Robert Fisk: Don't be fooled, this isn't an issue of Islam versus secularism

[NO]

Robert Fisk: Don't be fooled, this isn't an issue of Islam versus secularism

'The Koran does not forbid images of the Prophet but millions of Muslims do'

   Published: 04 February 2006   

     

So now it's cartoons of the Prophet Mohamed with a bomb-shaped turban. Ambassadors are withdrawn from Denmark, Gulf nations clear their shelves of Danish produce, Gaza gunmen threaten the European Union. In Denmark, Fleming Rose, the "culture" editor of the pip-squeak newspaper which published these silly cartoons - last September, for heaven's sake - announces that we are witnessing a "clash of civilisations" between secular Western democracies and Islamic societies. This does prove, I suppose, that Danish journalists follow in the tradition of Hans

Christian Anderson. Oh lordy, lordy. What we're witnessing is the childishness of civilisations.

  

So let's start off with the Department of Home Truths. This is not an issue of secularism versus Islam. For Muslims, the Prophet is the man who received divine words directly from God. We see our prophets as faintly historical figures, at odds with our high-tech human rights, almost cariacatures of themselves. The fact is that Muslims live their religion. We do not. They have kept their faith through innumerable historical vicissitudes. We have lost our faith ever since Matthew Arnold wrote about the sea's "long, withdrawing roar". That's why we talk about "the West versus Islam" rather than "Christians versus Islam" - because there aren't an awful lot of Christians left in Europe. There is no way we can get round this by setting up all the other world religions and asking why we are not allowed to make fun of Mohamed.

  

Besides, we can exercise our own hypocrisy

over religious feelings. I happen to remember how, more than a decade ago, a film called The Last Temptation of Christ showed Jesus making love to a woman. In Paris, someone set fire to the cinema showing the movie, killing a young man. I also happen to remember a US university which invited me to give a lecture three years ago. I did. It was entitled "September 11, 2001: ask who did it but, for God's sake, don't ask why". When I arrived, I found that the university had deleted the phrase "for God's sake" because "we didn't want to offend certain sensibilities". Ah-ha, so we have "sensibilities" too.

  

In other words, while we claim that Muslims must be good secularists when it comes to free speech - or cheap cartoons - we can worry about adherents to our own precious religion just as much. I also enjoyed the pompous claims of European statesmen that they cannot control free speech or newspapers. This is also nonsense. Had that cartoon of the Prophet shown instead a chief

rabbi with a bomb-shaped hat, we would have had "anti-Semitism" screamed into our ears - and rightly so - just as we often hear the Israelis complain about anti-Semitic cartoons in Egyptian newspapers.

  

Furthermore, in some European nations - France is one, Germany and Austria are among the others - it is forbidden by law to deny acts of genocide. In France, for example, it is illegal to say that the Jewish Holocaust or the Armenian Holocaust did not happen. So it is, in fact, impermissable to make certain statements in European nations. I'm still uncertain whether these laws attain their objectives; however much you may prescribe Holocaust denial, anti-Semites will always try to find a way round. We can hardly exercise our political restraints to prevent Holocaust deniers and then start screaming about secularism when we find that Muslims object to our provocative and insulting image of the Prophet.

  

For many Muslims, the "Islamic" reaction to this affair is

an embarrassment. There is good reason to believe that Muslims would like to see some element of reform introduced to their religion. If this cartoon had advanced the cause of those who want to debate this issue, no-one would have minded. But it was clearly intended to be provocative. It was so outrageous that it only caused reaction.

  

And this is not a great time to heat up the old Samuel Huntingdon garbage about a "clash of civilisations". Iran now has a clerical government again. So, to all intents and purposes, does Iraq (which was not supposed to end up with a democratically elected clerical administration, but that's what happens when you topple dictators). In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood won 20 per cent of the seats in the recent parliamentary elections. Now we have Hamas in charge of "Palestine". There's a message here, isn't there? That America's policies - "regime change" in the Middle East - are not achieving their ends. These millions of voters were

preferring Islam to the corrupt regimes which we imposed on them.

  

For the Danish cartoon to be dumped on top of this fire is dangerous indeed.

  

In any event, it's not about whether the Prophet should be pictured. The Koran does not forbid images of the Prophet even though millions of Muslims do. The problem is that these cartoons portrayed Mohamed as a bin Laden-type image of violence. They portrayed Islam as a violent religion. It is not. Or do we want to make it so?

[DrSMITH]

NO wrote:
> Robert Fisk: Don't be fooled, this isn't an issue of Islam versus secularism

[...]

