More Wisdom
There’s also Anas Altikriti, a former president of the Muslim Association of Britain.
France, which stood against war in Iraq, scuppered its good relations with the Muslim world when its secular fanatics insisted on banning the hijab in state schools. These cartoons come at the end of a long line of events in which there has been a striking absence of representation of the Muslim perspective and of our rights and freedoms.
Secular fanatics is it. And ‘the Muslim perspective’ on the hijab – but a lot of Muslims, especially women, were in favour of the ban. What about their perspective?
Religion no more restricts freedom of speech than secularism promotes it. Is it so difficult to digest that Islam considers insulting the prophets of God a profound violation of what is sacred, just as Europe rightly regards denial of the Nazi Holocaust?
No, not ‘just as’ – quite differently. Denial of the Holocaust has nothing to do with violation of the sacred – that’s complete bullshit (in the most technical sense).
Those who claim to uphold freedom of speech by defending the right to reproduce insulting depictions of the prophet are in effect saying to Muslims that what they hold dear and sacred is far more worthy of protecting than what Muslims hold dear and sacred.
No. That’s wrong. Sacred is the wrong word. It’s the wrong word in the same way and for the same kind of reason that blasphemy is the wrong word.
Tomorrow, Britain’s Muslim groups will be joined by non-Muslims in Trafalgar Square to show unity against Islamophobia and incitement of all kinds.
All of Britain’s ‘Muslim groups’? And if all of Britain’s ‘Muslim groups’ are in fact there, does that mean all Muslims are there, or are represented by the ‘groups’ that are there?
The protest will send a message that Britain is leading the way in the west to creating a modern, multicultural, multiethnic and multifaith society that lives in peace and prosperity.
And, of course, that forbids, legally or by social pressure, ‘blasphemy’ and criticism of (what some people take to be) the ‘sacred’.
“Britain is leading the way in the west to creating a modern, multicultural, multiethnic and multifaith society that lives in peace and prosperity.”
Pity about the trival little hiccup on the London underground then…
Nice to see someone is still going on about the veil ban in French schools — even though the much-anticipated chaos that was predicted to ensue the enforcement of that law never materialised. No boycotts, no mayhem, no mass withdrawals of Muslim girls from schools, everyone adapted. But the True Defenders of Islam cannot stand the idea that there are Muslims who can actually accept to live in secular systems.
It strikes me that the usual Islamic clerics & mates really cannot accept the idea of secularism at all. All those values like historical truthfulness and memory, equality for women, gay rights, freedom of the press etc. – they cannot accept these things are secular, outside religion, parallel to it, and to be shared by all, religious or not; no, they have to view them as another religion, and accuse Europeans of worshipping those things as “sacred”. It’s like if they ever for a moment admitted those values are in a very different category than religious dogma, then that would cast doubt on the need for and authority of a religion at all, especially a religion that’s made to fill every aspect of life and politics.
Quoted by OB: “Those who claim to uphold freedom of speech by defending the right to reproduce insulting depictions of the prophet are in effect saying to Muslims that what they hold dear and sacred is far more worthy of protecting than what Muslims hold dear and sacred.”
As you say, OB, “sacred” *is* the wrong word and this clearly demonstrates the he just doesn’t “get” what freedom of speech is about.
Oh, he probably ‘gets’ it, but I doubt he cares. To that, and nina’s point, one could answer that the heritage of the Enlightenment is a small, narrow space compared with the wider world of the sacred and profane that he appears to inhabit, and to someone in that context, it means almost nothing at all. Since most post-enlightenment citizens, most of the time, piss away their right to freedom of expression on activities that are enough to give ‘secular humanism’ a bad name — make your own list — it’s not surprising that people who prefer a pre-enlightenment outlook can’t see what there is to gain by embracing such values… Sad, but true…
I’m not sure he does get it. I think that many imams and friends are from recently immigrated families. THe result of this is that they do not understand the delicate compromises which led to the emergence of free speech. One such was the increase in *religious* challengers to the Anglican Church in the 17th & 18th Centuries. Free speech allowed everyone to rub along, and of course allowed the emergence of secularism and the emancipation of non-Christian religions.
Maybe the argument should be put in these terms: Which do you want, an Anglican theocracy or Free Speech?
Once he realises that Islamic theocracy is not on the cards he may see some merits in Free Speech and secularism.
“Once he realises that Islamic theocracy is not on the cards he may see some merits in Free Speech and secularism.”
I would say ‘if’, not ‘once’. And again, if we’re going to go into European history for our examples, we’re talking 150 years of no-compromise zealotry, then another 150 years of partial grudging toleration, before we get to the last 150 years of finding other things to fight about, like the nation-state….