Universal rights anyone?
Sami Moubayed on Aisha and ‘double standards’.
The book has so far appeared in Serbia, with a provoking illustration of Aisha on the cover (in Islam it is forbidden to portray the wives of the Prophet, known as the “Mothers of Believers”).
The fact that something is ‘forbidden in Islam’ doesn’t mean that it is forbidden in general, and in fact for the rest of us it is not forbidden to portray the wives of the Prophet, nor is it ‘provoking’ to do so. This seems to be widely misunderstood – but the fact is, the laws and rules and taboos of Islam are not binding on everyone in the world. We are allowed to ignore them.
It is equally startling how people like Sherry Jones would wish to add insult to injury, and bad feelings, with her book on Aisha.
No, actually, it is startling how uninformed Sami Moubayed is about the subject of his article; that is exactly what Sherry Jones does not wish to do. He might have found that out before saying that about her – especially since saying that could, in this ludicrous situation, put her in increased danger.
I cite the example of David Irving…Irving showed that Hitler was a rational, intelligent leader and human being whose main motivation was to increase the prosperity of Germany…By the 1980s, Irving was banned from entering Austria…He defied the ban and tried to go but was arrested in Austria. In court he tried to change discourse, but Austrian authorities did not believe him and at the time of writing he still languishes in jail.
No he doesn’t. He was released a few months into his sentence.
It is a funny world with funny double standards indeed. To make things easier for everybody – especially the oversensitive millions in all faiths – it is safe to say that critical issues such as the Holocaust and Islam become red lines that should not be crossed. In saying that, we can assume that Jones, Benedict and Irving all committed mistakes.
No. Not comparable. For the forty millionth time: Holocaust-denial is not comparable to (say) writing a novel about Aisha. That’s not to say that Holocaust-denial should be illegal, it is just to say that the funny double standards are not double standards. (The right double standard would be, for instance, to deny that a massacre happened at Srebrenica.)
Offending others for the sake of free speech should not be tolerated.
Yes it should. If not offending others becomes the criterion for free speech, as many have pointed out, there will be no free speech at all. That would not be a minor crimp, it would be obliteration.
I think it might be well to point out that David Irving did not show that “Hitler was a rational, intelligent leader and human being whose main motivation was to increase the prosperity of Germany.” A cursory reading of Joachim Fest’s or Ian Kershaw’s biographies would make it clear to Sami just how irrational Hitler really was. Shrewd, cunning, perhaps, but rational? Where has Sami been living all this time? Syria, you say. Well, perhaps that explains it!
I heard David Irving on the radio a few weeks ago talking about the Hitler diaries forgery. He was ready to say that Hitler was a mass murderer.
Crikey, he must have had a near conversion – or else the loving grace of Der Führer had worn off. :-()!
Over @ B&W News. >”Pope, Carrying Gold Bauble, Disses Money”< Well spotted OB, and would you just look at all the fancy robes - they too - certainly do not come cheap. Hypocricy of the highest ilk.
The sense I got of Irving was of the over-powering desire to be mischievous. He exuded the contrarian spirit.
Double standards? Maybe we should call in the experts from the “International Commission on Scientific Signs in the Quran and the Sunna”.
http://mickhartley.typepad.com/blog/2008/10/proving-unequivocally-that-islam-is-the-true-religion.html
Has the financial crisis at the Grauniad got so bad they’ve finally sold off “Comment is Free” to the Washington Post?
:-)
Mr. Moubayed’s statement that offensive speech should not be tolerated offends me. Therefore, his statements should be banned.
QED.
Holocaust denial and criticism of Islam are equal? Gimme a break. If that’s true, what is Islam’s suggested comeuppance for Ahmadinejad? Surely he must be punished for his insensitivity?
This willful inability or refusal to think a thing through is a form of ignorance only religion or ideology have need of.
