Ridley: Islamophobia in the West
Aug. 30th, 2006 10:31 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
qatarperegrineI was going to write about Yvonne Ridley's talk on Islamophobia, but I don't feel I have much to say. I agree with a colleague who said Ridley just didn't add much to the dialogue. Her speech consisted largely of outrageously unsubstantiated claims that most of the audience agreed with anyway, and that was about that. It didn't really fuel intellectual discussion.
There's not much to refute when everything she said was couched in vague sentiments like "we should develop a zero-tolerance approach to anyone who'd try to dilute our faith" without specifying who is diluting the faith or (more importantly) exactly what a zero-tolerance approach would mean.
Much of the talk was actually from her recent article Beware the Happy Clappies, so if you did not hear her speak, reading that will give you a gist of her rhetoric.
The only major section of her speech not appearing in the article was on the Mohammed cartoon controversy. Specifically, she lifted up the Muslim world's response to that incident as an ideal display of Muslim values and solidarity. She said that the Muslim response sent the message "We can be strong; you can only push us so far." As proof of this she said gleefully that "You'd have to have an editor with suicidal tendencies to publish a cartoon [like those] again." I found this rather stunning. I don't know any Westerners who feel they have a more positive understanding of Islam as a result of the Mohammed cartoon controversy.
Harking back to my blog entry about about pacifism in Islam, she also said, "Muslims are not pacifists. We're peace-loving people, but we're not pacifists."
There's not much to refute when everything she said was couched in vague sentiments like "we should develop a zero-tolerance approach to anyone who'd try to dilute our faith" without specifying who is diluting the faith or (more importantly) exactly what a zero-tolerance approach would mean.
Much of the talk was actually from her recent article Beware the Happy Clappies, so if you did not hear her speak, reading that will give you a gist of her rhetoric.
The only major section of her speech not appearing in the article was on the Mohammed cartoon controversy. Specifically, she lifted up the Muslim world's response to that incident as an ideal display of Muslim values and solidarity. She said that the Muslim response sent the message "We can be strong; you can only push us so far." As proof of this she said gleefully that "You'd have to have an editor with suicidal tendencies to publish a cartoon [like those] again." I found this rather stunning. I don't know any Westerners who feel they have a more positive understanding of Islam as a result of the Mohammed cartoon controversy.
Harking back to my blog entry about about pacifism in Islam, she also said, "Muslims are not pacifists. We're peace-loving people, but we're not pacifists."
hmm
Date: 2006-08-31 08:26 am (UTC)Re: hmm
Date: 2006-08-31 08:29 am (UTC)I have no idea about Peninsula politics. I scan their headlines for interesting stories every day, but that's about the extent of my knowledge of them.
Their website says Khusro Parvez is "acting managing editor."
no subject
Date: 2006-08-31 10:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-31 11:14 am (UTC)A newspaper published (admittedly distateful) cartoons that offended Muslims by linking Mohammad to acts of violence.
And Muslims defended Mohammad's honor by... committing acts of violence. And calling for less freedom of expression.
Frankly, the fact that the Muslim world's reaction is seen here as "defend[ing] their beliefs loudly and clearly" makes me lose a lot of respect for Muslim beliefs. It really weakened my faith in the idea that Islam and modernity/democracy are at all compatible, because clearly when there is conflict between freedom and piety, everyone is eager to throw freedom out the window.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-31 10:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-31 10:13 pm (UTC)The only country I know that DID ban it was Lebanon.
I really need to read some Salman Rushdie. Maybe when I'm home at Christmas.
Hi again
Date: 2006-08-31 10:13 pm (UTC)Re: Hi again
Date: 2006-08-31 10:26 pm (UTC)You're right that most of the Middle East (including, of course, Qatar) reacted much more moderately. However, many of our students supported the embassy-torchings and other violent reactions.
And that is, incidentally, why my perception of Islam was affected. If the violent reactions had been confined to a few isolated psychos, I wouldn't think any worse of Islam. After all, when artwork offensive to Christianity is produced, sometimes a few psychos make death threats against the artist. But that's not what happened. An awful lot of those "rational, moderate" people actually SUPPORT the more violent reactions. Ridley was gleeful about them, and held them up as a model of how Muslims should act. That makes the extreme reactions more than just a few isolated incidents. If mainstream Muslims think it was appropriate, then that DOES reflect on the religion as a whole.
Re: Hi again
Date: 2006-08-31 11:06 pm (UTC)Re: Hi again
Date: 2006-09-01 08:07 am (UTC)I think that my understanding of religions is fundamentally different from a Muslim understanding. I view religions as cultural phenomena, as human inventions, not as truths that are handed down from on high. As such, I think religions are what we make of them. On some fundamental level, Islam is defined by the religious practices and beliefs of Muslims. In contrast, every Muslim I talk to here differentiates between ISLAM, by which they mean the ideal of what Islam should be, and MUSLIM PRACTICE, by which they mean what Muslims actually do.
