Maryam Namazie, in solidarity with Charlie Hebdo (which planned an edition with Mohammad as guest editor), features Mohammad as a guest blogger.
See some other articles she has written on free expression and the Islamic inquisition:
The Islamic Inquisition
Free expression no ifs and buts
Islam must be criticised
Offensive shomfensive
Apologise for what: On the Mohammad caricatures
Semi-related: do you know when Maryam is coming to FtB? I’d heard this rilly cool rumour, but my face is turning blue now from holding my breath…
(/I’m not, honestly, so sure it’s a great idea. It’s like: this may be just too much for one server, having all of you on the one. Mightn’t it be a problem, I wonder? Just possibly the only server in the world where the problem is keeping the thing warm enough, what with all that coolness in one place.)
Oh. Wait. There she is:
freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamazie/
… in my defense, her post *just* appeared at her own place. Like a minute ago. So I was *too* paying attention.
Solidarity against who, exactly? Do we even know who did it, let alone why? Let’s at least be careful not to advocate solidarity against all Muslims who don’t share our sense of humor; because they may not all be supporting such criminal acts.
Maryam Namazie, in solidarity with Charlie Hebdo (which planned an edition with Mohammad as guest editor), features Mohammad as a guest blogger.
Sounds pretty stupid to me, given that Mohammed has been dead for some time. It’s a bit like a Christian saying “Jesus is my co-pilot:” empty, ridiculous, and insultingly presumptuous.
I had a quick look at some of the links here, and I’m becoming concerned that atheists are being coopted by anti-Muslim bigots, and allowing themselvse to be used in support of agendas that are contrary to those of a reasonable well-meaning atheist.
I’m all in favor of criticizing all religions, including Islam, but all such criticism must be fair, honest, rational, fact-based, and based on a uniform moral standard. IF we use different standards to criticize different religions (i.e., treating Muslims as uniform and identical, or bashing Muslims for doing certain things as if they’re the only ones who do them), then we become no better than the religious, racial and ethnic bigots we rightly attack.
Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin are NOT on our side. Never let our anger at Muslim bigotry blind us to that fact.
Solidarity with the editors, against whoever did this. There should be room for doubt as to who it was, of course, but considering that they’ve just published an edition with Mohammad on the cover, something that’s been liable to piss off Muslims, and their website was just hacked by a pissed-off Muslim, it’s not unreasonable to have strong suspicions that it was, er – a pissed-off Muslim.
The point, I think, is that it’s as ridiculous as thinking that a man who’s been dead for some time can be your legislator. It’s satire – not a statement of fact.
Wut? Really? I had no idea…
… and just as I was thinking how nice it was to see Mo showing this nicely surprising side of himself, here… How the guy had really come a long way in the last 1300-odd years, after all…
(/… and just when you think you know a guy, too…)
Yeah, it’s LAME satire. Not to mention unoriginal.
The point, I think, is that it’s as ridiculous as thinking that a man who’s been dead for some time can be your legislator.
And how many Muslims actually think that of Mohammed? Do you even know what you’re talking about? If I preach and apply the teachings of a dead wise person, does that mean I think that person “can be my legislator?” No, it just means I’m trying to apply that person’s wisdom in my own actions. Muslims aren’t the only people who do this sort of thing.
Raging Bee –
There’s a considerable difference between (a) thinking someone’s moral judgements were sensible and worthy of adopting and (b) thinking someone’s teachings were so wise that they should be applied on all areas of life, regardless of the conditions in which you live, and, indeed, should be imposed on other people’s lives, regardless of whether they agree not.
A lot.
Your concern is noted.
More seriously: Bee, if you’re going to throw around a word like ‘bigot’–a word I expect we both know very well can have a pretty chilling effect on discussion–I think you’re kinda obliged to offer some pretty solid specifics, and defend that opinion a little more conscientiously than that.
Otherwise, it’s really just an easy smear, isn’t it? And exactly the kinda thing you claim to be complaining about, pretty much. Ah, these people who criticize Islam and Islamism, they’re all the same…
Oh, and I would absolutely chime in to point out that there are other religions have and do inspire some pretty nasty behaviour, and they shouldn’t be neglected. But Namazie’s focus is Namazie’s focus, and she’s got every fucking right, way I see it.
Speaking of, I’ll say this too: I really never respected this whole ‘you must be careful to criticize all religions equally’ thing as particularly, well, sane. It’s always struck me as a more than a mite suspect, more than a mite passive-aggressive, more than a mite slimy*. More than likely just a way of shutting people up, really… But ah, since you know you can’t quite say ‘shut up’ in these circles and get anywhere, the best you can do is slip it in with this nice lil’ ‘hypocrite/uneven’ insinuation.
