Recently in Islam Category

Okay, first, please read this response to the controversy from the Progressive Muslim Union of North America (PMU):

As Muslim indignation at caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad spills over into outbursts of anger and violence, we find both sides of the conflict sadly lacking in ethical conduct.

Many of the cartoons are deeply offensive, not so much because they portrayed Prophet Muhammad, but because they are hateful, slanderous, and inflammatory to the point of verging on racism, particularly the ones showing the Prophet with a bomb-turban, as the devil in disguise, or blindfolded and bristling with knives. These cartoons pander to the basest prejudices, defaming the Prophet’s character with gross stereotypes of Arab culture, equating the mistakes of his followers with his personage. The cartoonists had to know those images were going to be as provocative and insulting as Martin Scorsese’s “The Last Temptation of Christ” or Andres Serrano’s “Piss Christ” images. It is clear that they were meant not to open dialogue, as the editors who requisitioned them claim, but to provoke; it is hardly customary or productive to start a conversation by spitting in the face of the person you wish to talk to.

The actions of Prophet Muhammad’s followers, however, are no less an insult to him. They are completely out of keeping with the Prophet’s example and the teachings of the Qur’an. If one claims to love and follow the prophet, then one should do so, not go on a rampage he would have condemned, and whose rationale will be laid at his feet by those who are not familiar with his true character.

During his life, Prophet Muhammad was received with great love by many, but he also met with great resistance, as were most Prophets. He was insulted and cursed, at times physically assaulted, and yet, he did not return insult for insult, attack for attack. One such incidence occurred in Taif, where the citizens of the city set their children to throwing stones at him. Rather than seeking vengeance, Muhammad asked God to forgive the people of Taif, much as Christ asked God to forgive his tormentors, saying they did not know what they did.

This example is in keeping with the Qur’an, which advises Muslims to, “Keep to forgiveness and enjoin kindness, and turn away from the ignorant (Chapter 7, Verse 199) and which tells us "Invite all unto the way of thy Lord with wisdom and fair exhortation, and reason with them in the best of ways." (Chapter 16, Verse 125) Clearly, the groups of Muslims who are threatening violence against the cartoonists, who have burned and torn down embassies, who carry signs screaming “Death to those who insult Islam,” even those who boycotted Danish manufacturers and withdrawn ambassadors, have betrayed these injunctions, and abandoned the Prophet’s example.

The other principle that had been ignored by these would-be defenders of the Prophet is that Islam brooks no compulsion in religion, nor does it demand followers of other religions adhere to its religious sensibilities. “There shall be no compulsion in matters of faith” (Chapter 2, Verse 256) and “To you your way, to me mine,” (Chapter 109, verse 6) lay out Islam’s cardinal rules of tolerance and make it clear people who are not Muslim are not expected to follow Islamic religious rules. Even though many Muslims believe Islam prohibits portrayals of the Prophet, the Danish cartoonists aren’t bound by Islam’s rules. They can’t be blaspheming because they aren’t Muslims. (read the rest here. It's really good.)

A few further reflections:

1. The PMU is far too generous in comparing the cartoons to The Last Temptation of Christ, an internationally acclaimed piece of literature that became a thoughtful, nuanced film. None of these cartoons are likely to be recognized for their artistic merit; they have nothing particularly insightful or witty or interesting to say.

2. The sense I get is that people on all sides are being duped. The Danish Imams who traveled to the middle east looking to start a ruckus lied about what had been printed, claiming there were depictions of Muhammad as a pig and as a dog (both ritually unclean animals in Islam). And, of course, leaders in many Islamic countries already work to engender anti-Western sentiment as a means of controlling the populace.

3. Meanwhile, Condaleeza Rice is apparently trying to blame Syria and Iran for the rioting when in fact her pals the Saudis seem to have more to do with it (yes, just like Iraq and 9/11). This is brilliant. It's already pretty clear that the Republican party is working to manufacture and exaggerate more foreign "threats" in time for the midterm and 2008 elections. If you are able to frame the issue in terms of a threatened abstract liberal principle--"Islam vs. freedom of expression"--then you can foster Islamophobia among liberals, and get more of them to consent to your stupid "war on terror".

4. Actually, though, freedom of speech is not the main issue at play here. The oft-censored cartoonist Gary Trudeau weighs in:

Why has the U.S. news media (broadcast and print), almost universally refused to publish the cartoons?

I assume because they believe, correctly, it is unnecessarily inflammatory. It's legal to run them, but is it wise? The Danish editor who started all this actually recruited cartoonists to draw offensive cartoons (some of those he invited declined). And why did he do it? To demonstrate that in a Western liberal society he could. Well, we already knew that. Some victory for freedom of expression. An editor who deliberately sets out to provoke or hurt people because he's worried about "self-censorship" is not an editor I'd care to work for...Just because a society has almost unlimited freedom of expression doesn't mean we should ever stop thinking about its consequences in the real world.

As a member of the ACLU and Amnesty International, I'm pretty hardcore about free speech issues, and I'm wary of any admonition to "watch what you say," especially when the Bush administration has been using that line to preempt criticism of the war. On the other hand, I just watched Cry Freedom,(more on that later) which is partially about free-press struggles, and it made me think if you're going to go to the wall for free speech and free expression, it should be for something with a more substantive engagement with power, rather than seeking to be offensive just to prove your right to offend.

5. This parallels many of the domestic "culture war" battles. Example: It doesn't really matter at all whether NBC airs that episode of Will & Grace where Britney Spears plays the host of a Christian cooking show called "Cruci-fixins." Christian Right organizations like the American Family Association want evangelicals to believe it's important, because to achieve their policy goals, they have to get evangelicals to feel they're under attack. And rather than seeking to understand the larger issues of power at play, too many of us are quick to defend a really stupid, often racist TV show (W&G even stole the "Crucifixins" gag from Arrested Development), caricaturing its opponents, and thus playing right into the AFA's hands.

As Eli Sanders notes, the way to deal with religious fundamentalism is not to "stand in front of the mob and shout 'Fuck You!'" Instead, it might be better "not to give the demagogues so much easy ammunition in the first place, and also to remedy the situation that now provides them such a large group of alienated, angry people to prey upon."