On the one hand, this is a useful distinction to make. It's the reason that Huston Smith, in his landmark comparative religions textbook, discusses only the ideals of the world religions, and not the practices that sometimes belay those ideals. And this makes sense. The presence of religious wars shows that people are often pretty terrible about applying their religious beliefs, and are susceptible to employing violence despite those beliefs. That is not always the religion's fault -- it would sure seem unfair to blame the Buddha for Buddhist violence in Sri Lanka, for example. So from that perspective, it's conceivable to imagine a world in which every Muslim was violent and immoral, and yet Islam was still a good religion. (Just like Christianity is still a good religion despite the Crusades and other morally objectionable interludes in Christian history.)
However, I don't think the situation is really as clear-cut as that. Because, again, I think that religions are cultural constructs (created in response to to experiences of the Divine) and not handed down by God personally. As human creations, they are what we make of them. Imagine I invented a religion and said that it would make the practitioner more compassionate. Yet everyone who adopted my religion, in practice, became really mean and argumentative. Do you think it would be fair for me to say, "It's not my religion's fault; we value compassion"? That doesn't work. I can't define the religion in complete isolation from the way it's practiced and from the way it affects people in the real world.
So if many Muslims supported an extreme response, does that support become the real face of Islam? I don't think there's an easy answer. On the one hand, it's quite likely that those Muslims were misguided and not interpreting Islam correctly. On the other hand, I think it's useful to wonder whether there are aspects of Islam that condoned and encouraged the extreme response.
Again, I only bring this up BECAUSE Ridley said that the Muslim world's reaction was the ideal one. If the extreme reactions were in violation to the ideals and principles of Islam, then I would not hold Islam responsible at all -- any more than I hold Buddhism responsible for the civil war in Sri Lanka. However, this reaction is being explicitly lifted up as being in accordance with -- even a shining example of -- Muslim ideals. And that worries me a great deal.
Thank you for reminding me that I value compassion and understanding. For some reason I have a very short temper when it comes to the cartoon controversy. :-(
Re: Hi again
Date: 2006-09-01 07:41 pm (UTC)QC
I am simply dissappointed
Date: 2006-09-03 08:53 am (UTC)Is this Ridley s real face ? This neophyte overreaction ? I am from Europe . I am muslim. I was very very sad during these cartoon stories . I felt there was a laughing third party in the background .The aim ? To boost hatred between Europe and the Middle East .It was sad to see - that here not many people saw it...
On the other hand - most muslims are ignorant about their own religion . they do not know - that in fact there are some hadtih and sunna which describe Mohamed prophete as cruel . The opposite can be also found in these books - an d most muslims know only about those ones .In Danemark - somebody went to the court : he wanted everything to be banned what describes Mohamed prophete as cruel . Somebody warned the person - that in that case some hadith themselves should be banned .
All in all - I think we Muslims should turn to the clear source - what was sent by God .
Because in the Koran it is clearly written -that God will punish those who mock of the faith . God will do - so we do not need to act anystead of God .No need to threaten anybody who commit such acts.
the face of islam
Date: 2006-09-06 09:12 am (UTC)that yes, it was wrong to turn violent. there are ways to protest, the right to write in to the newspapers, the right to PEACEFUL assembly. to the countries who were vociferously defending and upholding this callous disregard to the muslim sentiment under the cover of free speech, this was just is just as hurtful to us as a swastika scrawled on a jew's lawn would be to a jew. equally reprehensible. and yet, only one is punishable by law. you don't see the muslims going around publishing sacreligious cartoons about the christian faith or the jewish faith or any other faith in our media, do you? because it is an article of our faith that Jesus and Moses are just as much as our Prophets as theirs.
Re: the face of islam
Date: 2006-09-07 06:55 am (UTC)It was an unfair and offensive caricature, but I don't find it terribly appalling. I guess I'm used to Jesus being depicted in much more offensive ways. :-)
FWIW, the big difference I see between you and the people here who are still angry about the cartoons is that you actually saw them. A shocking number of people here are protesting what they heard the cartoons said.
"this was just is just as hurtful to us as a swastika scrawled on a jew's lawn would be to a jew."
I disagree. I think a large part of what is terrible when a swastika is scrawled on a Jew's lawn is that there is an implied threat to that specific Jew: we know where you live, and we are aligning ourselves with an organization that killed millions of people like you. If something like that happened to me, I'd feel very afraid.
A newspaper publishing pictures that are offensive to a religion is not at all comparable, in my mind. I think the Muhammed cartoons are much more comparable to, say, the Jerry Springer musical, or Piss Christ: works of art that offend Christians, but without threatening violence against them.
FWIW, I don't think swastikas should be illegal -- but defacing someone's house with a message intended to intimidate them probably should be.
"you don't see the muslims going around publishing sacreligious cartoons about the christian faith or the jewish faith or any other faith in our media, do you?"
Saudi newspapers are full of anti-Semitic cartoons and comments (and Qatari ones aren't much better). A few years ago, one even published an article claiming that Jews drink human blood at Purim!! Of course they don't defame Moses, but I think that's because Moses is a prophet of Islam, not because they have any respect at ALL for Judaism.
