« The latest craze is worth a thousand bon mots | Main | The rules about breasts »
February 04, 2006
Sticks and stones
A Guardian leader addresses the belated furore arising from publication of cartoons in Jyllands-Posten last September (note they work in the as ever irrelevant "societies which centuries ago made huge contributions to science and thought" meme). UK newspapers are praised for not reprinting said cartoons; "John Stuart Mill is a better guide to this issue than Voltaire." This may very well be the case. Though I believe it has yet to be seen whether the British reaction owes more to the political philosophy of John Stuart Mill or Neville Chamberlain. Hostage-taking and death-threats complicate what might otherwise resemble the ritual offense the Catholic League takes to an episode of South Park. That is to say: self-righteous and self-serving in equal measure but nothing to arouse much concern given both qualities are an inevitable consequence of the free expression of others (even oneself at times, one is forced to admit).
The Guardian should be given limited credit, however, for not making the mistake of ignoring threats of violence after the fashion of so many who mistake political or social problems for ones of representation alone.
I say only limited credit because this Jordanian editor, the Guardian and so much comment I have read on "the internet" mistake the purpose of those issuing the death-threats. These folks with the death-threats are not concerned about cartoons reinforcing negative stereotypes; such stereotyping being the obsession of a press that has long-since abandoned political economy for cultural Marxism. These folks with the death-threats are concerned about an insult to the Prophet whose message they claim to represent. Al Ghurabaa (the Strangers), a British Muslim organization thus far sheltered by the policy of latter day John Stuart Mills, explains why execution is the appropriate response to such insult. Citing numerous examples of execution in return for insult in the time of Mohammed, the Strangers observe the following.
So much typing this week has been to the effect that Muslims find any representation of the Prophet inherently offensive. While the stentorian tones in which this little pearl of sensitivity is offered is inherently irritating (dare I say offensive) to me, it is all the more vexing for being so obviously wrong. "Muslims" are no more offended by representations of the Prophet than "Christians" venerate the Blessed Virgin. Some do, some do not and many nominal practitioners of the faith are not much bothered either way. There is nothing particularly smart or sensitive in saying "Muslims" believe this or that (though this sort of lazy stereotyping is a real time-saver) any more than it would be wise to assume the likes of Al Ghurabaa speak for all British Muslims. A website hosting depictions of Mohammed not only includes the Jyllands-Posten images but contemporary depictions of Mohammed by Muslims. And yet not a peep from the would-be beheaders vis a vis the latter.
What then is the logic connecting the respect I am meant to share for those supposedly offended by the publication of editorial cartoons in a Danish newspaper five months ago and the understanding I am meant to share for yesterday's "protests" on the streets of London calling for mass murder ("UK you must pray, 7/7 is on its way."). There is certainly an existential aspect to the more blood-curdling end of the spectrum of offense but there is a much stronger echo of mafiosi notions of honour and respect at work. And why not? After all, threats of bombing and beheading in exchange for something as innocuous as an editorial cartoon have been effective pour encourager les autres at least when the autres are Guardian editors. I can think of all sorts of offensive, anti-semitic nonsense issuing from the editorial pages of the British press and its editorial cartoons in particular. But then "the Jews don't issue fatwas."
Glass houses Update: "I think the Danish ambassador should issue an apology. In the largest Christian church in Saudi Arabia." - Laurence Simon (via The Belmont Club).
A measured and appropriate response Update: Many people apparently believe publishing editorial cartoons justifies, even necessitates, mass murder. Just as many apparently do not believe torching an embassy constitutes an act of war.
The better part of valour Update: Equivocation at Channel 4 leaves me wondering just who the "militant secularists" might be.
Thinking along similar lines Update: INDC Journal has sensible things to say and links to Christopher Hitchens, among others, who does too. Also, an important reminder from a Muslim once again appalled at the hijacking of his faith.
Sanity Update: The Muslim Council of Britain condemns Friday's "protest", said to have been instigated by al Muhajiroun, and calls for criminal prosecutions.
"The placards that were on display were quite disgraceful and in our opinion seemed to constitute a clear incitement to violence, even murder," said Inayat Bunglawala, spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain umbrella group. "We hope that the police are examining the footage of that particular demonstration and gathering evidence with a view to prosecuting those extremist elements who took part," he said.
Posted by Ghost of a flea at February 4, 2006 09:17 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.ghostofaflea.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/5543
Comments
Flea, I'm feeling rather like I'm living in 1935, around these here parts...
