Free speech is now the rallying cry of escalating tensions, but we can also use it to expose double standards on both sides.
In the 17th century, when some Iranian mullahs were trying to limit freedom of expression, Mulla Sadra, the great mystical philosopher of Isfahan, insisted that all Muslims were perfectly capable of thinking for themselves and that any religiosity based on intellectual repression and inquisitorial coercion was "polluted". Mulla Sadra exerted a profound influence on generations of Iranians, but it is ironic that his most famous disciple was probably Ayatollah Khomeini, author of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie.
This type of contradiction is becoming increasingly frequent in our polarized world, as I discovered last month, when I arrived in Kuala Lumpur to find that the Malaysian government had banned three of my books as "incompatible with peace and social harmony". This was surprising because the government had invited me to Malaysia, and sponsored two of my public lectures. Their position was absurd, because it is impossible to exert this type of censorship in the electronic age. In fact, my books seemed so popular in Malaysia that I found myself wondering if the veto was part of a Machiavellian plot to entice the public to read them.
Old habits die hard. In a pre-modern economy, insufficient resources meant freedom of speech was a luxury few governments could afford, since any project that required too much capital outlay was usually shelved. To encourage a critical habit of mind that habitually called existing institutions into question in the hope of reform could lead to a frustration that jeopardized social order. It is only 50 years since Malaysia achieved independence and, although the public and press campaign vigorously against censorship, in other circles the old caution is alive and well.
In the west, however, liberty of expression proved essential to the economy; it has become a sacred value in our secular world, regarded as so precious and crucial to our identity that it is non-negotiable. Modern society could not function without independent and innovative thought, which has come to symbolize the inviolable sanctity of the individual. But culture is always contested, and precisely because it is so central to modernity, free speech is embroiled in the bumpy process whereby groups at different stages of modernization learn to accommodate one another.
It has also, as we have been reminded recently, become a rallying cry in the escalating tension between the Islamic world and the west. Muslim protests against Rushdie's knighthood have recalled the painful controversy of The Satanic Verses, and last week four British Muslims were sentenced to a total of 22 years in prison for inciting hatred while demonstrating against the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.
It would, however, be a mistake to imagine that Muslims are irretrievably opposed to free speech. Gallup conducted a poll in 10 Muslim countries (including Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) and found that the vast majority of respondents admired western "liberty and freedom and being open-minded with each other". They were particularly enthusiastic about our unrestricted press, liberty of worship and freedom of assembly. The only western achievement that they respected more than our political liberty was our modern technology.
Then why the book burnings and fatwas? In the past Islamic governments were as prone to intellectual coercion as any pre-modern rulers, but when Muslims were powerful and felt confident they were able to take criticism in their stride. But media and literary assaults have become more problematic at a time of extreme political vulnerability in the Islamic world, and to an alienated minority they seem inseparable from Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay and the unfolding tragedy of Iraq.
On both sides, however, there are double standards and the kind of contradiction evident in Khomeini's violation of the essential principles of his mentor, Mulla Sadra. For Muslims to protest against the Danish cartoonists' depiction of the prophet as a terrorist, while carrying placards that threatened another 7/7 atrocity on London, represented a nihilistic failure of integrity.
But equally the cartoonists and their publishers, who seemed impervious to Muslim sensibilities, failed to live up to their own liberal values, since the principle of free speech implies respect for the opinions of others. Islamophobia should be as unacceptable as any other form of prejudice. When 255,000 members of the so-called "Christian community" signed a petition to prevent the building of a large mosque in Abbey Mills, east London, they sent a grim message to the Muslim world: western freedom of worship did not, apparently, apply to Islam. There were similar protests by some in the Jewish community, who, as Seth Freedman pointed out in his "Comment is Free" piece, should be the first to protest against discrimination.
Gallup found there was as yet no blind hatred of the west in Muslim countries; only 8% of respondents condoned the 9/11 atrocities. But this could change if the extremists persuade the young that the west is bent on the destruction of their religion. When Gallup asked what the west could do to improve relations, most Muslims replied unhesitatingly that western countries must show greater respect for Islam, placing this ahead of economic aid and non-interference in their domestic affairs. Our inability to tolerate Islam not only contradicts our western values; it could also become a major security risk.
Showing posts with label Free Speech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Free Speech. Show all posts
July 23, 2007
Karen Armstrong: An Inability to Tolerate Islam Contradicts Western Values
Karen Armstrong has written a recent article for The Guardian entitled, "An Inability to Tolerate Islam Contradicts Western Values" (published July 21st). The article suggests two problems: a lack of self-confidence on the part of some Muslims who are unable to cope with certain comments and criticisms (true, of course, to a degree), and a lack of tolerance - a hypocrisy - on the part of the West to be able to tolerate and respect Islam and Muslims, through Islamophobic commentary and by trying to deny Muslims the ability to worship in their own buildings (e.g., the east London "mega-mosque").
June 15, 2006
Local Blogger Blasphemes the Prophet Jesus (saws)
As my readers may or may not know, it is illegal here in Singapore, under the Sedition Act, to post inflammatory comments (including cartoons) on the Internet "...which may cause feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore." I blogged about this several months ago (Islamophobia = Sedition), partly in response to the Danish cartoons scandal. Singapore, as I noted in another blog post (Heroes and Hypocrites) would never have allowed the offending cartoons to be published in the first place (nor were they ever published here).
Prior to the Danish cartoon scandal, three young Chinese men were charged last year with making seditious and inflammatory racist comments on the Internet against the Malay/Muslim community. All three pled guilty. Now we have a new case. In a Straits Times article that made the front page of the paper Wednesday (14 June), another young man is being investigated for publishing inflammatory cartoons of the Prophet Jesus (saws). An excerpt from the article:
A 21-year-old accounts assistant is being investigated for allegedly flouting the Sedition Act by publishing pictures on his blog that were thought to depict Jesus Christ in an offensive manner. The blogger, who used the online moniker Char, had found the cartoons on the Internet and began posting them in January. He told The Straits Times last week that he was called in by the police for questioning in March, after they received a complaint. Yesterday, the police confirmed they are investigating the matter but declined to give details as "investigations are still ongoing."
News of the investigation was announced online by Char himself last week when he sent an e-mail to a mailing list of more than 300 young Singaporeans. He told them of his experience and how it came about. He removed the cartoons from his blog after he was questioned.
Describing himself as a free thinker, he said he had posted a cartoon that depicted Jesus as a zombie biting a boy's head in January. The following month, he received an online message asking him to remove the image. It came amid the global furore over the publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad by several newspapers. Char did not reply to the message but chose to irk the person instead. He searched the Internet for more pictures depicting Jesus and published three of them on his blog. Looking back, he felt he made an "unwise" move. "I never thought anyone would complain to the police because the pictures were not insidious," he said.
The good news (from my perspective) is that I don't think "Char" is either Muslim or Malay (Update: he's neither). I don't think this was a case of a Muslim trying to get back at Christians for the Danish cartoons fiasco. But I do support Singapore's use of the Sedition Act against Char; Muslims and Christians shouldn't have to put up with derogatory comments and cartoons that blaspheme their faiths. My only question now is, assuming Char either pleads or is found guilty, how he would be sentenced. The maximum penalty for this crime is jail for up to three years or a maximum fine of $5,000, or both. None of the three men who pled guilty last year had sentences that were remotely close to the maximum penalty; however, the judge at that time also said that future sentences would be stiffer should similar offences occur. We shall see, insha'allah.
