't agree, or like, everything in it. BUT - and it's a big BUT - the author is rightfully angry, and so was I after I finished it.
Two areas in particular hit me. The first was the chapter on Salman Rushdie - I'd forgotten just how badly he was treated. His books were burnt in a British city, and a foreign theocrat, claiming the allegiance of millions, pronounced a death sentence on him. And the result was a queue of people of people from the Archbishop of Canterbury to the Chief Rabbi claiming to "understand the hurt" suffered by "the Muslim Community" (actually a tiny self-selected bunch of trouble-makers representing no-one but themselves) - who hadn't read, of course, the Satanic Verses. The Right, of course, just considered him an uppity immigrant and moaned about the cost of the security required to protect Rushdie - just in case you've forgotten, the Japanese translator was killed, the Italian translator stabbed, and the Norwegian publisher shot - and the Left were at best ambivalent, following the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" principle; since the touchstone of the Guardian-type Left is hatred of the US, and fundamentalist Islam hates the US, then they can't be all bad, can they?
It's this latter aspect which is the other key issue - the relativism used by the "Post-modern Left" to justify almost anything if it's anti-Western; "stoning women to death? Nothing to do with fundamentalist Islam - just typical of religion, innit?" Funny old world - I've never known my 90 year old Methodist neighbour to issue a fatwah against anyone...
To quote Hitchens:
"Most depressing still, to see that in the face of this vicious assault so many of the best lack all conviction, hesitating to defend the society that makes their existence possible, while the worst are full to the brim and boiling over with murderous exaltation"
Amen to that.