Unforgiven
One the one hand what do you expect from a conference of the OIC, but on the other hand, what sinister bullying crap.
Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, secretary-general of the 56-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference, warned there seemed to be a growing “campaign of hate and discrimination” against Muslims by a small number of individuals and organizations. In a speech to a conference in Kuala Lumpur on improving ties between Muslims and the West, Ihsanoglu praised Western nations for criticizing acts such as the recent release of an anti-Quran film by a Dutch lawmaker, but said more should have been done. “Mere condemnation or distancing from the acts of the perpetrators of Islamophobia will not resolve the issue, as long as they remain free to carry on with their campaign of incitement and provocation on the plea of freedom of expression,” Ihsanoglu said.
Well that’s blunt enough. Mere criticism and condemnation and distancing are not enough, as long as people remain free to criticize Islam. Mere condemnation is not enough: they have to be stopped, they have to be prevented, they have to be made not free to carry on. Criticism of Islam must be made globally universally illegal; only that will ‘resolve the issue.’
On the one hand, criticism is too weak, more must be done; on the other hand, criticism is much too powerful and must be forcibly stopped. Criticism of Islamocritics must be enforced with forcible silencing of Islamocritics, while criticism of Islam must be eliminated altogether. Yeah, that’s fair, also a really good idea, being as how Islam is so perfect and all.
“It requires a strong and determined collective political will to address the challenge,” Ihsanoglu said. “It is now high time for concrete actions to stem the rot before it aggravates (the situation) any further.”
Bully bully bully bully; threaten threaten.
Imam Feisal Rauf sets us all straight.
What we have today is much less a “Clash of Civilizations” than a clash of perceptions. Little about our cultures, religions or ways of life—though these are certainly different—suggests coexistence to be impossible; rather, it is our perception of this impossibility that drives discord…Incorrect perceptions in the West about Muslims need fixing too, including the oft-heard charge that Muslims categorically practice violence and abuse women. As we know, however, Muslim-majority countries are more tolerant and diverse than many in the West suppose.
That’s nice – and probably true, because it’s so vague. Exactly how tolerant and diverse is that? More so than many in the West suppose. Ah! That clears that up. But it’s perhaps just as tolerant and diverse as many others in the West suppose, and a great deal less tolerant and diverse than many still others in the West suppose. There are lots of people in ‘the West’ and they suppose lots of things. But how tolerant and diverse Muslim-majority countries actually are is another question – and the sad truth is that we know damn well a lot of them are not very, and are getting steadily less so. The sad truth is that we are hard-pressed to think of a majority Muslim country that is overall anything we would call really tolerant. Indonesia? Jordan? Morocco? Better than some, but not exactly starry.
The impressive plurality of ethnicities, languages, beliefs and opinions among today’s population of more than 1.2 billion Muslims does more than validate the Prophet’s tradition that “Differences of opinion in my community are a blessing”—it puts to rest the notion that Muslims are a homogenous and insidious group, naturally opposed to dissent from within or without.
Oh that tradition! The one that fits so nicely with dire punishment for apostasy, and the division of the world into Muslims and unbelievers – that tradition. And the issue isn’t whether Muslims are ‘naturally opposed to dissent’; of course they’re not; that’s a red herring; the issue is whether they are trained (by Islam) to be that way. There is considerable evidence that they are, and that it takes a lot of effort and courage to resist.
Issues of perception are key in debunking the sense that cultures are clashing. Lately, it has become clear just how carefully religious scholars, politicians and commentators must choose their language to avoid making the problem worse. To illustrate, the current US Presidential election has seen both John McCain and Barack Obama distance themselves from former spiritual guides—Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who famously blamed the US for the September 11th terrorist attacks and Reverend Rod Parsley, the notorious defamer of Islam. Though both candidates have rightly disavowed such comments, they recognize that more work still needs to be done, and have sent representatives to Kuala Lumpur to help repair the damage to the public’s perception of the Muslim-West divide.