Speaking of: it’s all well and good to caution people to inspect ’emselves for such bigotry. Never hurts to take a look at your motivations and your prejudices, no…
But, methinks, if you’re seriously that comfortable writing ‘bigot’ after this apparent ‘quick look’ of yours, I’d suggest, Bee, you take a look at the plank in thine own eye, there. ‘Cos you’re not actually reading her, seems to me. You’re more just reacting with some lizard part of your brain that sez ‘if they say critical stuff about something I associate with the disadvantaged, I shall find reasons to quibble, however silly and petty, up to and including whinging predictably about a throwaway gag about a 7th century guest blogger, since that’s nice and safe and subjective and snarking about a ‘lame’ joke is always such a safe, easily defensible play on the net… it sucks to defend a joke after that… I’ll just play that coward’s play, that’s the ticket’…
Seriously, Bee: a religion with all the state religion trappings and history and attitude doesn’t have to be dominant in your personal world to still be one huge fucking pain in the ass elsewhere.
(*/… Not to mention a mite incoherent. I mean, I presume you wouldn’t say to someone whose focus was polio ‘Look, you hypocrite: the flu’s pretty nasty, too; I’m not reading you until you talk about that, too’)
Bee –
Take a slower look. Remind yourself that there’s a difference between being anti-Islam and being anti-Muslim.
Bee, if you’re going to throw around a word like ‘bigot’–a word I expect we both know very well can have a pretty chilling effect on discussion–I think you’re kinda obliged to offer some pretty solid specifics, and defend that opinion a little more conscientiously than that.
My first bit of evidence consists of Ian MacDougall’s comments in the first thread about the bombing. Opinions like his pop up nearly every time someone writes a blog post about Mohammed cartoons: demonizing Muslims for doing things that clearly are not unique to them; treating “Islam” as an inhuman bodiless force seperate and distinct from people who are Muslim; treating all Mualims as an indistinguishable mass of fungible underhumans; and pretending only Muslims are capable of organized crime against innocent people, when my country’s entire history says otherwise.
My second bit of evidence is the “Islamic Inquisition” link above: it’s peppered with the same bogus accusations made by obvious liars and wingnuts like Gingrich and Palin. Recognizing that all religions are equal, then making an exception for Islam and pretending it’s “not just a religion;” crying about an “Islamic Inquisition,” while ignoring the fact that this “inquisition” doesn’t work the same way in all Muslim communities; blaming Muslim immigrants for certain behaviors without regard to the socio-economic conditions which may (or may not) have a role in such behaviors; and pretending only Muslims engage in organized crime, when similar things happen in just about every immigrant ethnic group (yes, Italian-American gangsters killed pesky journalists and cartoonists too.)
There’s perfectly valid and necessary criticism of Islam; and then there’s hysteria and bigotry. And the fact that we’re screaming so much about Muslim repression of free speech — when we’re not even sure who bombed this office, or why — kinda makes this whole “solidarity” thing look like the latter. Which is sad, because I respect Ophelia’s writing here, and find this response of hers beneath her normal observed level of good sense.
There are “studies” that purport to show “creeping Sharia” in US law. Those studies have been shown to be bogus and downright fraudulent (Ed Brayton covers this issue quite sensibly). Be careful who you cite.
I really never respected this whole ‘you must be careful to criticize all religions equally’ thing as particularly, well, sane. It’s always struck me as a more than a mite suspect, more than a mite passive-aggressive, more than a mite slimy*. More than likely just a way of shutting people up, really…
Well, that’s because your emotions have led you to misrepresent what I said. Here’s the exact quote: “I’m all in favor of criticizing all religions, including Islam, but all such criticism must be fair, honest, rational, fact-based, and based on a uniform moral standard.” What’s so “slimy” about saying “let’s try to keep our criticism honest?”
What response of mine do you find beneath my usual level, Bee? It’s a pretty short post.
If you seriously think Maryam has anything in common with Gingrich and Palin you’re not reading attentively.
As for the contemptuous “screaming so much about Muslim repression of free speech” – what’s your point? That there is no such thing? Mind you, I don’t call it that, and neither does Maryam; it’s Islamist rather than Muslim. But do you think there’s no such thing as Islamist repression of free speech?
Remind yourself that there’s a difference between being anti-Islam and being anti-Muslim.
I’m quite aware of that. I’m also aware that bigots are known to cherry-pick from the actions of Muslims, those actions which they wish to pretend are “representative” of “Islam.” One of the worst offenders here is Sam Harris, who takes the actions of Muslims in the most backward, isolated and war-ravaged corner of the Muslim world, and labels those actions “the true face” of a religion practiced by over a billion people from Morocco to Aldgate to Pakistan to Indonesia.
As for the contemptuous “screaming so much about Muslim repression of free speech” – what’s your point? That there is no such thing?
Did I say that? If not, then that’s not my point.
There should be room for doubt as to who it was, of course, but considering that they’ve just published an edition with Mohammad on the cover, something that’s been liable to piss off Muslims, and their website was just hacked by a pissed-off Muslim, it’s not unreasonable to have strong suspicions that it was, er – a pissed-off Muslim.