I’ve always felt that any discourse other than hate speech advocating violence should be permitted in the public arena. Give ideas free-rein. Of course feelings will get hurt. I’ve been there. So what? Feelings are vastly overrated and very bad masters. The world has turned into a mass of crybabies who can’t see the real suffering through their self-pitying tears. Buck-up.
As for Pope Maledict’s latest rant, I suddenly hear in my head Grace Slick singing in the early 70s:
“Golden velvet robes on Pope Paul, he’s talking/I think he’s stalking
devils of flesh/He rides chauffered through the streets streets instead of walking;/I think his holy story -/
I think his story is a mess.”
K.B and Marie Irving has had no conversion he has never fully denied that Hitler commited mass murder,hs main purpose has always been to downgrade the actions of the nazi,s. He atempts to do this by drawing parallels between the alied bombing raids on places like Dresden or Hamburg or various naval bombardments that had large numbers of civilian casualties. The man is still scum!
” . . .but the fact is, the laws and rules and taboos of Islam are not binding on everyone in the world. We are allowed to ignore them.”
OB, here’s the crux how I see it: Islamic people say universal human rights are just the Western conception of universal and are therefore not really universal and can therefore be ignored. Just as we ignore the laws and rules of Islam can’t they claim similarly to have the right to ignore our codification of universal human rights?
Just to make it clear I’m not an apologist for religion, I’d rather see the world rid itself of it. I’m just interested in your response to this question.
For it to be a double standard, surely, at the very least, publishing books which deny the Holocaust needs to be illegal in the UK (rather than Austria or Germany).
Otherwise we can point out the double standard that books denying the Holocaust are available in countries like Iran (I’m making this up, but I’m sure it is true) whereas fictionalisations about Mohammed’s wives are banned (again, I’ve no idea if Iran has banned this book, but I’m sure it would given the chance).
“Islamic people say universal human rights are just the Western conception of universal and are therefore not really universal and can therefore be ignored. Just as we ignore the laws and rules of Islam can’t they claim similarly to have the right to ignore our codification of universal human rights?”
Rose raises a question that may have already been discussed here and I missed.
What is the moral response to Islamic countries that oppress women, hang homosexuals and abuse children by marrying them? Does the West have an obligation or right to intervene by force to change these horrific (to the western, non-Islamic mind) norms? Or is its place to simply stand as a non-invasive and stark contrast to such barbarism while making our ideas and ways easily and constantly accessible?
Even if we allow ourselves to engage force can we succeed in winning not only the wars but the hearts and minds of these religionists? There are a billion Muslims in the world. Western ideas may one day be antiquated and moot, regarded as merely an age of extraordinary license and immorality.
What do we do? Bomb the hell out of Islamic countries? Isolate the West? These are serious questions on my part. I am not trying to lead to a particular conclusion — I don’t have one. How to look at these questions properly and address them coherently oppresses me.
(Sorry to dominate this discussion. I’ve wanted to ask these questions for some time here.)
“Islamic people say universal human rights are just the Western conception of universal and are therefore not really universal and can therefore be ignored. Just as we ignore the laws and rules of Islam can’t they claim similarly to have the right to ignore our codification of universal human rights?
First, it’s only some Muslims who say that; in particular, it’s people who speak for the OIC who say that, which means it’s people who represent the repressive (in varying degrees) states that make up the OIC who say that. It’s a minuscule group of people, and that group of people has a strong vested interest in distracting people from state repression. That by itself is enough to make the whole project of the Cairo Declaration highly suspect.
Second, what that tiny group says is not true. Majority-Muslim states participated in the process of drawing up the Universal Declaration. There were objections from lots of religious groups, including Muslims, but at the time Muslims were no more in dissent than anyone else.
Third, the UD is a secular document, which means that believers and nonbelievers alike can accept it. That doesn’t apply to Islam.