Update: Since I wrote this post, I've gained a little bit of local notariety. Friday evening, I was interviewed on the phone by a reporter from The Straits Times (the largest newspaper in S'pore). The reporter was working on a follow-up article to the Wednesday article, and a brief excerpt from my post was published in the Sunday (18 June) paper:
There were several netizens who also backed tough action. One was a Muslim American management lecturer based here, known online as "JD".
Said the 44-year-old: "I support Singapore's use of the Sedition Act. People shouldn't have to put up with derogatory comments and cartoons that blaspheme their faiths."
-- "Divided Views Over Police Checks on Blogger," p. 11
(I'm also happy to say that, in this latest article, my position as expressed above was similar to the thoughts of Father John-Paul Tan, parish priest of the Church of St. Mary of the Angels, Anglican Bishop and vice-president of the National Council of Churches of Singapore John Tew, and chairman of the Centre for Contemporary Islamic Studies Ridzuan Wu, all of whom were also interviewed for the follow-up article.)
Then, this morning I was contacted by another person for the Straits Times, who asked if I minded being listed for the "Blogs of the Week" column (specifically about this post) in next Wednesday's "Digital Times," a weekly supplement to the Straits Times that focuses on IT, blogging, computer games, etc. Of course I said "yes," so we'll see how things go from here.
Prior to the Danish cartoon scandal, three young Chinese men were charged last year with making seditious and inflammatory racist comments on the Internet against the Malay/Muslim community. All three pled guilty. Now we have a new case. In a Straits Times article that made the front page of the paper Wednesday (14 June), another young man is being investigated for publishing inflammatory cartoons of the Prophet Jesus (saws). An excerpt from the article:
A 21-year-old accounts assistant is being investigated for allegedly flouting the Sedition Act by publishing pictures on his blog that were thought to depict Jesus Christ in an offensive manner. The blogger, who used the online moniker Char, had found the cartoons on the Internet and began posting them in January. He told The Straits Times last week that he was called in by the police for questioning in March, after they received a complaint. Yesterday, the police confirmed they are investigating the matter but declined to give details as "investigations are still ongoing."
News of the investigation was announced online by Char himself last week when he sent an e-mail to a mailing list of more than 300 young Singaporeans. He told them of his experience and how it came about. He removed the cartoons from his blog after he was questioned.
Describing himself as a free thinker, he said he had posted a cartoon that depicted Jesus as a zombie biting a boy's head in January. The following month, he received an online message asking him to remove the image. It came amid the global furore over the publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad by several newspapers. Char did not reply to the message but chose to irk the person instead. He searched the Internet for more pictures depicting Jesus and published three of them on his blog. Looking back, he felt he made an "unwise" move. "I never thought anyone would complain to the police because the pictures were not insidious," he said.
The good news (from my perspective) is that I don't think "Char" is either Muslim or Malay (Update: he's neither). I don't think this was a case of a Muslim trying to get back at Christians for the Danish cartoons fiasco. But I do support Singapore's use of the Sedition Act against Char; Muslims and Christians shouldn't have to put up with derogatory comments and cartoons that blaspheme their faiths. My only question now is, assuming Char either pleads or is found guilty, how he would be sentenced. The maximum penalty for this crime is jail for up to three years or a maximum fine of $5,000, or both. None of the three men who pled guilty last year had sentences that were remotely close to the maximum penalty; however, the judge at that time also said that future sentences would be stiffer should similar offences occur. We shall see, insha'allah.
Update: Since I wrote this post, I've gained a little bit of local notariety. Friday evening, I was interviewed on the phone by a reporter from The Straits Times (the largest newspaper in S'pore). The reporter was working on a follow-up article to the Wednesday article, and a brief excerpt from my post was published in the Sunday (18 June) paper:
There were several netizens who also backed tough action. One was a Muslim American management lecturer based here, known online as "JD".
Said the 44-year-old: "I support Singapore's use of the Sedition Act. People shouldn't have to put up with derogatory comments and cartoons that blaspheme their faiths."
-- "Divided Views Over Police Checks on Blogger," p. 11
(I'm also happy to say that, in this latest article, my position as expressed above was similar to the thoughts of Father John-Paul Tan, parish priest of the Church of St. Mary of the Angels, Anglican Bishop and vice-president of the National Council of Churches of Singapore John Tew, and chairman of the Centre for Contemporary Islamic Studies Ridzuan Wu, all of whom were also interviewed for the follow-up article.)
Then, this morning I was contacted by another person for the Straits Times, who asked if I minded being listed for the "Blogs of the Week" column (specifically about this post) in next Wednesday's "Digital Times," a weekly supplement to the Straits Times that focuses on IT, blogging, computer games, etc. Of course I said "yes," so we'll see how things go from here.
March 14, 2006
Islamophobia = Sedition
The other day, I got a survey from some students over at Nanyang Technological University's School of Communication and Information (Nanyang Tech, a good school, is located here in Singapore). The survey had to do with blogging behavior, whether I was self-censoring or erasing any of my blog posts in light of some incidents that happened last year involving the Sedition Act.
[Here, in Singapore, seditious behavior includes the promotion of "...feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore" or "to point out, with a view to their removal, any matters producing or having a tendency to produce feelings of ill-will and enmity between different races or classes of the population of Singapore..." Last September, three Chinese men, two in their mid-20s and one teenager, were charged with making seditious and inflammatory racist comments on the Internet against the Malay/Muslim community. All three pled guilty. The punishments, IMO, were mere slaps on the wrist compared to what I felt the three should have been given; however, the Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong, made it quite clear that such remarks would not be tolerated here, even if posted on the Internet.]
The survey itself was rather basic, with questions on the types of topics I write about on my blog (personal or non-personal), my familiarity with the Sedition Act, and so on. However, there were two questions where I gave some additional comments (that were not asked for by the students). I thought I would share my answers and comments to these two questions here:
15. I practice self-censorship on my weblog (5-point scale where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree). I answered 4, "Agree."
Most of my “self-censorship” takes place during the pre-writing and writing phases. On those posts that I write myself (as opposed to copying someone else’s work), I may take up to a couple days writing the piece, which gives me time to think of what I want to say, how to prepare a better argument, cool down if I’m angry, and so on. Once the post is published, I rarely self-censor.
19. How much has your blogging content changed since the incident of the Sedition Act? (5-point scale where 1 = No Change and 5 = Large Change). I answered 2, "Little change."
I support the Sedition Act as it’s currently written. In fact I wish other countries (especially Western countries such as the U.S.) had Sedition Acts that were modeled after Singapore’s. As a Muslim, I’m concerned about the Islamophobia and xenophobia expressed by non-Muslims, especially in my home country. I question whether I will ever be able to bring my wife back to the U.S. to meet my family, whom she has never met (despite our having been married for several years now). Based on what I have read over the past four years since I left the U.S., I am not sure we can pass through the country without experiencing any anti-Muslim bigotry. *I* often experience bigotry against Islam (and even myself for being a Muslim) just by reading the various comments on my blogs and that of others.
Incidents like the Danish cartoons need to force other countries to question a fundamental trade-off: whether an unregulated freedom of speech is more important as a national value, with all of the attendant consequences that may happen both nationally and internationally, or a regulated freedom of speech that minimizes potential social upset both locally and abroad. Singapore, with its earlier experiences (e.g., the race riots of the 1960s), has decided (wisely, in my opinion) to regulate free speech for the greater benefit to Singaporean society. The Prime Minister recently said that an incident like the Danish cartoons would never have happened here, and I both agree with and applaud him for making such a statement (in fact, I did so a few weeks ago in one of my blog posts). The Danish have learned, much to their chagrin, that what is published locally can have international consequences. Media sources – including bloggers – need to consider the consequences of their writings and be willing to self-censor when necessary. Incitement against any race or religion is wrong, full stop, and those who incite the hatred of others may find that their work rebounds against them to their detriment.
