A wealth of implication
Of course, the novel will be published sooner or later. Writing about Muhammad has become the shortest cut to media attention in the west. And of course semi-employed young men and women from religious Muslim backgrounds will be out on the streets, shouting.
Women? No they won’t. You don’t see them out there much – which is not surprising, since in ‘religious Muslim’ countries they’re not always encouraged to join in, if you get my drift. But they also, quite possibly, have better sense. It tends to be the young men who work themselves into stupid frenzies about this kind of thing. Rage boy, remember? Rage girl not so much.
[E]ven very religious Muslims cannot ignore the west any more, and – unfortunately – the west, it appears, cannot ignore them either.
Well there are those tugs on the sleeve every now and then, you know. The exploding bus, the exploding airplane, the exploding building – they’re hard to ignore.
European newspapers compared the deferred novel on Aisha to two recent, and very sad, events: the protests that followed the publication of Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses and the Danish Muhammad cartoons, in which – wrote the Guardian objectively – “more than 100 people died”. The implication – unintended by the Guardian – is that about 100 people were killed by Islamic fundamentalists or protesters…But the fact remains that on both the occasions at least 80% of the people who died were Muslims protesting against Rushdie’s novel or the Danish cartoons. They were often shot by the police, sometimes in Muslim countries, when the protests got out of hand or were inconvenient.
I don’t think that is the implication. On the contrary. I think the intended implication is that the 100 people died because Rushdie’s novel and the Danish cartoons ‘sparked outrage’. The implication is not that Islamic fundamentalists killed each other, but that offended people were upset and then tragically got killed in the resulting violence, which was ultimately the fault not of the offended people or of the police but of the authors of the works that offended them. The BBC and the Guardian generally (though not this time) say that the novel or the cartoons ‘triggered’ or ’caused’ or ‘set off’ protests and riots – which is not true, and does imply that the novelist and the cartoonists did it on purpose or at least should have known better. So…Tabish Khair and I see the matter differently.
So, a book will (probably) be published in the West. Some genuinely evil people will do their best to politicize the publishing and describe the content with hyperbolic exaggeration, in the spirit of the Danish cartoons (which were re-published by such people with some really incendiary fakes thrown in). Then these young men will take to the streets in protest, and some of them will get killed.
Do they never learn? Does it ever occur to them that somebody’s pulling their chain? Are all these people really so ignorant (a state for which I do have some sympathy) or are they candidates for Darwin Awards?
Okay, so I’m an undoubtedly arrogant and semi-clueless American. I’ve been very lucky in life; I have a warm, safe home in good repair, a good family, plenty of food on the table, good medical care, and some money left over to dream with. But my own experience here in America with poor people is that they work hard, try to do the best for their families, and when they’re out in the street protesting it is usually about something that materially affects their lives (like protests against downtown gentrification projects or in favor of better working conditions). The vast majority of them are trying to make life better for themselves and their families.
Over in Muslim countries, by contrast, these people are out in the streets protesting against some damn book or cartoons or some such. Do they work? Do they have opportunities for work? Does everyone have a home, food on the table, electricity or other fuel, running water, sanitary sewage, effective vermin control, and decent basic medical care? If not, why the hell are they wasting time protesting a damn book?
Why are they protesting? Same reason some Americans – not necessarily poor or oppressed or disadvantaged in any way – picket abortion clinics or try to get books banned from libraries or send money to a bunch of political organizations masquerading as religious organizations with the name “Family” in their names (which can and should always be read as “Patriarchy” instead). The reason being, they are suckers.
Er. I mean, they are sincere and heartfelt religious people with deeply held faith beliefs which are offended by other people thinking for themselves.
Hmm. I seem to keep slipping off-message mid-sentence. Some sort of appalling truth reflex, I fear. I’d best stay out of politics. And religion.
Karen wrote:
>Some genuinely evil people will do their best to politicize the publishing and describe the content with hyperbolic exaggeration, in the spirit of the Danish cartoons< Life would be so much simpler if it were the case that the people who “describe the content with hyperbolic exaggeration” were “genuinely evil”. I saw the Muslim website that took up the issue (link apparently no longer generally available) after someone posted that he had received information from a person who had received a frantic email from Denise Spellberg. A blogger there suggested “a seven-point strategy” to oppose publication and to induce Sherry Jones to “apologise all the muslims across the world.” There was nothing to suggest the contributors who strongly supported this proposal were “evil” – in fact they went out of their way to emphasise that the protests should avoid all violence.
What I was trying to say in the above posting was that Muslims involved with spreading of exaggerated notions of the book are for the most part run-of-the-mill devout Muslims whose absolute devotion to their prophet is paralleled by relatively few adherents of other religions.