Brian,
Not surprisingly, I don’t know what we do. I don’t have any magic insights. But, at least, step one is to tell the truth about the situation, and focus the glare of publicity on atrocities, and argue for equality and rights and freedom. Step one is at least to refrain from excusing or dressing up monstrosities.
Of course I too am concerned this will all go nuclear one day but retain the hope that our common humanity (whatever that means it has to mean not wiping ourselves out) will wake-up in time. If anyone should accuse me of lieing about that hope I’m not sure I would defend myself. I absolutely agree that we can’t keep silent.
No unfortunately in the case of religious zealots common humanity doesn’t at all mean not wiping ourselves out. That’s one major reason they’re so terrifying.
“…the fact is, the laws and rules and taboos of Islam are not binding on everyone in the world. We are allowed to ignore them.”
No such luck, Islam’s rules, etc. ARE meant to be binding on the whole world. ‘No compulsion in religion’ sure, but compulsory obedience to shariah, plus paying jizyah for the priviledge of not being murdered are right there in Sura 9.
Of course we can point out similar barbarisms in Xian scripture, but Xians ignore those parts (well most of them, most of the time). That is why criticism of Islam must lead to a general critique of religion: it is not enough to assert vaguely that ‘real’ Muslims/Xians don’t observe the nastier bits. One must show that there are clear moral and historical reasons to reject portions of infallible revelation.
But of course, that would put an end to scriptural authority.
Restricting free speech for the sake of not offending others should not be tolerated.
Oh well I know Islam’s rules are binding on the whole world according to Islam but those of us lucky enough not to live in a theocracy are still allowed to ignore them, and those of Christianity too.
Isn’t it true that the publication of Jones’ book has [only] offended a small group of very radical Muslims? If we exercise true free speech, then they should have their say. If laws are broken, the laws that dominate the geography in which the crime was committed take precedence.
There are a great many more Muslims who are likely not offended.
“Eliminating free comments at WaPo” (or reducing free speech in any way) is [not just a joke, but] a direction that we, as 21st century citizens, simply cannot allow our leaders to take.
It’s not really clear that the (projected) publication of Jones’s book has offended any Muslims. There are various allegations and conditionals, but I haven’t seen any flat-out declarations of offense. That could be because no one’s read it, of course.
What’s the bit about eliminating comments at the Post? What’s that quoting? Did someone there recommend that? I haven’t read it since yesterday…
Brian it wont be our common humanity that will save this from going nuclear someday it will be the desparity between the weapons that the west holds and those that the islamic world is working toward. Our weapons are more than a century ahead in destructive capacity and the delivery systems are probably even further advanced. The simple truth is that we could destroy them at will,but they will be unable to do more than destroy a city at least for the foreseable future. In the words of L.B.J when you have your oponent by the balls his heart and mind will soon follow.
Richard, in an honour culture such as applies in those regions if you have an opponent by the balls, you better be prepared to complete the win.
OB, I found point one and point two of your response very interesting and useful. But I’m not sure about point three . . . isn’t Islam meant to be a prescription for everyone? Isn’t Islam more like Christianity and less like Judaism in that it actively recruits and forces itself onto other people in other ways?
(Btw, I saw the musical production Wicked tonight. The character Elphaba, the “wicked” witch, reminded me of you. Well until the second act anyway, when it went all Hollywood schmaltzy kissy kissy, and when she gives up her crusade by faking her own death so as not to disappoint the citizens of Oz with the truth. I was a bit disappointed with the plot. Sorry to just randomly go off topic like that. Hey but at least it’s all contained within parenthesis! I must be more tipsy than I thought . . . )
Rose, yes, sure, but the UD (necessarily) sets all that aside for the purpose of enumerating human rights. This does of course mean that it is in conflict with any religions that disagree with it about particular rights. Believers are thus faced with a choice (if they notice this conflict): do I stay loyal to my religion and allow it to limit my rights, or do I (when there is a conflict) stick with the UD and reject such limits on my rights? As you point out, Muslims can of course choose the first, and some do. It is open to them to say that everyone who is not Muslim is making a mistake in not being Muslim, and it is open to us to say that everyone who prefers sharia to universal rights is making a mistake.
