Wot no history?!

Speaking in 2003, the abominable Blair said 'There has never been a time when... the study of history provides so little instruction for our present day.' This was the man who had helped the abysmal Bush to invade and occupy Iraq. It was earlier that year that a journalist (I think it was Robert Fisk) asked him in a press conference to comment on the Sykes-Picot agreement. Blair had not heard of what Mr Sykes and Monsieur Picot had agreed in 1916, namely the division of the Arab Provinces of the Turkish State between Britain and France, out of which came the whole sorry mess of the modern Middle East. There is now total incomprehension between most Westerners and most Muslims; and much of it is down to ignorance of history. People in the West can't understand why so many in Muslim-majority countries get worked up about a crappy anti-Islamic home movie made by adolescent idiots in California. People in the Muslim world can't understand why they seem to suffer so many gratuitous attacks from America and Europe. The trouble is that most Westerners do not know what every Muslim knows, even if only in the vaguest way: that Islam once ruled the known world between Europe and China, and that its supremacy was then taken away by the expanding British, French, Dutch and Russian empires. This was not supposed to happen. Muhammad had come to renew the religion of Abraham, Moses and Jesus; their followers should have accepted his message. This folk memory does not make for easy relations. Westerners don't look back so far. For Americans, history starts in 1776, and even of that they seem to remember a mythical version. Europeans are aware that their continent was once dominated by the Roman Empire, but the history of the nation-states goes back only a few centuries, and even the 19th century seems like a different world. With leaders like the bothersome Blair, our knowledge of history is not going to improve.

Justice!

As soon as news came of the killing of the Ambassador, Obama ordered two warships to move to Libya (into territorial waters?!)and demanded that the killers be brought to justice. But what about the idiots who made an inflammatory anti-Islamic film and put a clip on YouTube? And who dubbed it into Arabic? Is there no law against hate-speech or incitement to violence in California? The people responsible should be brought to justice too. Or would that be too displeasing to Romney and Ryan? The next few weeks will be an anxious time in America and in the world. Romney comes across as a fool who would shoot first and ask later, and Ryan is a disciple of the abominable Ayn Rand. How he squares Catholicism with her gospel of egoism is a great mystery, but he probably believes in the Prosperity Gospel - the doctrine that God's elect are marked by their wealth. The greatest anxiety is over Iran. Will Netanyahu hold off his project of bombing Iranian nuclear facilities? Perhaps it depends on who he thinks will win the presidential election. He probably fears that if it is Obama the opportunity will have been lost, in which case he might be tempted to unleash the demons before it is too late. But the catastrophic consequences could change the election anyway. A ray of hope: Sami Michael might be awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature next month. He is the voice of sanity, an Iraqi Israeli who calls for equality and respect between the peoples of the once-Holy Land - European and Oriental Jews, ultra-Orthodox and secular Jews, Jews, Muslims Christians and Bahais, Israelis and Palestinians. It's the only way.

Right on cue the excellent American Ambassador to Libya dies in a fire provoked by a ridiculous anti-Muslim film put together in California with ham actors and an idiotic script on a low budget. But this is just the latest product of the anti-Islamic industry that I mentioned in my last post. The hate-Islam business has several levels. There is an academic wing, with people like Patricia Crone producing endless sceptical studies that cast doubt on every aspect of the religion's own account of itself. Then there is a populist literature like Tom Holland's 'The Shadow of the Sword' that makes the scholars' abstruse works accessible for the ordinary reader. People like the producers of this new film turn this junk into naked insults. And finally thugs like Breivik decide to get into action. Unfortunately, there are Muslim hotheads who respond with violence, and there is a lack of Muslim leaders giving a calm and reasoned answer to the Islam-haters. A vicious circle of attack and counter-attack is set up, giving the impression that there is an inevitable and general clash of civilizations. Most people are ignorant of the centuries during which Christians and Jews, and later Hindus and Sikhs lived peacefully in societies ruled by Muslims. In the West, and particularly in America, the Medieval Christian demonization of Islam is reborn.