Just ask Julius Streicher.
[Here, in Singapore, seditious behavior includes the promotion of "...feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore" or "to point out, with a view to their removal, any matters producing or having a tendency to produce feelings of ill-will and enmity between different races or classes of the population of Singapore..." Last September, three Chinese men, two in their mid-20s and one teenager, were charged with making seditious and inflammatory racist comments on the Internet against the Malay/Muslim community. All three pled guilty. The punishments, IMO, were mere slaps on the wrist compared to what I felt the three should have been given; however, the Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong, made it quite clear that such remarks would not be tolerated here, even if posted on the Internet.]
The survey itself was rather basic, with questions on the types of topics I write about on my blog (personal or non-personal), my familiarity with the Sedition Act, and so on. However, there were two questions where I gave some additional comments (that were not asked for by the students). I thought I would share my answers and comments to these two questions here:
15. I practice self-censorship on my weblog (5-point scale where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree). I answered 4, "Agree."
Most of my “self-censorship” takes place during the pre-writing and writing phases. On those posts that I write myself (as opposed to copying someone else’s work), I may take up to a couple days writing the piece, which gives me time to think of what I want to say, how to prepare a better argument, cool down if I’m angry, and so on. Once the post is published, I rarely self-censor.
19. How much has your blogging content changed since the incident of the Sedition Act? (5-point scale where 1 = No Change and 5 = Large Change). I answered 2, "Little change."
I support the Sedition Act as it’s currently written. In fact I wish other countries (especially Western countries such as the U.S.) had Sedition Acts that were modeled after Singapore’s. As a Muslim, I’m concerned about the Islamophobia and xenophobia expressed by non-Muslims, especially in my home country. I question whether I will ever be able to bring my wife back to the U.S. to meet my family, whom she has never met (despite our having been married for several years now). Based on what I have read over the past four years since I left the U.S., I am not sure we can pass through the country without experiencing any anti-Muslim bigotry. *I* often experience bigotry against Islam (and even myself for being a Muslim) just by reading the various comments on my blogs and that of others.
Incidents like the Danish cartoons need to force other countries to question a fundamental trade-off: whether an unregulated freedom of speech is more important as a national value, with all of the attendant consequences that may happen both nationally and internationally, or a regulated freedom of speech that minimizes potential social upset both locally and abroad. Singapore, with its earlier experiences (e.g., the race riots of the 1960s), has decided (wisely, in my opinion) to regulate free speech for the greater benefit to Singaporean society. The Prime Minister recently said that an incident like the Danish cartoons would never have happened here, and I both agree with and applaud him for making such a statement (in fact, I did so a few weeks ago in one of my blog posts). The Danish have learned, much to their chagrin, that what is published locally can have international consequences. Media sources – including bloggers – need to consider the consequences of their writings and be willing to self-censor when necessary. Incitement against any race or religion is wrong, full stop, and those who incite the hatred of others may find that their work rebounds against them to their detriment.
Just ask Julius Streicher.
February 10, 2006
Heroes and Hypocrites
Two different news stories that are worth mentioning.
Locally, the Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Hsien Loong, has spoken out against the publication of the controversial Danish cartoons. From Bloomberg:
Singapore won't allow the publication of a controversial sequence of cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad, Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said late Thursday, condemning the caricatures as insensitive.
Maintaining racial harmony is a higher priority than freedom of expression, Lee said in broad-ranging comments in a meeting with community leaders.
...
"It's wrong, it's provocative. We would not have allowed in Singapore,'' Lee said in the two-hour dialogue yesterday with 1,700 community leaders and students. "It was wrong for the Danish newspapers to publish the pictures, it was wrong for the other European newspapers to say, in solidarity, 'I will republish.'''
...
Singapore's Lee said that, in some circumstances, the maintenance of religious harmony is more important than freedom of expression. He cited the example of the city's ban on "The Satanic Verses,'' the novel by Salman Rushdie that incensed many Muslims and led Iran's former spiritual leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to sentence the author to death.
"In 1989, when Salman Rushdie wrote a book 'Satanic Verses,' which many Muslims found very objectionable, we banned it,'' Lee said. "People say, 'where is the freedom of expression?' We say maintaining harmony, peace, that's the first requirement.''
-- Bloomberg: Singapore Won't Allow Publication of Prophet Cartoons, Lee Says
Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister, for making these comments. I do greatly appreciate them. I only wish more government leaders around the world (particularly in Europe) would have made similar comments. If they had, this controversy would have died down long ago.
Insha'allah, I hope to finish a post soon that will mirror some of the Prime Minister's comments above.
Then there's William Bennett.
Bennett appeared on CNN recently (The Situation Room) with Wolf Blitzer and Jim Zogby. Bennett, who is supposedly Roman Catholic, made numerous false accusations against Islam (in the video, you can see Zogby - who is not Muslim - shaking his head in disbelief several times at Bennett's lies). Two of Bennett's statements deserve closer attention. The first is that:
"Here's the standard. Catholicism is as Catholicism does, Judaism is as Judaism does, and by God Islam is as Islam does and what it's doing right now I wouldn't wanted to associated with."
As numerous people wrote in commentary at both Crooks and Liars and AmericaBlog, if "Catholicism is as Catholicism does," does that mean that Catholicism and Catholics - and, by extension, William Bennett - condones pedophilia? Of course it doesn't, which is why Bennett's argument is so laughable. The other statement that Bennett made was:
"I wish they would speak out. I wish they would speak out and take to the streets like these people do, when we see the beheading and beating of people."
But Bennett himself believes that in certain circumstances, beheadings are "morally plausible."
"Bennett is a staunch supporter of the War on Drugs and has been criticized for his extreme views on the issue. On a television show, he said that a viewer's suggestion of beheading drug dealers would be 'morally plausible.'"
-- Wikipedia: William John Bennett
Way to go, Bill! You've just exposed yourself to be a hypocrite.
To see the video with William Bennett and Jim Zogby, click here (QuickTime). For a Winamp version, go to Crooks and Liars: Bennett slanders Islam.
Locally, the Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Hsien Loong, has spoken out against the publication of the controversial Danish cartoons. From Bloomberg:Singapore won't allow the publication of a controversial sequence of cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad, Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said late Thursday, condemning the caricatures as insensitive.
Maintaining racial harmony is a higher priority than freedom of expression, Lee said in broad-ranging comments in a meeting with community leaders.
...
"It's wrong, it's provocative. We would not have allowed in Singapore,'' Lee said in the two-hour dialogue yesterday with 1,700 community leaders and students. "It was wrong for the Danish newspapers to publish the pictures, it was wrong for the other European newspapers to say, in solidarity, 'I will republish.'''
...
Singapore's Lee said that, in some circumstances, the maintenance of religious harmony is more important than freedom of expression. He cited the example of the city's ban on "The Satanic Verses,'' the novel by Salman Rushdie that incensed many Muslims and led Iran's former spiritual leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to sentence the author to death.
"In 1989, when Salman Rushdie wrote a book 'Satanic Verses,' which many Muslims found very objectionable, we banned it,'' Lee said. "People say, 'where is the freedom of expression?' We say maintaining harmony, peace, that's the first requirement.''