Richard…
So what you’re saying is that ‘they’ will be able to destroy only a city for the time being, while we can ‘destroy them at will,’ therefore there is no problem?
Well – just for a start – we can’t ‘destroy them at will’ in advance of, say, the destruction of a city, so a city could be destroyed. So New York or London gets destroyed. I consider this a problem.
The superior force isn’t all that useful against people who don’t mind being obliterated. Mutual Assured Destruction sort of worked against secular rivals. It wouldn’t work with theocratic rivals.
It just isn’t always true that ‘when you have your op[p]onent by the balls his heart and mind will soon follow.’ Sometimes the opposite is true.
Oh and thanks, Rose, about the witch…I guess! :- )
‘The simple truth is that we could destroy them at will,but they will be unable to do more than destroy a city…’
I don’t really keep up with weapons development, but I’m intrigued to hear that a weapon has been developed which targets only the bigoted, oppressive and thuggish leaving the fair-minded, progressive or just generally innocent untouched.
That is the ‘us and them’ you were referring to, isn’t it?
Ah yes, the witch thing was a compliment. Sorry about drunken ramblings . . .
I guess there’s no short easy way to prove the UD is better than Islamic prescriptions for living. I suppose if I wanted to convince someone of the merits of the UD as compared to sharia I would need to show examples of specific rules and go through the reasoning behind each one, as well as the thinking behind each document in its general entirety. It’s a pity most people are more interested in catchy glib soundbites though.
Fair point O.B but it isnt mutualy asured destruction that we have with the islamic world,it is mutualy asured masively disproporsionate destruction?
Don my gran was bombed during the Zeplin raids of W.W.1 my mother was bombed throughout the second world war,neither of them were thuggish or bigots its just that war is like that?
Just to be clear(for once) I think we have a heck of a problem I just dont see it going nuclear for the forseable future.
“Well – just for a start – we can’t ‘destroy them at will’ in advance of, say, the destruction of a city…. I consider this a problem.”
The real question is, why is destruction the only answer??
Wrong. Bad. Cheat. Bad bad bad ellipse – cheating – completely misrepresents my meaning. Go directly to jail, do not pass Go. It’s the destruction of London or New York that I consider a problem, not the inability to destroy.
Furthermore, I don’t work for the CIA, I barely know Bill Ayers, I do believe nicotine causes addiction, I did not kill Vince Foster, and I had nothing to do with Willie Horton’s weekend pass.
Richard,
DFG has succinctly covered the point I was trying to make.
Yes, war is ‘like that’. I know that, and I didn’t need my granny to tell me. That’s the main reason it’s a crap solution to any problem. Quite apart from the fact that the bad guys have all the bomb shelters and the dead and mutilated are overwhelmingly going to be the people we are supposed to be supporting. Y’know, women, workers, kids…
If you really want to address the issue as ‘we’ can obliterate ‘them’, then don’t count me as part of ‘we’. I have friends in some of the places you seem to accept as expendable in the Grand Scheme.
Really, Richard. Both you and Tingey seem to constantly revert to the fact that ‘The Western World’ can bomb the bejazus out of ‘The Islamic World’ as though that were a comforting thought. It isn’t.
You can only drop bombs on geography, not ideology.
Don in fairness to myself I was answering Brians point about going nuclear when I spoke about the huge desparity in weapons, not giving a view about what the west should do with regard to the islamic world. I have to be honest and say that Trident does give me comfort but I think it will have done its job if it is never used.
Don does Trident give you comfort?
You mean those tobaco company c.e.o,s were less than truthfull about nicotine being adictive? I am shocked!
Does Trident give me comfort? No, not even slightly.
Except Richard you weren’t answering Brian’s point, you were instead missing it.