“Face it: it’s usually the relatively well-off, educated people who protest for progress. The poor, exploited, despised workers are much more likely to support bombing Iran than a health-care reform.”
Most middle and lower class Americans actually do agree with progressive social positions when polled. It’s just that their natural feelings of anger and discontent have been captured by demagogues and redirected into channels which are safer for our political/business elite.
When you really get down to it, the Danish imams and their like are just exploiting a strategy perfected and wielded to frightening effect by America’s political and cultural conservatives–just keep parading a string of imagined “offenses” in front of the people, and they’ll never notice how badly they’re being screwed over. (qv What’s The Matter with Kansas?)
The Spellbergs of the world probably don’t even understand their role in the entire process. They’re useful idiots.
Nick S – you forgot to include the synchronised sports. Eg
Day 1
Synchronised Brick Throwing.
Day 2
Synchronised Flag Burning.
Day 3
Synchronised Book Burning
Day 4
Synchronised Goodwill Visit by Muslim members of House of Lords
The words immediately preceding the ones quoted by Ophelia are very important too.
‘Not only can their stories and beliefs be turned into items of popular consumption (such as novels), even their protests and experiences are taken up and incorporated into a completely different perspective on reality.’
I would say ‘not exactly’ about these words as well (and of course about most of the article, but these are casually deceptive). What does he mean by ‘popular consumption’? Isn’t that what the right to think and publish what you think is all about? Apparently not. It’s just turning someone else’s beliefs into public consumables, like kleine süssigkeiten. That means that you can only write about your own beliefs. But aren’t my beliefs about someone else’s beliefs my own? Can’t I write them down for someone else to read (some member of the public to consume)?
What a very peculiar article this is. Al Guardian indeed! And, after this kind of thing, and not only bombs, is it any wonder that the west takes notice?
“At least 80% of the people who died were Muslims protesting against Rushdie’s novel or the Danish cartoons. They were often shot by the police, sometimes in Muslim countries,”
Someone ought to have told Denise Spellberg – that in asking her colleague to ‘warn Muslims, that it inevitably, would have brought with it dire circumstances
Well exactly. Prefuckingcisely. And she shouldn’t need telling, either; if she thought for ten seconds she would be able to figure it out for herself. If she thinks she’s doing Muslims any favours, she’s crazy.
Thank you OB. My late wife loved that way of making a word: prefuckingcisely!
Permit me to bring an entirely different (and possibly irrelevant) point of view to bear on this matter.
When a man (e.g. Nabakov) writes a novel about paedophilia it is celebrated as a great comic novel.
When a woman (e.g. Jones) writes a novel about paedophilia it is . . . suppressed.
Seems the first chapter or prologue of jones’ book is available online. It sounds excruciatingly bad and I refuse to understand the mindset of someone who thinks the marriage of a child to an old man worth ‘celebrating’ and am inclined to the view that Jones has a shrewd eye on the bottomline. Still, it IS the reaction that sells the product and Khair and fellow muslims have the option of taking the ‘moral high road’ of ignoring obvious trash instead of drawing more attention to it.
The becoming-more-excellent-every-day Johann Hari links this and the problem of child-brides in The Independent today.
He is right as well, the Ayatollahs in Iran and the mullahs in Yemen trot out the example of the prophet to justify marrying 9 years old girls to septuagenarians but we should not mention Aisha?
>When a man (e.g. Nabakov) writes a novel about paedophilia it is celebrated as a great comic novel. When a woman (e.g. Jones) writes a novel about paedophilia it is . . . suppressed.< Sorry, Elliot, the two situations are not comparable. Nabokov was not writing about an icon of Islam.
mirax
Someone (heresiarch) posted an extract and a link on the Sunny Hundal article in the Grauniad yesterday.
Extract:
[Scandal blew in on the errant wind when I rode into Medina clutching Safwans waist. My neighbors rushed into the street like storm waters flooding a wadi. Children stood in clusters to point and gawk. Their mothers snatched them to their skirts and pretended to avert their eyes. Men spat in the dust and muttered, judging. My fathers mouth trembled like a tear on the brink.]
They commented:
“I’ve no idea if it’s offensive to Muslims, but it’s certainly offensive to anyone who cares about English prose.”
Oh dear.
http://www.smartbitchestrashybooks.com/images/uploads1/Prologue-JewelMedina.pdf
It sounds pretty bad, too many similies and metaphors, and not very good ones, crowded together. But is this really about whether (i) the book is well-written; (ii) it is about paedophilia (many Muslims apparently do not think that it was it is) or (iii) whether Jones had her eye on the bottom line or not?
Eric, I doubt it is just about paedophilia. It is evident that devout Muslims would object to *any* depiction of the life of the Prophet that was not one of reverence and in line with Islamic teachings.