-- Bloomberg: Singapore Won't Allow Publication of Prophet Cartoons, Lee Says
Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister, for making these comments. I do greatly appreciate them. I only wish more government leaders around the world (particularly in Europe) would have made similar comments. If they had, this controversy would have died down long ago.
Insha'allah, I hope to finish a post soon that will mirror some of the Prime Minister's comments above.
Then there's William Bennett.Bennett appeared on CNN recently (The Situation Room) with Wolf Blitzer and Jim Zogby. Bennett, who is supposedly Roman Catholic, made numerous false accusations against Islam (in the video, you can see Zogby - who is not Muslim - shaking his head in disbelief several times at Bennett's lies). Two of Bennett's statements deserve closer attention. The first is that:
"Here's the standard. Catholicism is as Catholicism does, Judaism is as Judaism does, and by God Islam is as Islam does and what it's doing right now I wouldn't wanted to associated with."
As numerous people wrote in commentary at both Crooks and Liars and AmericaBlog, if "Catholicism is as Catholicism does," does that mean that Catholicism and Catholics - and, by extension, William Bennett - condones pedophilia? Of course it doesn't, which is why Bennett's argument is so laughable. The other statement that Bennett made was:
"I wish they would speak out. I wish they would speak out and take to the streets like these people do, when we see the beheading and beating of people."
But Bennett himself believes that in certain circumstances, beheadings are "morally plausible."
"Bennett is a staunch supporter of the War on Drugs and has been criticized for his extreme views on the issue. On a television show, he said that a viewer's suggestion of beheading drug dealers would be 'morally plausible.'"
-- Wikipedia: William John Bennett
Way to go, Bill! You've just exposed yourself to be a hypocrite.
To see the video with William Bennett and Jim Zogby, click here (QuickTime). For a Winamp version, go to Crooks and Liars: Bennett slanders Islam.
February 8, 2006
Dr. Cole on "The Hypocrisy of the West and Cartoongate"
Another interesting comment from Dr. Juan Cole:
"For those waxing holier than thou over the Muslim caricature riots, it is worth looking at the (very incomplete) Wikipedia list of riots for the late 20th century and early 21st century. The answer is obviously "yes" to the question of whether Westerners riot. Mostly over race."
Update: I was amused by Ottnot's comment to Dr. Cole's post:
Riots? Here? In America? Never. We are human beings, not Muslims. /sarcasm
Kee-rist. What do you think happens in the U.S. after many pro-sports championships?
What do you think happens every New Year's Eve in some cities, just for the hell of it.
How would you described what happened the day after Thanksgiving at effing Walmart, for eff's sake?
Would we riot over some cartoon? Hell no. We choose other, equally stupid, reasons for our riots.
"For those waxing holier than thou over the Muslim caricature riots, it is worth looking at the (very incomplete) Wikipedia list of riots for the late 20th century and early 21st century. The answer is obviously "yes" to the question of whether Westerners riot. Mostly over race."
Update: I was amused by Ottnot's comment to Dr. Cole's post:
Riots? Here? In America? Never. We are human beings, not Muslims. /sarcasm
Kee-rist. What do you think happens in the U.S. after many pro-sports championships?
What do you think happens every New Year's Eve in some cities, just for the hell of it.
How would you described what happened the day after Thanksgiving at effing Walmart, for eff's sake?
Would we riot over some cartoon? Hell no. We choose other, equally stupid, reasons for our riots.
How often? I don't!
Umm Zaid wrote: "How often do you feel obligated to condemn or speak out against something when no one has specifically asked you to? For example, many of us feel obligated to repeat, over and over, the fact that we don’t condone terror, etc. It’s true, but I don’t think it’s effective.
"My feeling is that by now, people who are really interested in knowing what the regular Mozzies of the mainstream think about terror have figured it out, and only those who are interested in stoking the flames of hate still say, “Why don’t they condemn terrorism?” every time a Muslim dares to raise his or her head."
I don't. I gave up "apologizing" for the misdeeds of others long ago. I'm not interested in abasing myself in front of others for whom an "apology" isn't owed. If they don't like it, too bad for them.
When I was working on my recent post, The Fog of War, I read an interesting comment by director Errol Morris in an interview he had with Tom Ryan, film critic for the Australian newspaper, The Sunday Age. In the interview, Morris talked about how Robert McNamara hasn't "apologized" for his role in the Vietnam War, and he ultimately wondered why people expected McNamara to apologize. As a result of this thinking, he came up with his "theory of apologies," which I think is directly applicable to Umm Zaid's situation.
Tom Ryan: Did your view of McNamara change, though, as you were sitting there talking to the man, watching him close to the edge of tears as he talks about the death of Kennedy, seeing him actually confess to you his sense of guilt? Or do you read that still as a kind of performance for the public?
Errol Morris: Can't it be both? For example, people get very angry at McNamara because, they say, he hasn't apologised. “How come you didn't get him to apologise?” Sometimes they get angry at me. And I remember thinking, “At what point during the interview do I want to hear this man apologise? Is this really what I want to hear?” And I thought to myself, “No, I don't. Because there is no apology for Vietnam. Fifty-eight thousand Americans dead, literally millions of Vietnamese. Why would I want to hear 'I'm sorry'?”
And then I started to wonder: why is it so important to people that he apologise? Why is this such a big thing for many, many people? And I developed a theory of apologies – that we like apologies because they empower us. If someone you don't like apologises to you, you can just say, “I don't accept your apology. Screw you!”
I believe that people wanted McNamara to apologise so they could reject it.
-- Errol Morris, Robert McNamara and The Fog of War
Likewise, I won't apologize for the burning of the various embassies, nor the flag burnings, nor some of the stupid placards. Nor do I apologize for various terrorist incidents. I didn't do them. Nor is Islam at fault, which means that I won't apologize on behalf of my religion either. Nor do I expect the Danish people in general or the Danish government to apologize either because, like me, they are not directly responsible for this controversy. However, I do expect apologies from the cartoonists, from JP's editors, and from all the other editors who have published these cartoons. I will also say that none of the "apologies" JP has issued have been, IMO, sincere. I expect these apologies to be sincere, not for my sake, but for their sake. The cartoonists and editors will be questioned about their deeds by Allah (swt), and I wonder just how far a "freedom of expression" excuse will go with Him.
Some other Muslim bloggers have said they believe that this controversy is a test from Allah (swt), and that is something I can buy into. But it's not just a test for Muslims, as they have implied, to see how well we will react. It's also a test for the Danes and other Europeans. Indeed, all of the world. And it is with sorrow that I see that these Danes, Europeans, and others are failing the test as well, exposing themselves to the world to be racist, intolerant, hypocritical bigots.
But I don't expect them to apologize.
"My feeling is that by now, people who are really interested in knowing what the regular Mozzies of the mainstream think about terror have figured it out, and only those who are interested in stoking the flames of hate still say, “Why don’t they condemn terrorism?” every time a Muslim dares to raise his or her head."
I don't. I gave up "apologizing" for the misdeeds of others long ago. I'm not interested in abasing myself in front of others for whom an "apology" isn't owed. If they don't like it, too bad for them.
When I was working on my recent post, The Fog of War, I read an interesting comment by director Errol Morris in an interview he had with Tom Ryan, film critic for the Australian newspaper, The Sunday Age. In the interview, Morris talked about how Robert McNamara hasn't "apologized" for his role in the Vietnam War, and he ultimately wondered why people expected McNamara to apologize. As a result of this thinking, he came up with his "theory of apologies," which I think is directly applicable to Umm Zaid's situation.