Re: the face of islam
Date: 2006-09-08 05:30 pm (UTC)Could you tell me how on earth can the arabs be antisemitic when they are semitic nation themselves ?
The Arabs are anti- izraeli - and this is not the same thing .
There are Jews - who are against Israel - claiming that it is forbidden by the Torah - to create a Jewish state . And most of the Arabs say ;" these are nice guys ".
When i entered the sate of Qatar nobody asked me if I was Jew or not .
I am sure that there are a lots of Jews working and living here in Qatar .
And one more word : I do not like Israel -either . You can call me now antisemitic ...
Alma Wad
Re: the face of islam
Date: 2006-09-09 08:00 am (UTC)But please don't assume that I am using "anti-Semitic" to mean "opposed to the state of Israel" and then deride me for using a definition that you imposed on what I said. I don't think it's at all anti-Semitic to dislike Israel and, in fact, I dislike Israel.
When I say there are anti-Semitic things printed in the Arab media, I am not referring to articles that oppose the state of Israel; I am referring to cartoons that dehumanize and demean Jewish people as much as the cartoon of the niqabis demeaned Muslim people. And I'm referring to editorials that deny the holocaust, that promote the blood libel, that say that Israel was responsible for 9/11, etc.
Possibly you missed the thread a few weeks ago discussing local concern over the fact that there may be Jewish people working at Education City.
Re: the face of islam
Date: 2006-09-11 02:39 pm (UTC)The essence of the Danish cartoons were that they were all racist and if they had been poking fun at black people, or Jewish people they would never ever have been printed.
Sadly taking a swipe at Muslims is the last refuge of the racist scoundrel.
This isn't about censorship at all or freedom of speech of discussion. it is about racist cartoons ripping apart one section of a community because of their faith. The Nazis used exactly the same sort of propaganda when they set about depicting all Jews as money-grubbing, hook-nosed, subversive individuals who had bombs hidden in their clothes.
Do you really want to see Muslims being dragged down the same route as the jewish people in 30's Europe? Unless you have Nazi tendencies I think we already know the answer.
You simply don't like Ridely because she makes you feel uncomfortable. She holds a mirror to your face and you really dont like what you see. You can take it from a Muslim but not a 'Western' Muslim who was once like you.
Infact you probably want our women to remain quiet and subjigated because you prefer that image. As muslims we simply can not win, can we? You dont like us to stand up for ourselves and speak out and then you attack us for saying our women are oppressed and quiet. Be honest with yourselves. Look back in the hand mirror Ridely held up to your face.
Re: the face of islam
Date: 2006-09-11 03:00 pm (UTC)That doesn't mean I want another Holocaust. The line between between printing demeaning cartoons and killing six million people is not THAT fine.
I don't like Muslimahs to stand up for themselves? And then I attack you for saying Muslimahs are oppressed? Who on earth are you talking to here? Telling me what you think I believe and then attacking me for believing it may feel satisfying, but it's pretty pointless when I've never espoused any of the contradictory viewpoints you accuse me of.
Please refrain from psychoanalyzing me and telling me how I "really" feel. It does not further your arguments.
Re: the face of islam
Date: 2006-09-11 03:22 pm (UTC)There were some stupid cartoons published in a magazine that was not really well-known. Muslims who believed themselves "so united " made it famous . Despite the fact that the Koran writes clearly- that God will punish those - who make fun of the faith .
Now Ridley came back to remind everybody how wonderful united we Muslims are . Which is a simple lie .
We are not united - we are divided .
Most Muslims can be so easily manipulated here . it is simply pitiful .
Re: the face of islam
Date: 2006-09-11 03:13 pm (UTC)I do not believe the official version -about 9/11 - I do not believe the official version of the Holocaust . does it make me antisemitic ? The only thing that I feel I have the right to the free-thinking ?
I do not know what is the situation like in the USA - but in Europe - some person got prison becausee they claimed that holocaust could never happen in the way as it is taught us nowadays . And his arguments were not answered . just he got prison .
Two years ago i was at home in my country - and most people do not believe 9/11 .
Are they all antisemitic ?
Re: the face of islam
Date: 2006-09-12 08:56 am (UTC)So what don't you believe about the "official versions" of the Holocaust and 9/11?
Re: the face of islam
Date: 2006-09-15 05:41 am (UTC)I would like to suggest you some pages where these things are described in detail - but they are always destroyed .
I also read some memoires of survivors. They tell themselves - that there was puppet show for the children - and in the hospital the German tried to cure them. Somehow such things do not fit into image of the death factory .
the history is always written by the winners . They had to create az awful image of the defeated German . they had to do so partly - to make the world forget Hiroshima ,Drezda etc .
And why do we have to remember always about the Jews mass-killings ? In my country a Jewish writer published a book - claiming- that the number of Slavs killed in WW II was much greater - than the Jews.(even if we believe the death factory ) Tiny Belgium is the responsible for the biggest massacre of the Modern history - in Belgian Congo . But we never commemorate the victims of mass-killings unless they are Jews .
WHY ?