This post is now available in Polish translation at Racjonalista. Thanks once more to Malgorzata.
It is only fair to point out, as Tim Harris said in a comment the other day, that there are some people, at least in Libya, who are protesting against Muslim violence, and are opposed to terrorism. Of course, I had no doubt that there were, but there have been public demonstrations to this effect, and Elizabeth Reeve, over at The Atlantic, has reported on them. There are pictures too.
It’s encouraging to see a small sign that not all Muslims react with rage. But it has to be remembered that these protests are against the murder of the American diplomats, one of whom, at least, the ambassador Chris Stevens, was a friend to Libya and Libyans, and not against the protests that are taking place elsewhere in response to the perceived insult to Muhammad. And at least one of the placards made this clear:
The sign on the right translates as “We disapprove/condemn the humiliation of the prophet but NOT with Terrorism.” So the question of respect for free speech is still, apparently, not recognised even by these demonstrations opposing the violence against American diplomats.
The problem, in other words, is that it seems fairly generally to be true that Muslims on the whole resent what they take to be insults directed towards the prophet, and would support laws forbidding the criticism of Islam. This has effectively happened anyway. Notice that the only major criticisms of Islam, and of the Muhammad, are being made by marginal groups with a grievance. By making it virtually impossible for the criticism of Islam to take place in places where we can be assured that reasoned discussion of Islam is likely to take place; criticism has been pushed onto the margins where of course much cruder, less sensitive, more “Islamophobic” expressions of opinion can be expected. The major news outlets, as well as university and other presses have been put on notice that violence will meet any overt criticism of Islam. As Rushdie says, it is unlikely that a book like The Satanic Verses would find a publisher now. This being the case, no one should be surprised that Islam, when it is criticised — and it will be criticised — it will be done with a sledge-hammer and not with fine-tipped pen.
Tariq Ramadan, the suppose Muslim moderate, has an interview with Democracy Now which is remarkable for is extreme vagueness. Indeed, for all his many words, it is not at all clear what he wants to say. When he says, for instance, at the end:
A[nd] what I would like, knowing that in the Muslim-majority countries you can’t do without Islam, we can’t do without their culture, in which way they are going to come back to this Islamic reference to find a way to deal with the true challenges and not the superficial political questions
– he has said exactly nothing, and the whole interview is like that. As when he says, a few moments before:
[An] unsettled Middle East, in these times where the people are trying to find their way towards democracy, could be interesting for many reasons — for weapons to be sold, for new geostrategic interests to be protected, and something that we are not talking about, which is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The people who are lost in the whole discussion here are the Palestinians.
– which follows very nicely in the footsteps of his grandfather, Hassan al Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. There is a sense throughout the interview that there is an unspoken subtext, and it is not altogether clear what it is, which is the way it almost always is with Tariq Ramadan, who has just published a book entitled The Arab Awakening (anything that has erwachen in it we should be very chary about, remembering especially al Banna’s adulation of Adolf Hitler).
I think, despite the few ambiguous positive signs coming from Libya, the fury of the Muslim street over the silly “Innocence of Muslims” video should lead us to ask some serious questions about the capability of this religion to behave in an adult and responsible manner. David Aaronovitch has an interesting op-ed piece in the Times (unfortunately behind a paywall), in which he speaks about Islam’s adolescence. Possibly this is the result of the vast number of immature young men in Muslim-majority countries, who have nothing to do, and whose education is almost wholly based on the Qu’ran. But Aaronovitch’s closing paragraph, given considerable support in the article itself, is, I think, telling:
Of course Muslims are not the only people whose leaders harness and exploit the reactionary emotional power of grievance. But the idea of “global Muslim anger” relies on the seductive trick of placing yourself always in the position of the done-to and not the doing, even when you run a quarter of the countries on the planet. It’s not global anger. It’s global adolescence.