Well, Nick, precisely.
From Hari’s article:
>It is condescending to treat Muslims like excitable children who cannot cope with the probing, mocking treatment we hand out to Christianity, Judaism and Buddhism.< It is, of course, right that we should not submit to the demands of some outraged Muslims, but it is, I fear, not exactly condescending to anticipate that devout Muslims in large numbers are not able to cope with probing or (especially!) mocking treatment of Islam. I suspect that such Muslims will find Hari’s suggestion that an inability to cope with mocking treatment of the Prophet is to behave like “excitable children” far worse than condescending. -:)
Allen, did you mean to put your nose above your eyes, or is that a frowning smile?! :-)
But, second, Hari’s point is not condescending. If it is, then they are, unfortunately, like excitable children. It’s time to grow up.
Eric, where did I say that Hari’s point was condescending? Let me try again. On occasion town councils, or the police, in the UK have intervened to block some trivial measure on the grounds that Muslims might be offended by the measure. This is condescending. However, in this instance it is the case that some Muslims have made vehement objections *before the book has even been published*, and have undertaken to spread the word. We know from the Rushdie case that a book that depicts the Prophet in other than reverent terms is going to be subjected to a concerted campaign to suppress it, i.e., that devout (and perhaps many not-so-devout) Muslims really *cannot* cope with mocking treatment of their religion, to use Hari’s words. In other words it is *not* condescending to suppose that many Muslims will behave, again using Hari’s words, like “excitable children” because that is precisely how they have behaved in comparable circumstances – and have began to behave even at this early stage of the affair of Sherry Jones’ book.
The (minor) problem with Hari’s formulation (even if he didn’t intend it) is that it implies that non-Muslims who are in favour of censoring material such as the book, or the cartoons, or suchlike, are unjustifiable imputing to Muslims attitudes (and behaviour) which are only in the minds of the non-Muslims in question. Unfortunately this is not the case, and it doesn’t help to state that it is condescending to presume such attitudes among many Muslims.
Thank you for explaining, Allen. I won’t bother going in to detail about what I first heard you say. Your more subtle explanation (almost [Rowan] Williamesque in its sublety, if I can say that without being condescending) makes sense. However, there is a rather confusion mixture of those who are being condescending, and to whom, and those who have a right, or don’t, to feel that others are, or may, be condescending too! :-)
Would that our own (speaking from the UK) dear Rowan had such clarity!
Yes, indeed, Allen. It was really a joke! :-)
What a lot of westerners may not be aware of is how often muslims themselves are bullied and threatened for making innocuous comments on their own religion. Here’s a recent case : http://www.indonesiamatters.com/2010/dedi-mulyadi/
The Regent of Purwakarta in west Java (royalty!) recently likened the Quran to a flute (presumably implying one can get as much as noise as sweet music out of it) and stated his beliefs that the quran should be interpreted allegorically – johann hari’s point- and he now has the mullahs on the warpath, demanding a formal apology to all muslims in Indonesia. They threaten protests and it is a pity but it is true they CAN mobilise enough rageboys to make good the threat.
Mirax, thanks for the link. It reads like it could have been a spoof “report” on The Onion.
For a little light relief, try this, for instance:
FDA APPROVES SALE OF PRESCRIPTION PLACEBO
http://tinyurl.com/56juce
During a thread about Georgia and Russia, on Harry’s Place, I found this link:
http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryID/414/Default.aspx
The discussion also touched on Finlandisation, and it struck me that there are similarities between our self-censorship and self-censorship as a component of Finlandisation, so out of interest, I looked up the Wikipedia article on Finlandisation, took a little chunk, and substituted Islamic for Soviet, and Muslims for Soviets:
“. . . the Islamic adaptation spread to the editors of mass media, sparking strong forms of self-control, self-censorship and pro-Islamic attitudes. Most of the élite of media and politics shifted their attitudes to match the values that the Muslims were thought to favour and approve, developing into a self-imposed Finlandization . . .
During the period of Finlandization freedom of speech was limited. Public libraries removed from circulation books, more than 1,700 titles, that were deemed anti-Islamic and bookstores were given catalogs of banned books.[1] The Finnish Board of Film Classification likewise banned movies that it considered to be anti-Islamic.
Hi, I just intercepted some news that “The Jewel of Medina” MIGHT be published in Denmark by the “Free press society”
http://www.trykkefrihed.dk/FREE%20PRESS%20SOCIETY.htm
They have for several years been supportive to “unpopular work”, and to persons like Flemming Rose (the editor of the Jyllandposten which printed the Motoons) and the drawer Kurt Westergaard. They are apparently not inclined to give in to the threats and bullying following the Mo controversy.
Cassanders
In Cod we trust