Tom Ryan: Did your view of McNamara change, though, as you were sitting there talking to the man, watching him close to the edge of tears as he talks about the death of Kennedy, seeing him actually confess to you his sense of guilt? Or do you read that still as a kind of performance for the public?
Errol Morris: Can't it be both? For example, people get very angry at McNamara because, they say, he hasn't apologised. “How come you didn't get him to apologise?” Sometimes they get angry at me. And I remember thinking, “At what point during the interview do I want to hear this man apologise? Is this really what I want to hear?” And I thought to myself, “No, I don't. Because there is no apology for Vietnam. Fifty-eight thousand Americans dead, literally millions of Vietnamese. Why would I want to hear 'I'm sorry'?”
And then I started to wonder: why is it so important to people that he apologise? Why is this such a big thing for many, many people? And I developed a theory of apologies – that we like apologies because they empower us. If someone you don't like apologises to you, you can just say, “I don't accept your apology. Screw you!”
I believe that people wanted McNamara to apologise so they could reject it.
-- Errol Morris, Robert McNamara and The Fog of War
Likewise, I won't apologize for the burning of the various embassies, nor the flag burnings, nor some of the stupid placards. Nor do I apologize for various terrorist incidents. I didn't do them. Nor is Islam at fault, which means that I won't apologize on behalf of my religion either. Nor do I expect the Danish people in general or the Danish government to apologize either because, like me, they are not directly responsible for this controversy. However, I do expect apologies from the cartoonists, from JP's editors, and from all the other editors who have published these cartoons. I will also say that none of the "apologies" JP has issued have been, IMO, sincere. I expect these apologies to be sincere, not for my sake, but for their sake. The cartoonists and editors will be questioned about their deeds by Allah (swt), and I wonder just how far a "freedom of expression" excuse will go with Him.
Some other Muslim bloggers have said they believe that this controversy is a test from Allah (swt), and that is something I can buy into. But it's not just a test for Muslims, as they have implied, to see how well we will react. It's also a test for the Danes and other Europeans. Indeed, all of the world. And it is with sorrow that I see that these Danes, Europeans, and others are failing the test as well, exposing themselves to the world to be racist, intolerant, hypocritical bigots.
But I don't expect them to apologize.
February 7, 2006
More Reactions to the Danish Cartoons
More reactions around the blogosphere (and elsewhere) to the Danish cartoons (and a few of my comments):
"My opinion is pretty much the same as anybody’s… 'Cause and effect (said in the Monica Belluci Matrix Voice), my love.' Yeah, call it freedom of speech if you want, I call it freedom of speech to say something racist and then hide behind your gauche caviar/champagne liberal selves. I mean, at least Jean Marie Le Pen comes out and says it. He’s my type of racist. Don’t talk about how ignorant you are about Islam, how you hate Muslims and how politically aware your cartoon is, and then call it freedom of speech."
-- Dictator Princess [Note: I added the links to the above post.]
----------
"I don’t agree with the actions of some of my Muslim brothers who resorted to burning Danish flags and pillage the Danish embassies throughout the Muslim world. We are much better than that. We shouldn’t stoop to the level of those blasphemous and ignorant pigs and [pardon my French] assholes who drew those abhorable cartoons in their portrayal of the Prophet (P) as a 'terrorist'. Of course what we object is not merely their stigmatisation of Islam as a 'terrorist' religion, but the fact that they even dared to draw a caricature of the Prophet (P) in the first place!
"If they can stake a claim to 'free speech', then we Muslims too can do the same and through peaceful means. By all means, be outraged at this provocation. Hold demonstrations and carry placards denouncing their actions. Boycott their goods and urge others to do the same. These are within our rights and conforms to 'their' standards of freedom of speech and expression. But we must remember never, ever resort to violence such as pillaging or flag-burnings which can be interpreted as a vindication of their claim.
"Do not stoop to their level of hatred."
-- MENJ
----------
"Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that have caused a storm of protest throughout the Islamic world, refused to run drawings lampooning Jesus Christ, it has emerged today.
"The Danish daily turned down the cartoons of Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny.
...
"Zieler received an email back from the paper's Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, which said: 'I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them.'"
-- The Guardian: Danish paper rejected Jesus cartoons
----------
"It's said that the Danish newspaper has apologized, but what I saw was a sort of, 'Sorry if you got yourselves all offended, but we're not sorry that we printed the cartoons'. I saw the 'culture' Editor, Fleming (or Flemming) Rose on BBC's Hardtalk and on a fairly long interview on CNN International. He was not at all apologetic, and when asked if he was happy that other European papers were also publishing the cartoons, he said, 'I'm not dissatisfied'. When asked if he had learned anything, or whether he would make a different decision if he had the chance again, he said he couldn't answer a hypothetical question but his comments then made clear that he would do it again.
"Also, I'd like to know more about the children's book that started all the controversy. It's been portrayed as a nice, educational book by an author who wanted Danish children to learn about Muslims. But then I saw pictures from the book, and they seemed to be sort of a checklist of the negative points used by Islam-bashers and/or Orientalists to demonize the Prophet (peace be upon him). Then I saw some blogs that said the author wrote the book after his children had been intimidated by Muslim children, and it was definitely a negative portrayal, which puts things in a different light."
-- Ann's comment on IJB's post, "Cartoon controversy"
----------
"On CNN (TV, not the website), they reported that JP is unrepentant regarding the publication of the cartoons, which obviously negates any "apology" that they've made.
"Personally, I'm hoping that all these businesses and governments that have suffered on JP's behalf will take the American approach and sue the bastards for all of their losses. Bankruptcy would be the best revenge."
-- My comment on IJB's post, "JP wouldn't lampoon another prophet..."
----------
Birthe Rønn Hornbech (as translated by Svend White):
"It goes without saying that Muslims in Denmark must also accept that they've come to a country with freedom of expression. It goes without saying that a country with freedom of religion is also a country with freedom to critique religion. But drawing Muhammad with a bomb in his turban obviously has nothing to do with serious religious critiques.
"We didn't get freedom of expression to offend each other merely for the sake of offending others. [...]Far too often, [the invocation of] freedom of religion has has been guided by an uncivil desire to introduce personal grudges into both press articles and reader responses.
"It is as if freedom of expression had been sancitified as some kind of fundamentalist religion whose purpose is to promote the demonization of others. Muslims are demonized in particular by the childish expection that since there are some Muslims who we think behave strangely or immorally, that all Muslims need to understand how [much better] we are.
"[...]Demonizing isn't just primitive and stupid. Demonization increases minorities' difficulties in understanding our society and heightens their feelings of marginalization. And that is lethal.
"It could be of momentous consequence for our country if we don't quickly grasp the risks in a situation where large groups residing in Denmark feel marginalized and seek comfort in the most extreme forms of religious fundamentalism which reject democracy."
----------
Also, Svend White's translation of Rune Engelbreth Larsen's blog
"Perhaps we should also recall these days how when the artist Jens Jørgen Thorsen obtained permission to paint a Jesus with an erect member in a public mural in Birkerød, Jyllands-Posten's editor in chief at the time, Asger Nørgaard Larsen, demanded it removed. Today, he's the chairman of the newspaper's fund [Am not sure how to translate that.] and has the exact opposite view of the cartoons of Muhammad.
