Politislam
This one's for the fellas who've added comments about the recent Muslim outrage/riots in response to the Muhammad cartoons-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4688624.stm
The BBC found it worthwhile to quote an expert who had the following to say about the lack of response in Pakistan:
"Muslim leadership the world over has historically been the most cynical manipulator of Islam - and this is especially true of Pakistan," says one analyst. "Injured religious sentiment has seldom translated into public unrest unless there was political mileage to be gained from it by some vested interest."
This is not to suggest that all Muslim countries are the same, but it does add a new dimension to the debate.
posted by jack @ 5:04 PM
5 Comments:
In reference to this from your last response:
"Also, I think it is worth noting that while I have every respect for Islam, I reserve the right to verbally attack their God and their religion at will, just as I respect each Muslim's right to do the same to Western culture. Quid pro quo. And I think it IS within the right of a Western paper to critique Islam for its widespread mistreatment of women, homosexuals, and Jews, just as it is within the right of the same paper to criticize Western governments for invading Middle Eastern countries and supporting illegal occupations (a la Israel and Palestine).
This is indeed a high standard, but if we didn't set high standards for ourselves and for others, then we would always remain the lowest common denominator."
Respecting Islam is wonderful. Critiquing Islam is fine. Violating a fundamental precept of a religion with inflammatory imagery or rhetoric is counter-productive. I'm not critiquing you if I call your mother a harlot. By using tactics that insult the group that you are critiquing, you immediately construct a barrier to any likelyhood that your critique, while perhaps intellectually sound, will be effective. The point of making critical comments is one of two things: 1) engage someone in a dialogue or move a situation towards a desired direction (say, open a discussion about terrorism in radical Islam, and work to find ways to lessen its strength and frequency) or 2) just piss them off.
This cartoon, while perhaps the "right" of the cartoonist, has had the opposite effect of what wsa intended. It fails to engage in a helpful, nuanced critique and inflames the situation. If only from a strategic perspective, it is a stupid and crass commentary that makes a delicate situation worse.
You said that it was appropriate,
"to critique Islam for its widespread mistreatment of women, homosexuals, and Jews"-- which I could not possibly agree more with. However, you never explain how to
"verbally attack their God and their religion at will," (which is the right you are defending at the beginning of the paragraph)has anything to do with constructive criticism.
Attack and critique are not only different, they are polar opposites. One seeks to engage an other in dialogue, the other pushes the other away and builds obstacles to communication. If you're trying to curm violence, don't poke 'em with a pointed stick. It's just poor strategy.
Finally, my dear friend, I want to close with another of your thoughts and a question:
"if we didn't set high standards for ourselves and for others, then we would always remain the lowest common denominator."
Is the higher standard met by attacking their God, or by critiquing specific harmful behavior with the desire to find a mutually-supportive way to end the violence?
Fiber today, lots of fiber, I've got to push this all through!
Of course, none of that is meant to suggest that this event has been enflamed further by irresponsible parties who want violence, who want discord. All I'm saying is that it is those very people who we need to delegitimize if we are to overcome radical Islamic violence. Just as Bush played into Bin Laden's hands by invading Iraq, these cartoons provide feul for the fire of hatred and misunderstanding. Just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean it isn't dumb to do it.
I guess the debate over this situation often boils down to that. Some people defend the right of the papers to do what they did, which legally is uncontrovertible. But others question their judgement. Did they have the right? Absolutely. Was it stupid? Absolutely. My only concern is the cessation of violence. This can only happen after a long, concerted effort to repair a rift between the mass Western culture and the Islamic world as a whole.
Boy, this debating is fun... I miss you, John, and our dear friend. I wonder what JY would think?
I haven't read anything you've posted, but I'm offended I wasn't made aware of this glorious waste of my billable hours!!!
AB
Then read something I've posted! Goddamn lawyers.
Doc,
Shit, where to begin? Here goes:
First, I feel like we're on similar footing but taking different approaches with different priorities. From everything you've said, it seems that your priority is (and that you feel the priority of all media and intercultural exchanges should be) the betterment of oppressed peoples, yes? The oppressed, in this case, being mostly Muslim, yes? I don't deny this. My goal is the same. My point is that in order to get there on equal footing, we can make any number of sacrifices, but freedom of the press cannot be one of them, for if we sacrifice that, then we sacrifice the ability to move forward at all.
As for simply pissing off the Muslim world, the Danes have repeatedly apologized for any offense rendered. I agree that it was a naive and probably stupid move, but the Danes did have every right to do so, I will argue in defense of until I die.
And as for poor strategy, I would also like to add that it's not necessarily the job of journalism, specifically Danish journalism, to be diplomatic. Journalism's job is to poke EVERYONE with a stick, not just the Muslims.
In conclusion, I agree with just about everything you've said. It was a dumb thing to do, but it's also been a ridiculous overreaction. Before I forget, here's a story that (in a way) vindicates us both:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/08/AR2006020802296.html
The model works like this: angry citizens, spurred by the forbidden images of Muhammad, turn out to demonstrate. As often is the case with angry mobs, things get out of hand, and before you know it, some property gets destroyed and a handful of people get killed in the confusion. Meanwhile, overzealous rightwing clerics turn the situation to their advantage by egging the crowds on and pointing at the West as the cause of all their troubles (though that's not untrue, I'd like to leave that debate for another time). In the end, nothing was really gained and a whole lot was lost.
Who's to blame? The cartoonists? The crowds? The clerics? The West?
The truth is everyone's to blame. It's a shitty situation caused by misunderstandings, miscommunications, and poor artwork.
But if you silence everyone in the name of peace and goodwill, then we'll never get anywhere either. That's my point.
And Joseph would have loved this. This is the kind of thing he lived for.
Post a Comment
<< Home