> In any event, it's not about whether the Prophet should be pictured. The Koran does not forbid images of the Prophet even though millions of Muslims do. The problem is that these cartoons portrayed Mohamed as a bin Laden-type image of violence. They portrayed Islam as a violent religion. It is not. Or do we want to make it so?

"It is not"? A very bold statement to which I simple answer: "Religion
is violent!" Whether Christian, Jewish or Muslim, each of these
religions has for a historical period had aggressive followers,
becoming the embodiment of violence.
Have we forgotten the Old Testament stories of killings and murdering
women, children and animals in the name of the Jewish God? Are we to
forget that half the Palestinian people is exiled from its own land
because of a religious whim?
Have we forgotten the holy Inquisition? The Hundred Years' War?
Christian religious wars wouldn't stop in France till a secular
agreement (The Edict of Nantes - 1598) was imposed by Henry IV (only to
be murdered by a catholic fanatic!) Are we to ignore the opposition
they manifest against safe sex and abortion?
Wouldn't it be good to remember that the greatest moments of the Arab
Empire were under secularly tolerant Caliphs (for those who remember
the stories we're told of al-Akhtal al-Kabir, one of the greatest poets
in the Arab world, entering drunk in Haroun al-Rachid's presence) and
that religious ones have brought in ignorance (burning the Library of
Alexandria!) Should we forget that those who blow themselves killing
civilians are called martyrs and are believed to go directly to
paradise to be in the company of virgins because they died in the name
of Allah? Are we to believe that those followers of Islam (excluding
the moderates) who hail and elevate such terrorists to the level of
sainthood are not violent?

Some would say that a religion cannot be accused of violence because
it's not its fault if some radical believer commits extreme acts. But
don't the extremists always justify their acts through an
interpretation of the same religion? Believing in a religion is not an
act of violence; expressing your beliefs (the same that Danish
cartoonist did) shoud be tolerable; but committing irrational actions
such as threatening other nations cannot for one second be mistaken for
anything but violence. When people belonging to a tribal pack cannot
understand the individualistic values of freedom and liberty and speak
in tribal terms (hey tribe of Denmark, punish one of your herdsmen or
we burn your products!), we should understand the distances of
evolution that stands between us. We cannot go backward. Respect, like
George had for Lenny in "Of Mice And Men", has its limits too.

DrSMITH.

[roos...@gmail.com]

first of all i wanna thank NO for his unbiased and impartial review,
taking into consideration all the aspects that embody the islamic
nature nowadays, even though i disagree with some points, but to get
some foreigner to understand our position as mulsims is quite a very
optimistic step toward the mutual understaning between the Islam and
the West as you said. because the gap seems to be widening everyday
that passes by.
And for DrSmith who seems to hold the muslims a grudge just like
millions of westerns do without even knowing why, but just because
their dictators who are discerned as democrats and pragmatic tell them
so, because after all what they care about is the deduction of their
taxes and paying off their mortages, and what comes after wards is just
a secondary concern to them.
when would you understand that muslims are the most tolerant people on
earth? when have the mulsims ever threatened a nation but when they
found them selves attacked and besieged by resentless foreces starting
from the crusaders and up till now forcing us to live under the control
of tyrants and oppressors, which they only care for is the preservation
of their thrones and chairs to sustain their ongoing monetary flow.
And at the end you depict our prophet who is the most sacred and is the
symbol of islam that represents tolerance and peace, and expect us to
commend your manipulated freedom of speech that is only exerted and
implemented whenever it goes well with your plans, but i got a question
here, that NO mentioned too!!!
why mentioning the jews would be considered as anti-semitism and
undermining the religious tolerance, but depicting these photos that
represent the total hate, detestation and hatred would be fine with
you??? is it just because the muslims worldwide are considered outlaws
now and they have to suffer the consequences of the your
administrations' elicited acts?????
it is very absurd to provoke an action and not expect a reaction,
because everyone knows the upcoming repercussions of publishing these
caricatures, and i guess it is now danemark's liablity to suffer the
consequences of their freedom of speech, because who wants to practice
absolute liberty have to conisder its outcomes, nothing is absolute in
this world, laws are set to control liberty, only animals have absolute
freedom and when they mal-practice it they wind up dead or injured, and
i guess this is the case of Denmark and its followers who wanted to
show solidarity and support to this nation that 90% of its population
do not know a tiny thing about this religion, what an irony!!!!!!!!!!!
anyway i guess its time for all the west to think about their bigotry
and ethnocentrism, and try to comprehend that trying to humilliate the
muslims will bring it to grief!!!!!!!!!
AND MAY GOD BE WITH US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[BASIL]