"When the mural of Jesus was painted over at the order of traffic minister Arne Melchiors, Asger Nørgaard Larsen wrote in a leader in Jyllands-Posten that the traffic minister "had shown both good sense and courage in demanding the removal of the painting, even though he can expect new screams about the constitution and censorship" (Source: Politiken, 2005-10-23).
"As the chairman of the Jyllands-Posten fund today, howevever, he writes this of the cartoons of Muhammad: 'Freedom of expression is subject to secular law and is the foundation of our democracy. The overwhelming majority of Danes understand this... Freedom of expression must be used and tested.' (Jyllands-Posten, 2006-01-30).
"So, 'used and tested' is reserved for propaganda purposes against Muslims, but censorship has its place if it concerns a pornographic representation of Jesus..."
-- Hypocrisy of cartoon architects revealed
----------
"Before I launch into this report, I want to underline that few places in the Muslim world have seen violence over the caricatures, so far mainly Damascus and Beirut (which are unexpected in this regard.) Protests in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, and elsewhere have been nonviolent. This is not to play down the seriousness of what happened in Damascus and Beirut over the weekend--acts which can only inspire horror and condemnation--only to set it in context. There are 1.5 billion Muslims. A lot of Muslim countries saw no protests at all. In some places, as in Pakistan, they were anemic. The caricature protests are resonating with local politics and anti-imperialism in ways distinctive to each Muslim country. The protests therefore are probably not mostly purely about religion.
...
"Reuters reports, 'Syria's grand Mufti Badr Eddine Hassoun, told government newspaper al-Thawra that the attackers did their country harm. "We feel sorrow that these people who were driven by passion reached the stage where they have undermined our dialogue with the Norwegian and Danes," he said.'
"The Grand Mufti is the country's chief religious authority on Islamic law.
...
"Nor is it true that things were quiet after the immediate publication of the cartoons. Nor is it true that the Danish prime minister or the Jyllands-Posten expressed any sympathy for the hurt feelings of Muslims early on. Indeed, they lectured them on being uncivilized for objecting."
-- Dr. Juan Cole on "Caricatures Roil Muslim World"
"My opinion is pretty much the same as anybody’s… 'Cause and effect (said in the Monica Belluci Matrix Voice), my love.' Yeah, call it freedom of speech if you want, I call it freedom of speech to say something racist and then hide behind your gauche caviar/champagne liberal selves. I mean, at least Jean Marie Le Pen comes out and says it. He’s my type of racist. Don’t talk about how ignorant you are about Islam, how you hate Muslims and how politically aware your cartoon is, and then call it freedom of speech."
-- Dictator Princess [Note: I added the links to the above post.]
----------
"I don’t agree with the actions of some of my Muslim brothers who resorted to burning Danish flags and pillage the Danish embassies throughout the Muslim world. We are much better than that. We shouldn’t stoop to the level of those blasphemous and ignorant pigs and [pardon my French] assholes who drew those abhorable cartoons in their portrayal of the Prophet (P) as a 'terrorist'. Of course what we object is not merely their stigmatisation of Islam as a 'terrorist' religion, but the fact that they even dared to draw a caricature of the Prophet (P) in the first place!
"If they can stake a claim to 'free speech', then we Muslims too can do the same and through peaceful means. By all means, be outraged at this provocation. Hold demonstrations and carry placards denouncing their actions. Boycott their goods and urge others to do the same. These are within our rights and conforms to 'their' standards of freedom of speech and expression. But we must remember never, ever resort to violence such as pillaging or flag-burnings which can be interpreted as a vindication of their claim.
"Do not stoop to their level of hatred."
-- MENJ
----------
"Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that have caused a storm of protest throughout the Islamic world, refused to run drawings lampooning Jesus Christ, it has emerged today.
"The Danish daily turned down the cartoons of Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny.
...
"Zieler received an email back from the paper's Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, which said: 'I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them.'"
-- The Guardian: Danish paper rejected Jesus cartoons
----------
"It's said that the Danish newspaper has apologized, but what I saw was a sort of, 'Sorry if you got yourselves all offended, but we're not sorry that we printed the cartoons'. I saw the 'culture' Editor, Fleming (or Flemming) Rose on BBC's Hardtalk and on a fairly long interview on CNN International. He was not at all apologetic, and when asked if he was happy that other European papers were also publishing the cartoons, he said, 'I'm not dissatisfied'. When asked if he had learned anything, or whether he would make a different decision if he had the chance again, he said he couldn't answer a hypothetical question but his comments then made clear that he would do it again.
"Also, I'd like to know more about the children's book that started all the controversy. It's been portrayed as a nice, educational book by an author who wanted Danish children to learn about Muslims. But then I saw pictures from the book, and they seemed to be sort of a checklist of the negative points used by Islam-bashers and/or Orientalists to demonize the Prophet (peace be upon him). Then I saw some blogs that said the author wrote the book after his children had been intimidated by Muslim children, and it was definitely a negative portrayal, which puts things in a different light."
-- Ann's comment on IJB's post, "Cartoon controversy"
----------
"On CNN (TV, not the website), they reported that JP is unrepentant regarding the publication of the cartoons, which obviously negates any "apology" that they've made.
"Personally, I'm hoping that all these businesses and governments that have suffered on JP's behalf will take the American approach and sue the bastards for all of their losses. Bankruptcy would be the best revenge."
-- My comment on IJB's post, "JP wouldn't lampoon another prophet..."
----------
Birthe Rønn Hornbech (as translated by Svend White):
"It goes without saying that Muslims in Denmark must also accept that they've come to a country with freedom of expression. It goes without saying that a country with freedom of religion is also a country with freedom to critique religion. But drawing Muhammad with a bomb in his turban obviously has nothing to do with serious religious critiques.
"We didn't get freedom of expression to offend each other merely for the sake of offending others. [...]Far too often, [the invocation of] freedom of religion has has been guided by an uncivil desire to introduce personal grudges into both press articles and reader responses.
"It is as if freedom of expression had been sancitified as some kind of fundamentalist religion whose purpose is to promote the demonization of others. Muslims are demonized in particular by the childish expection that since there are some Muslims who we think behave strangely or immorally, that all Muslims need to understand how [much better] we are.
"[...]Demonizing isn't just primitive and stupid. Demonization increases minorities' difficulties in understanding our society and heightens their feelings of marginalization. And that is lethal.
"It could be of momentous consequence for our country if we don't quickly grasp the risks in a situation where large groups residing in Denmark feel marginalized and seek comfort in the most extreme forms of religious fundamentalism which reject democracy."
----------
Also, Svend White's translation of Rune Engelbreth Larsen's blog
"Perhaps we should also recall these days how when the artist Jens Jørgen Thorsen obtained permission to paint a Jesus with an erect member in a public mural in Birkerød, Jyllands-Posten's editor in chief at the time, Asger Nørgaard Larsen, demanded it removed. Today, he's the chairman of the newspaper's fund [Am not sure how to translate that.] and has the exact opposite view of the cartoons of Muhammad.
"When the mural of Jesus was painted over at the order of traffic minister Arne Melchiors, Asger Nørgaard Larsen wrote in a leader in Jyllands-Posten that the traffic minister "had shown both good sense and courage in demanding the removal of the painting, even though he can expect new screams about the constitution and censorship" (Source: Politiken, 2005-10-23).
"As the chairman of the Jyllands-Posten fund today, howevever, he writes this of the cartoons of Muhammad: 'Freedom of expression is subject to secular law and is the foundation of our democracy. The overwhelming majority of Danes understand this... Freedom of expression must be used and tested.' (Jyllands-Posten, 2006-01-30).