Hmmmm. Okay, but is it only Christian ‘spiritual guides’ who say stupid or vicious things? Do they have a monopoly on hate-mongering? Are there no imams who get a little heated sometimes? Is it really all a matter of ‘the West’ trotting obligingly along to KL to grovel and apologize and promise to do better, while the Organization of the Islamic Conference presents it with a list of ways to crack down harder on ‘Western’ people who fail to admire Islam? Hmm?
Bit harsh DFG I thought Eric made some fair points?
I also think Eric probably framed his post as a demand because the topic was moslem demands on western freedoms?
Tingey,
I thought this issue was very well covered in other active threads.
What is this so-called monolithic Islam you refer to? I have been squealing over this on B&W for some time.
“posts like the above make this whole site smell like straw”
Now that’s just absurd. That’s the line that Sue R was running the other day, and it makes no more sense today than it did then. “This whole site” does not stand or fall by comments on Notes and Comment, any more than it stands or falls by the content of the Letters page. “This whole site” includes articles by, inter alia, Simon Blackburn, Richard Evans, Allen Esterson, Meera Nanda, Mary Lefkowitz, Daphne Patai, Joseph Hoffmann, Frederick Crews, Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker, Rebecca Goldstein – etc etc etc; it also includes thousands of news links, two dictionaries, a guide to rhetoric, quotations, book recommendations, In Focus, Julian’s column…
Disagreeing with a comment is one thing, but equating all of B&W with a comment is another. The latter move is just damn silly.
Having said that, I don’t agree with Eric’s comment either. I don’t think it is fair to demand that Muslims in general explain or apologize for or do anything in particular about the OIC. My post was about the OIC, not Muslims in general. And no, the topic was not Richard’s “moslem demands on western freedoms” – it was OIC demands on freedoms. Freedoms aren’t “western” and the OIC isn’t “moslems”. There are of course plenty of Muslims who agree with the OIC line, but that doesn’t mean that all Muslims do.
I am so jealous of DFG now, he has his own stalker! A creepy, abusive one at that. Well-done DFG!
What’s happening at B&W nowadays? That was some henfight on the Leila Hussein thread…
Happening? The usual…I have to go in and clean up comments regularly, to get rid of abusive and/or repetitive ones. And now and then someone gets in a temper. (Sometimes the someone is me.)
Fair comment, OB, re: the straw comment. I will revise it to say, makes this thread smell like straw.
Eric,
The monolith comment was put to G. Tingey. Again, and OB has already raised this, the issue is that one cannot make demands such as those you suggest.
As for what is to be done about the supposed incompatibility of Islam and Democracy… Well, I disagree, I don’t view Islam as some sort of existential threat to Secular Democracy. Fundamentalism, of any bent, however, is.
Not a threat you didnt notice that aroeplane thing then DFG?
Yeah, I watched the second plane smash live on Telly.
Now, firstly. And this is getting ad nauseum, since when did Atta and his fellow nutbags represent the whole of Islam?
Now, secondly. Is the threat of militant Islamists really something to be considered an existential threat to secular democracy? A threat, no doubt, but one amongst many. For example, direct threats to secular democracy: strange-agenda-holding-xtians wielding the balance of power in the Upper House.
All the more reason to ensure certain rights and limitations are observed and reinforced.
How about this,not a threat? http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C06%5C08%5Cstory_8-6-2008_pg7_14
What about the celebrations throughout the moslem world of 9/11?
What is the point you are trying to make, Richard? I think I have made myself clear regarding where I place Islamism relative to threats to Secular Democracy.
If the best you can do is present the above examples, well, it might be easier for me to just say: Sorry, I disagree.
What would it take to convince you there is a threat then?
Just noticed the stalker post from mirax (sorry, mirax). Did I miss some fun while sleeping? Bugger.
Richard,
Read my posts again. I acknowledge that Islamists are a threat. There are other threats with a basis in religion. Pressing ones.
Yeh, huge fun; tedious nonsense from a troll.
Ahh, yeah, forgot that you have to keep this site maintained.
Tedious nonsense? Sounds like Sue R’s wierd and evasive replies on SS.
Well maybe it was Sue R in disguise. It was some stalker-y anonymous name.