It is fine-and-dandy to speak
about the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades but that was a long time
ago. The Middle East has been exposed satellite television,
globalization for decades, and it is not the 16th century, it is the
21st. I really do not know about this statement by Fisk that images
of the prophet are allowed. I understand that they are not and that
human images are not to be drawn in general. At any rate, when they
draw an image of the prophet with a bomb on his head, it is an
accusatory cartoon that accuses the prophet of starting a religion that
has too much violence and the protestors simply reinforce the claims of
those Europeans who make statements like that. And frankly, the fact
that Arab governments don't seem to have the power to stop those
religious nuts, they must make a large part of the population of those
countries. Otherwise, you would have had more secular Arab forces
coming out to stop them. You have heard statements against this.
Anyway, the government of Lebanon should have stopped these people.
You can easily take parts of the Old Testament, the Hindu Veddas, and
the Quran to try to justify violence. I can't say the same for
Buddhist Sutras. I don't know about the New Testament saying that. I
can't think of anything off the top of my head... These protestors at
any rate are making Islam look very bad, and say the cartoonist is
right.
These people encourage the idea of a clash of civilizations. And I
was disgusted to see some so-called British citizens waving posters and
chanting 7/7 as if to glorify terrorism. The Muslim Council of
Britain condemned them and said the protest should never have been
permitted in England. Anyway, these kind of people when found need to
be stripped of their British citizenship and deported just like that
cleric, and just like NAZIs in the U.S. who lose their citizenship.
The Arab world needs to accept being part of a global community that is
simply not going to respond to blackmail because they were insulted.

[DrSMITH]

roos...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]

> And for DrSmith who seems to hold the muslims a grudge just like

I'm sorry to tell you that you have totally missed the mark. I have
nothing against your beliefs or that of your co-religionists. The
religious reaction today is just history repeating itself: other
religions have bee down that same path (burning embassies or burning
witches, what's the difference?). I know that each religion has its own
evolution, but it angers me that in a time when communications are so
developed, some people manage to act in a backward fashion.
In what way does some unfaithful drawing your object of belief affects
your faith? Insulting you say? Well, Japanese killing whales is
insulting to me! Should I go and torch their embassy??!

> millions of westerns do without even knowing why,

Mind you, they do know why (more than you'll ever imagine): they have
been there centuries before you did, and it took a heck of an effort to
bring them to what they are now.

[...]

> and what comes after wards is just
> a secondary concern to them.

Are you saying that it should not be a secondary concern to them?

[...]

> when would you understand that muslims are the most tolerant people on
> earth?

History states otherwise. When I was at school, there was a complete
chapter in history called "al-fat7 al Islami". I don't know how waging
war can be considered tolerance. Lebanese History has showed that
Muslims can be as sectarian as anybody else. Tolerance my friend is not
the virtue of a religious group, it's an individual characteristic and
it's earned.

[...]

> why mentioning the jews would be considered as anti-semitism and
> undermining the religious tolerance, but depicting these photos that
> represent the total hate, detestation and hatred would be fine with
> you???

Where did I claim that it would be fine with me? I was very thorough
about my criticism and directed it at the Christian, Jewish and Islamic
faiths. Moreover, in a recent post from Denmark, I learned that
Holocoast denial is not a crime there. Otherwise, it would have been
ironic, don't you think?

[...]

is it just because the muslims worldwide are considered outlaws
> now and they have to suffer the consequences of the your
> administrations' elicited acts?????

You haven't read the Danish editor's apology, have you? There are
Muslims in Denmark too and I don't believe for a second that they are
considered outlaws - unless you have proof of the contrary.

[...]

> it is very absurd to provoke an action and not expect a reaction,

I agree with this ...

> because everyone knows the upcoming repercussions of publishing these
> caricatures, and i guess it is now danemark's liablity to suffer the
> consequences of their freedom of speech, because who wants to practice
> absolute liberty have to conisder its outcomes,

Now this is were I totally disagree. First of all, one can only imagine
the repercussion, and not know it beforehand (else, believe me, they
wouldn't have done it). Another thing you don't seem to grasp is that
unlike some countries where individual action is state controlled,
Northern Europe have an evolved sense of freedom. What a person writes
is this person's responsibility. Accusing a whole State of what one
citizen says or does, because he's free to do it, underlines a huge
ignorance from your part. Now let me ask you: why is this individual
(the cartoonist) bound to understand and respect your beliefs if you
don't understand or respect his rights???

[...]

nothing is absolute in
> this world, laws are set to control liberty,

Another attempt at preaching? Laws are set to guaranty equal liberties
not to control them.

DrSMITH.

[...]