"So, 'used and tested' is reserved for propaganda purposes against Muslims, but censorship has its place if it concerns a pornographic representation of Jesus..."
-- Hypocrisy of cartoon architects revealed
----------
"Before I launch into this report, I want to underline that few places in the Muslim world have seen violence over the caricatures, so far mainly Damascus and Beirut (which are unexpected in this regard.) Protests in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, and elsewhere have been nonviolent. This is not to play down the seriousness of what happened in Damascus and Beirut over the weekend--acts which can only inspire horror and condemnation--only to set it in context. There are 1.5 billion Muslims. A lot of Muslim countries saw no protests at all. In some places, as in Pakistan, they were anemic. The caricature protests are resonating with local politics and anti-imperialism in ways distinctive to each Muslim country. The protests therefore are probably not mostly purely about religion.
...
"Reuters reports, 'Syria's grand Mufti Badr Eddine Hassoun, told government newspaper al-Thawra that the attackers did their country harm. "We feel sorrow that these people who were driven by passion reached the stage where they have undermined our dialogue with the Norwegian and Danes," he said.'
"The Grand Mufti is the country's chief religious authority on Islamic law.
...
"Nor is it true that things were quiet after the immediate publication of the cartoons. Nor is it true that the Danish prime minister or the Jyllands-Posten expressed any sympathy for the hurt feelings of Muslims early on. Indeed, they lectured them on being uncivilized for objecting."
-- Dr. Juan Cole on "Caricatures Roil Muslim World"
Dr. Juan Cole on "Muslim Protests Against Anti-Muhammad Caricatures"
The following is one of Dr. Juan Cole's posts regarding the offensive cartoons attacking the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). This is a very good post, and I believe it deserves wider coverage.
"Of course people are upset when their sacred figures are attacked! But the hurt is magnified many times when the party doing the injuring is first-world, and the injured have a long history of being ruled, oppressed and marginalized. Moreover, most Muslims live in societies with strong traditions of state censorship, so they often assume that if something appears in the press, the government allowed it to do so and is therefore culpable.
"Westerners cannot feel the pain of Muslims in this instance. First, Westerners mostly live in secular societies where religious sentiments have themselves been marginalized. Second, the Muslims honor Moses and Jesus, so there is no symmetry between Christian attacks on Muhammad and Muslim critiques of the West. No Muslim cartoonist would ever lampoon the Jewish and Christian holy figures in sacred history, since Muslims believe in them, too, even if they see them all as human prophets. Third, Westerners have the security of being the first world, with their culture coded as "universal," and widely respected and imitated. Cultures like that of the Muslims in the global South receive far less respect. Finally, societies in the global South are less policed and have less security than in Western Europe or North America, allowing greater space to violent vigilateism, which would just be stopped if it were tried in the industrialized democracies. (Even wearing a t-shirt with the wrong message can get you arrested over here.)
"What Muslims are saying is that depicting Muhammad with a bomb in his turban is insupportable. It is often assumed that in the West we believe in free speech, so there is nothing that is insupportable.
"But that simply is not true. Muslims mind caricatures of Muhammad because they view him as the exemplar of all that is good in human beings. Most Western taboos are instead negative ones, not disallowal of attacks on symbols of goodness but the questioning of symbols of evil.
"Thus, it is insupportable to say that the Nazi ideology was right and to praise Hitler. In Germany if one took that sort of thing too far one would be breaking the law. Even in France, Bernard Lewis was fined for playing down the Armenian holocaust. It is insupportable to say that slavery was right, and if you proclaimed that in the wrong urban neighborhoods, you could count on a violent response.
"So once you admit that there are things that can be said that are insupportable, then the Muslim feelings about the caricatures become one reaction in an entire set of such reactions.
"But you don't have to look far for other issues that would exercise Westerners just as much as attacks on Muhammad do Muslims. In secular societies, a keen concern with race often underlies ideas of social hierarchy. Thus, any act that might bring into question the superiority of so-called white people in their own territory can provoke demonstrations and even violence such as lynchings. Consider the recent Australian race riots, which were in part about keeping the world ordered with whites on top.
"Had the Danish newspaper published antisemitic cartoons that showed, e.g., Moses as an exploitative money lender and brought into question the Holocaust, there would also have been a firestorm of protest. For the secular world, the injuries and unspoken hierarchies of race are what cannot be attacked.
"Muslims are not, as you will be told, the only community that is touchy about attacks on its holy figures or even just ordinary heros. Thousands of Muslims were killed in the early 1990s by enraged Hindus in India over the Ayodhya Mosque, which Hindus insisted was built on the site of a shrine to a Hindu holy figure. No one accuses Hindus in general of being unusually narrowminded and aggressive as a result. Or, the Likudniks in Israel protested the withdrawal from Gaza, and there were dark mutterings about what happened to Rabin recurring in the case of Sharon. The "sacred" principle at stake there is just not one most people in the outsider world would agree with the Likudniks about.
"Human beings are all alike. Where they are distinctive, it comes out of a special set of historical circumstances. The Muslims are protesting this incident vigorously, and consider the caricatures insupportable. We would protest other things, and consider them insupportable."
Dr. Cole also wrote the following comment on his blog:
"I just reiterate in response to some of the critical comments that came in that there are lots of things that if someone said them in public in the United States would cause public outcry, maybe demonstrations and even violence. The mob violence, or threat of it, would be regrettable and wrong, just as it is always wrong everywhere. But it would happen under certain circumstances here, too.
"You should remember that Bill Maher lost his job for comments after September 11, and Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, came out and said we all had to be very careful what we said, and that it was 'never' the time for such comments.
"The American tradition of freedom of speech rooted in the First Amendment really only protects you from the Federal government. You can't even publicly criticize some corporations without risking a lawsuit.
"I agree that it is better that most people in the North Atlantic world no longer are easily mobilized on grounds of religious feeling. But to pretend that Westerners have abolished all their taboos and irrationalities is just hubris. And, some of the protests among Muslims over the caricatures are about wounded nationalism, and not about religion at all."
"Of course people are upset when their sacred figures are attacked! But the hurt is magnified many times when the party doing the injuring is first-world, and the injured have a long history of being ruled, oppressed and marginalized. Moreover, most Muslims live in societies with strong traditions of state censorship, so they often assume that if something appears in the press, the government allowed it to do so and is therefore culpable.
"Westerners cannot feel the pain of Muslims in this instance. First, Westerners mostly live in secular societies where religious sentiments have themselves been marginalized. Second, the Muslims honor Moses and Jesus, so there is no symmetry between Christian attacks on Muhammad and Muslim critiques of the West. No Muslim cartoonist would ever lampoon the Jewish and Christian holy figures in sacred history, since Muslims believe in them, too, even if they see them all as human prophets. Third, Westerners have the security of being the first world, with their culture coded as "universal," and widely respected and imitated. Cultures like that of the Muslims in the global South receive far less respect. Finally, societies in the global South are less policed and have less security than in Western Europe or North America, allowing greater space to violent vigilateism, which would just be stopped if it were tried in the industrialized democracies. (Even wearing a t-shirt with the wrong message can get you arrested over here.)
"What Muslims are saying is that depicting Muhammad with a bomb in his turban is insupportable. It is often assumed that in the West we believe in free speech, so there is nothing that is insupportable.
"But that simply is not true. Muslims mind caricatures of Muhammad because they view him as the exemplar of all that is good in human beings. Most Western taboos are instead negative ones, not disallowal of attacks on symbols of goodness but the questioning of symbols of evil.