Some Egyptians have rioted because of an American film, which they say insults the Prophet. Why are there so many Muslims who lack the self-confidence to laugh at such pinpricks? Muhammad himself ignored disrespectful talk. The Koran says (6:68): "When you hear the signs of Allah disbelieved and ridiculed, do not sit with them until they turn to other talk." Did anybody see the ridiculous film recently on Channel 4 "Islam: the Untold Story"? A clueless looking Roman historian, Tom Holland, who seems to know no Arabic, wanders around claiming that we know hardly anything about the origin of Islam. He visits several extreme sceptics, who say they can tell him next to nothing, and he consorts with a group of Bedouin as if they were experts on Islamic history. There is a minor industry out there, casting doubt on every source of information, claiming that the Koran was gradually put together to provide an origin story for the religion, scorning the oral literature that began to be compiled within a few decades of Muhammad's death, ignoring the chains of authority that the early Muslims quoted "A told me that B said that the Prophet told him..." There's nothing like that for stories in the Gospels. As for the Koran, since the same text is used by Shia Muslims as by Sunnis, it must have been finalized before they started fighting, 24 years after the Prophet died. Otherwise the Shia would surely have edited it to support their claims. This gives credence to the Muslim claim that an official edition was prepared 19 years after his death, on the basis of sheets guarded by the Prophet's widow Hafsa and probably written by his secretaries under his dictation. No other religion has a document so unassailable. What does risk bringing dishonour on Islam is the continuing violence between Sunni and Shia Muslims. The Koran says (4:93): "Whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is everlasting hell..." Ninety years ago there was serious talk of recognizing Twelver Shia as a fifth, Jaafari branch of Sunni Islam. Alas it came to nothing.

Over a year since last I blogged! Is this going to be an annual event. I intend to try again, and for today I have suggestions for the French police searching for the killers of Mr and Mrs al-Hilli: go to Baghdad! A friend has said that al-Hilli went there recently in an attempt to get back property confiscated by Saddam Hussein. Well, after America turned Iraq into a capitalist free-for-all, that property must have been taken over by some local oligarch, just as so much was grabbed by Russian billionaires in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union. If anybody had a motive for getting rid of al-Hilli, that person is likely to be in Baghdad, or wherever Iraqi oligarchs hang out. Al-Hilli probably discovered he was being stalked; that would explain his sudden departure on holiday. And it would explain why, from the camp-site where the family spent their last night, he headed up such a remote track, hoping to throw off his pursuers - until he saw a green 4-by-4 and realized the game was up. There is not much chance that his 8-year-old daughter will have understood what was happening, and I'll be surprised if anything is found in England, except perhaps some correspondence with people in Baghdad. Perhaps the French should call in the Iraqi police to help. Or perhaps Tony Blair could supply a list of Iraqi oligarchs!

shocked out of silence

I haven't blogged for months, being busy with other things, but these riots and the government reaction shock me into writing. The hoodies clearly see themselves as at war with society and with the police in particular; the last thing we should do is declare war on them with rushed court hearings disproportionate sentences and talk of water cannon and rubber bullets. Extreme action will provoke extreme reaction.

The disaffection of many young people is the result of thirty years of market-driven politics, with school playing fields sold to developers, cuts to funds for youth clubs, discrimination against single mothers and so on. We are constantly incited by advertising to want more and more material goods, yet many young people are poorly educated and have poor prospects. At the same time they hear stories of billionaire bankers, politicians fiddling their expenses and police selling stories to newspapers.

In the 1950s and 60s the tax rate for high earners was 90% on both sides of the Atlantic, and investment in schools, technical colleges and universities was improving the lot of the relatively poor. Now we are becoming a caste-ridden society, with the 7% whose parents can afford school fees taking command again. Our old-Etonian Prime Minister declares war on hoodies - just what they want!

Libya

Libya was the nomadic gap between the civilizations of Egypt and Tunis. Until it was invaded by Italy and subsequently made into an oil kingdom, it was a purely tribal society, and the quarrel between Tripoli and Banghazi is the return of an ancient feud. For Westerners to get mixed up in it is horribly dangerous.

There is no denying that Gaddafi is a criminal lunatic, but much of the danger is the result of Blair's insane decision in 2003 that he was a friend of the West, to be courted and supplied with arms. Now Britain, France and America are committed to stopping the killing by remote control from the sky. Talk of 'pinpoint strikes' is wishful thinking; without guidance from the ground, rockets and bombs are blunt instruments. The strangest thing is that Russia and China signed up to this, given their own record of killing civilians; did they calculate that those who are already being referred to as 'the allies' would humiliate themselves by getting bogged down in tribal politics?

The best thing for Libya would be for the East to be handed to Egypt and the West to Tunis. I would also give eastern Algeria to Tunisia and the West to Morocco. The other tribal kingdoms would also be attached to ancient centres of civilization. To complete the job of reorganizing the Middle East, Israel/Palestine, Lebanon and Transjordan would be returned to Greater Syria, which would also take charge of the Hejaz with Mecca and Medina... Daydreams! But why should we all go on suffering for the foolish decisions taken at the end of World War I?