Posted by: Ben ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.ghostofaflea.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 4, 2006 12:39 PM
It would be so 1914 to see Norway and Denmark declare war on Syria, head down there in their longships, and do to Damascus what they did to Constantinople in 860.
It's a pity that acts of war no longer compel, or even permit, countries to actually go to war. Not that I want to see more warfare, but that I'd like to see more contries being polite to each other and not burning down each other's diplomatic missions (whether officially, or by mob proxy).
Posted by: Dan at February 4, 2006 01:23 PM
My normally more caring & sharing friends & loved-ones are starting to feel rather uneasy. Terms like race/religious war are being bandied about in the UK by sensible people. If the Muzzies launch another 7/7 or 9/11 style attack in the UK things will go down hill for Muslims in a hurry. The visceral reaction by most people in the UK over the protest/placards is a sign that people in the UK have had enough of all of it.
Posted by: Andrew Ian Dodge at February 6, 2006 07:20 AM
"A website hosting depictions of Mohammed not only includes the Jyllands-Posten images but contemporary depictions of Mohammed by Muslims"
ummm...flea...where are the contemporary depictions by muslims? portraiture is haraam in the Qu'ran. a muslim drawing Muhammed's face would become apostate and not be a muslim anymore.
Posted by: matoko kusanagi at February 6, 2006 10:53 PM
"ummm...flea...where are the contemporary depictions by muslims?"
Ummm... Matoko, try scrolling down the freaking page.
"portraiture is haraam in the Qu'ran."
No it is not. Try Googling the word "hadith". You may find it educational.
"a muslim drawing Muhammed's face would become apostate and not be a muslim anymore."
Some folks have told me that unless you accept the divinity of the BVM you are not a Christian. Other folks have told me that if you accept the divinity of the BVM you are not a Christian.
So I will be adding you to the long list of people who spout this sort of crap without knowing what you are talking about.
Posted by: Ghost of a flea at February 6, 2006 11:11 PM
The use of violence to back up an idea almost invariably points to the idea's inherant weakness. (e.g. Sir Issac Newton didn't have to put a gun to people's heads to get them to accept the concept of gravity!!) If Islam is indeed truth, then discussions and debates, no matter how inflamed need not be resolved with violence. Truth will eventually surface.
Also, the use of violence by adherants in the defence of a concept usually indicates their own insecurity in that concept i.e. "We can't think of a better argument in this debate so let's just kill the opposition. Then we won't have to face our own doubts."
Respect can only be given to respected ideas. And most ideas have to be proven in order to be respected. One cannot demand respect and reverence. You can however command it through example. (Sadly, violence and human rights abuse tends to be a major factor in almost all islamic states, so, from such an example, it is very hard to command respect and conversely, only build fear. In fact, the muslim reaction to these cartoons only enhances the impression that violence and Islam go hand in hand.)
For the extremists out there, what about these points to ponder before taking up a sword to slaughter "infidels" (please note I am referring to patriarchal, monotheistic enthusiasts hence the use of the word "Him" as God):
a. Surely God should be able to punish sinners Himself? Since....
b. Surely, sinful human beings are too flawed to mete out God's justice adequately? But even more confusingly...
c. Isn't the idea of NOT being able to depict any image of any prophet at all tantamount to idolatory, since surely they were only human? Unless, of course, if you ban all pictures of all things. I can understand the religious view of not depicting God, since it is the equivalent of trying to encapsulate universal perfection, which is impossible. (Which seems logical enough! I hope this illustrates my point about me not needing to be forced to understand that particular concept!!)
In an enlightened society, all ideas have to be subject to rigourous debate, and that debate must be free (and especially free of violence), no matter how distasteful it is to either party. Otherwise, humanity as a whole can't and won't evolve mentally.
Hey, before you hear "Islam is all about peace" and "God is Love" from the media, muslims and christians, find out what the bible and the koran really have to say by going to
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
It lists all the contradictions, absurdities and much more in the "holy" books. Personally, I feel the world would be so much better without the concepts of Race, religion, nationality, class and money. If we can get rid of religion (through debate and reason I must stress) it would be a start. I'm not against personal beliefs, it should be a free world, but I am against organised religion. That cancer in humanity has to go.
Posted by: Chekué at February 8, 2006 12:28 AM
Um, Flea, before you terminate Matoko, I happen to know she's 5'8, looks fetching in a red tankini, & recently ordered a $$$$ deathdealer suit from Jake's Custom Leatherwerks. FYI
Posted by: beautifulatrocities at February 10, 2006 06:41 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in. Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)