And the appeal of the Prime Minister of Turkey to have “Islamophobia” (undefined, except to say that your freedom to express your beliefs ends where my beliefs begin) made into a “crime against humanity” shows that what we are dealing with here is not a passing phase. According to Erdogan, the Turkish Prime Minister (was his remark about Turkey being united by one religion a mistake, as he claimed? ), his
government will immediately start working on legislation against blasphemous and offensive remarks. “Turkey could be a leading example for the rest of the world on this.”
When he addresses the United Nations later this month, this will be one of his proposals for the world body to consider. The Organisation for Islamic Cooperation (the renamed Organisation of the Islamic Conference) has been appealing for such laws for well over a decade. It is clear that they still haven’t got the message. Freedom to criticise is a fundamental freedom without which people are in chains — and worse, if violence is the response to the exercise of this freedom.
Let’s not kid ourselves about this. This is not only people in the streets. This is governments expressing their concern, demanding suppression of Western freedoms. And this kind of thing is not going to end until Western presses are prepared, openly, and widely, to begin an open and free discussion of Islam, just as is done with respect to Christianity and Judaism, or any other world view. Throughout much of the Muslim world, as Jerry Coyne recently pointed out (warning: graphic and disturbing material), TV films and even film series, based on the discredited fiction of the Czarist secret police, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, are shown on public TV networks, and taught in schools. Jews are not protesting, and no one has been killed on account of them. Yet a stupid little video clip made by some disgruntled American citizens of Middle Eastern descent has been enough to cause the Muslim world to erupt into rage and fury. Not only that, but, just to turn the screw, Salman Rushdie has again been “fatwaed” to death by Iran, and it has even raised the stakes make the proposition a bit more attractive. Until the Western press and publishing industry makes Islam a matter for free and independent discussion, this kind of idiocy will not stop. Freedom is only won by exercising it, and it will be lost if it is not exercised. It’s time we stopped being afraid, and started to speak freely about Islam’s shady present, and its continuing to act like a spoiled child throwing a tantrum. Islam is a religion in which a few are perfectly prepared to use violence to get their way. We need to say that this will not get them what they want, and people like Tariq Ramadan, but lets stick to him for now, for he is widely thought to be the voice of Muslim reason in the West, should know that his fuzzy speech is recognised for what it is: a laboured effort to conceal the truth rather than to speak it.
Uhm, isn’t voicing disapproval free speech too?
I tried making sense of the comments you attribute to Ramadan and gave up. I think media houses and presses must realize that they owe it to the society and to themselves to participate in this discourse (since they have a larger audience then you, Jerry or most of us who run blogs can reach) about Islam.
Islam has to be criticized until they stop being cry babies. They can’t pretend to claim that only a few are rioting while war cries are still being sounded everywhere even by 8yr olds. This is just not acceptable!
The moment governments agree to enact a law against blasphemy we will be in for much trouble, for where will it stop? Will it include thought crimes? We can’t apologize to muslims for feeling anger towards a badly done film, it’s time they matured and lived to the ideal they keep preaching that theirs is a religion of peace.
Deen, of course it is. My only point is that, while these people are protesting against the specific violence against the diplomats, they may wholly approve of violent demonstrations against insult to the prophet.
And just to add to that last comment, because I don’t wish to be misleading. The violent protests elsewhere in the Middle East (and even further than that) are not, as such, terrorism. Mob violence is very different, and it is largely on the basis of mob violence, and outrage opinion, that the authorities are demanding that repression be used in free speech jurisdictions. That is my concern.
Makagutu, I couldn’t make sense of Ramadan either. And you’re right. It’s time for these people to stop being cry babies and join the rest of the world. Time to give Islam a good critical airing. Are some people going to be distressed? Yes, of course. This is one of the costs of free speech.
Going overboard about the motivation that the maker(s) of ‘Innocence of Muslims’ might have had to make that ‘movie’, it could be reasoned that had the Muslims been expected to react in a more mature fashion, the movie would not have been made. The makers meant to step on as many toes as possible, knowing that a lot of people would be willing to stick out their feet to have their toes stepped upon.
So basically it’s the Muslims own fault that this movie has been made?