"Thus, it is insupportable to say that the Nazi ideology was right and to praise Hitler. In Germany if one took that sort of thing too far one would be breaking the law. Even in France, Bernard Lewis was fined for playing down the Armenian holocaust. It is insupportable to say that slavery was right, and if you proclaimed that in the wrong urban neighborhoods, you could count on a violent response.
"So once you admit that there are things that can be said that are insupportable, then the Muslim feelings about the caricatures become one reaction in an entire set of such reactions.
"But you don't have to look far for other issues that would exercise Westerners just as much as attacks on Muhammad do Muslims. In secular societies, a keen concern with race often underlies ideas of social hierarchy. Thus, any act that might bring into question the superiority of so-called white people in their own territory can provoke demonstrations and even violence such as lynchings. Consider the recent Australian race riots, which were in part about keeping the world ordered with whites on top.
"Had the Danish newspaper published antisemitic cartoons that showed, e.g., Moses as an exploitative money lender and brought into question the Holocaust, there would also have been a firestorm of protest. For the secular world, the injuries and unspoken hierarchies of race are what cannot be attacked.
"Muslims are not, as you will be told, the only community that is touchy about attacks on its holy figures or even just ordinary heros. Thousands of Muslims were killed in the early 1990s by enraged Hindus in India over the Ayodhya Mosque, which Hindus insisted was built on the site of a shrine to a Hindu holy figure. No one accuses Hindus in general of being unusually narrowminded and aggressive as a result. Or, the Likudniks in Israel protested the withdrawal from Gaza, and there were dark mutterings about what happened to Rabin recurring in the case of Sharon. The "sacred" principle at stake there is just not one most people in the outsider world would agree with the Likudniks about.
"Human beings are all alike. Where they are distinctive, it comes out of a special set of historical circumstances. The Muslims are protesting this incident vigorously, and consider the caricatures insupportable. We would protest other things, and consider them insupportable."
Dr. Cole also wrote the following comment on his blog:
"I just reiterate in response to some of the critical comments that came in that there are lots of things that if someone said them in public in the United States would cause public outcry, maybe demonstrations and even violence. The mob violence, or threat of it, would be regrettable and wrong, just as it is always wrong everywhere. But it would happen under certain circumstances here, too.
"You should remember that Bill Maher lost his job for comments after September 11, and Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, came out and said we all had to be very careful what we said, and that it was 'never' the time for such comments.
"The American tradition of freedom of speech rooted in the First Amendment really only protects you from the Federal government. You can't even publicly criticize some corporations without risking a lawsuit.
"I agree that it is better that most people in the North Atlantic world no longer are easily mobilized on grounds of religious feeling. But to pretend that Westerners have abolished all their taboos and irrationalities is just hubris. And, some of the protests among Muslims over the caricatures are about wounded nationalism, and not about religion at all."
January 17, 2005
More on "Tolerance?"
First, I'd like to thank "Anonymous" for his or her comments. Except for my wife (who occasionally reads my blog), I sometimes wonder if I'm just whistling in the dark. :)
I think that last night's comments deserve some more discussion. I can see that Anonymous and others could think that I'm condoning the murder of Theo Van Gogh. I'm not, nor would I condone the murders of any of the other "artists" I mentioned last night (Salman Rushdie, Elisabeth Ohlson, Andres Serrano, and Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti). The Moroccans who murdered Van Gogh should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Did Van Gogh deserve to die for making his film? No. Did he deserve to be punished for making his film? Absolutely. Van Gogh deserved censorship, jail time and caning, but not death.
The country I currently live in, Singapore, has a well-deserved reputation for being a nanny state. While I and other Singaporeans would like to see the laws here changed to loosen certain controls the government maintains over society, I think the government has some policies that are very good for the maintenance of this society. One is an emphasis on maintaining religious harmony to prevent civil unrest. Singapore has a lot of religions practiced here: Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Sikhism, and so on. Such diversity in religions is a powderkeg, and could be easily ignited under the wrong circumstances. Singapore (and other governments in this region) clamp down hard to prevent society from erupting in religious rioting. I applaud these efforts.
The problem is, Western society - in the name of free speech - allows "artists" to denigrate religions if they so choose. A government like Singapore's would have prevented each of the "artists" named above from publishing or displaying their "art" in public. Rushdie's "Satanic Verses" was banned not only in Muslim Malaysia (as one might expect), but also by secular Singapore (it's still banned here). I suspect that any of the above "artists" (or others who help to publish or display their work here) would have been jailed and caned, in addition to being censored, if they had tried to make their "art" public in Singapore. This is one of the reasons why I was happy to see the other article on Egypt, in which both Muslim and Christian officials are able to censor the "poison" of anti-religious "art."
Theo Van Gogh was an idiot, and I don't mourn his death at all. He strikes me as the type of person who should appear in the "Darwin Awards." Islam wasn't the only religion he had publicly criticized in his "art," but he found out the hard way that Muslims take their religion a little more seriously than, say, the Christians whom he had criticized. Even so, he isn't entirely to be blamed for his death: Western society and government (the Dutch government in particular) bears some of the blame as well. Western society needs to reconsider its position regarding censorship and religious tolerance. Because tolerance in the name of free speech is going to continue to lead to the deaths of stupid "artists" who are intolerant of the religions of others.
I think that last night's comments deserve some more discussion. I can see that Anonymous and others could think that I'm condoning the murder of Theo Van Gogh. I'm not, nor would I condone the murders of any of the other "artists" I mentioned last night (Salman Rushdie, Elisabeth Ohlson, Andres Serrano, and Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti). The Moroccans who murdered Van Gogh should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Did Van Gogh deserve to die for making his film? No. Did he deserve to be punished for making his film? Absolutely. Van Gogh deserved censorship, jail time and caning, but not death.
The country I currently live in, Singapore, has a well-deserved reputation for being a nanny state. While I and other Singaporeans would like to see the laws here changed to loosen certain controls the government maintains over society, I think the government has some policies that are very good for the maintenance of this society. One is an emphasis on maintaining religious harmony to prevent civil unrest. Singapore has a lot of religions practiced here: Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Sikhism, and so on. Such diversity in religions is a powderkeg, and could be easily ignited under the wrong circumstances. Singapore (and other governments in this region) clamp down hard to prevent society from erupting in religious rioting. I applaud these efforts.
The problem is, Western society - in the name of free speech - allows "artists" to denigrate religions if they so choose. A government like Singapore's would have prevented each of the "artists" named above from publishing or displaying their "art" in public. Rushdie's "Satanic Verses" was banned not only in Muslim Malaysia (as one might expect), but also by secular Singapore (it's still banned here). I suspect that any of the above "artists" (or others who help to publish or display their work here) would have been jailed and caned, in addition to being censored, if they had tried to make their "art" public in Singapore. This is one of the reasons why I was happy to see the other article on Egypt, in which both Muslim and Christian officials are able to censor the "poison" of anti-religious "art."
Theo Van Gogh was an idiot, and I don't mourn his death at all. He strikes me as the type of person who should appear in the "Darwin Awards." Islam wasn't the only religion he had publicly criticized in his "art," but he found out the hard way that Muslims take their religion a little more seriously than, say, the Christians whom he had criticized. Even so, he isn't entirely to be blamed for his death: Western society and government (the Dutch government in particular) bears some of the blame as well. Western society needs to reconsider its position regarding censorship and religious tolerance. Because tolerance in the name of free speech is going to continue to lead to the deaths of stupid "artists" who are intolerant of the religions of others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)