I think a mistake a lot of articles covering this situation are making is viewing this issue from a “this is all the direct result of one insulting film trailer” perspective and just that. This is a little bit of a narrow minded approach to a much more complicated situation and simplifying this outbreak to a debate over free speech is just plain naive.
Well, yes, Iqbal, I agree. Political protests of the kind that are taking place clearly are bring forth all sorts of repressed anger and rage. However, it is also about freedom of speech, and that is the issue that is of greatest concern to me, and continues to be so.
M’thew. I’m not altgoether sure what you mean. However, just to clarify. What I am saying is essentially this. If there were an ongoing public discussion about Islam, in which thoughtful people who know whereof they speak were engaged, something like “Innocence of Muslims” would be recognised for what it is, a vicious, anti-Islamic slander, and no one would pay it much attention. But, since the threat of violence has been so effective, our mainstream press and other media have learned either to say anodyne things about Islam, or to say nothing at all. In this context, the only people left to speak about Islam are those who believe they have a grievance, and they will do it in crude ways. The problem with suppressing free speech, as Muslim violence has effectively done, is to leave discussion to the marginal voices. If that is what Islam wants, that is what it will get, but Muslims shouldn’t be surprised if what they get is pretty crude and insensitive.
I wonder if the primary problem here is an underlying belief about what an insult to the prophet may be. Does an insult simply equate to words spoken by a person and heard by others as we conclude? Or does an insult equate to, as some ancient beliefs held, a physical means to activate a thought in real space and real time, such that the insult will physically (or spiritually in the dead person’s case) bring the spoken harm to bear on the insulter’s target? If the latter, which I suspect it is in the minds of most Muslims, then insults to the prophet really are fighting words. And a reciprocal physical response, including mass violence and murder, is perfectly justified; and for proper reciprocity it must equal or exceed the level of the perceived physical/spiritual harm done to the religion and the prophet. The insulter is seen to truly intend to do Islam and the prophet real physical/spiritual harm by directing insulting words that by simply being aired will magically convert to real harm for the prophet and the religion. You may recognize the same mythological underpinnings in Old Testament Biblical law: children insulting their parents were to be executed.
If my suspicion is correct, then adolescence is overstating the development of this religion, for its myths are tragically suckling from dry, dusty teats. The way the world looks now Muslim countries seem to be falling behind faster and faster? China, modelling the West, surpassed them in a generation, while Iranian religious leaders lust for nuclear weapons to show it ain’t so. I suspect many, many Muslim believers have a clear view of national and cultural progress; I wonder if they have an inkling as to causes. What a dilemma!
Thank you for this, Eric. I have not responded earlier because I am extremely busy. I must say, I wish you would welcome such events, instead of – so it seems to me – damning with faint praise and all sorts of discouraging noises and qualifications. A very tiny percentage of the Muslim world took to the streets in response to that latest perceived affront to their religion. What is genuinely worrying is the way unscrupulous polticians are utilising the ‘affront’. Here is something taken from Andrew Sullivan:
“It was a dramatic weekend in Libya, starting on Friday when tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets in Benghazi to protest against Islamist militias, including Ansar al-Sharia, the group many believe to be behind the attack on the US consulate there. Then after the main demonstration ended, many protesters regrouped to storm several militia compounds:
‘Chanting “Libya, Libya,” hundreds of demonstrators entered, pulling down militia flags and torching a vehicle inside the compound, Ansar al-Sharia’s main base in Benghazi – once the base of forces of former leader Muammar Gaddafi.
The crowd waved swords and even a meat cleaver, crying “No more al Qaeda!” and “The blood we shed for freedom shall not go in vain!”
“After what happened at the American consulate, the people of Benghazi had enough of the extremists,” said demonstrator Hassan Ahmed. “They did not give allegiance to the army. So the people broke in and they fled.”
Though one militia fought back, resulting in eleven deaths, others simply evacuated, and their compounds were subsequently taken over by the Libyan military. In fact the Libyan government quickly took advantage of the opportunity to coordinate a crackdown on the militias, later announcing that all illegitimate armed groups must either submit to government authority or disband.”
People like these demonstrators should be ENCOURAGED!