But, also considering that some of the most offensive of the original Mohammed cartoons were actually drawn by a Muslim imam to manufacture outrage where none would have occured; and considering that many Westerners are well known to manufacture outrage against Muslims by other blatantly dishonest means; it’s also not unreasonable to wait on a verdict until more facts are in. It could be a pissed-off Muslim; it could be an extremist group trying to pretend all Muslims were pissed off; or it could be a white bigot trying to stir up hatred. Or it could be a neocon trying to drum up support for yet another pointless war against another Muslim nation. So be careful, we don’t quite know whose agenda we’re playing into here.
This is Raging Bee’s hobby horse, taking issue with any criticism of Islam and reading it as shallow, unreflective paint-with-a-broad-brush bigotry. What the hell does your beef with Sam Harris have to do with what’s being discussed “here?” How is that fair?
Pointing out the co-optation of legitimate concerns about Islamist violence by bigots is legitimate. But accusing everyone of it and trying to shut down reasonable complaints is not. You do it all the time, Bee, especially at Brayton’s. Now I suppose we’re to expect to deal with this crap at B&W too?
Pro-tip: try allowing that there are reasonable people discussing these issues around these parts who are not bigots and are not allied with them. Just try it. You’d be amazed at how many of them would agree with your point about actual bigots, and would be delighted to join you. If they weren’t so sick of defending themselves against your bullshit accusations.
But, also considering that some of the most offensive of the original Mohammed cartoons were actually drawn by a Muslim imam to manufacture outrage where none would have occured…
I will. Then I’ll also remember that the home of a man who broadcast Persepolis was firebombed; the home of a man who published The Jewel of Medina was firebombed and so on.
It could be a pissed-off Muslim; it could be an extremist group trying to pretend all Muslims were pissed off; or it could be a white bigot trying to stir up hatred.
The realms of possibility accomodate that, I’ll admit. The “neocon” scenario suggests we’re drifting into the realms of fantasy, though.
Yeah, but see, Bee, the thing is, I’m just not real sure that’s what you’re really doing, here. As you’re more than a mite muddled about it, here, seems to me.
Sure, you claim it again, here. You’re just worried about ‘fair’, ‘rational’, ‘fact-based’, ‘uniform’, apparently, that’s all… But then you drop that ‘bigot’ smear on Namazie’s links, and your defense is what? That someone else said something you found problematic? And ah, then you drop this lil’ gem:
Ah, so, it’s what she didn’t say, then. My, but you’re such a helpful editor, Bee.
Tell me, where in this essay does Namazie ‘pretend only Muslims engage in organized crime’? I seem to have missed her saying so, at least in that link. Or is it that she failed to tattoo it on her forehead that yes, certain other immigrant communities have criminal elements? Or would you perhaps have settled for her wearing a t-shirt, just so you are satisfied something that must be said every time this issue arises will be?
And this bit about her not mentioning socio-economic conditions: in an essay that focuses rather more heavily on national Islamic regimes, and barely, so much as I’ve noticed, even talks particularly explicitly about immigrants and crime (I find what, one sentence that sez ‘The far-Right blames all immigrants and Muslims for the crimes of Islamism’, apart from other at best vaguely related material), it would have seemed to me a bit out of place…
… but ah, it’s something to quibble about, innit? A place to sneak in a whinge. And so here we go with ‘bigot’, again.
Oh, and Bee, just applying your standard properly here, I guess I really have to protest. You mentioned above that there are immigrant communities engage in crime. But I don’t see you quite explicitly enough saying (for my conveniently emerging tastes here, y’see) that, y’know, some don’t…
Mebbe a tattoo would help. Or a t-shirt. You bigot, you.
Moving on: you write that she ‘ignores’ that these things don’t work the same in all Islamic communities. Funny, that:
Granted, this doesn’t make it clear that not all Islamic communities or Muslims are Islamist… Ah, perhaps that‘s it. You were complaining that she fails to acknowledge that all Islamic communities or Muslims aren’t Islamist… But oh, no, wait:
See, Bee, on balance, I look at what Namazie has written, and I look at your characterization above thereof, and I don’t really see a whole lot of resemblance. And so, according to your kind request, my ‘fair’, ‘rational’, ‘fact-based’, and ‘uniform’ standards pretty much require me to call you a rather contemptible sleazeball, here. And so, much as I’m sure you thought it wasn’t too transparent a gambit to so discredit what I think we both know perfectly well is a pretty fair cop, I’m afraid it’s not that my ’emotion’ has lead me to ‘misrepresent’ what you said…
Nay, dear. The fact that I’m paying attention means I am, quite naturally, laughingly contemptuous of your comically self-servingly flattering characterization of your own behaviour, here. As it seems to me your conduct does not at all line up with that claim. As you are, in fact, yourself, none of ‘fair’, ‘rational’, ‘fact-based’. ‘Uniform’, granted, I can’t speak to, but it doesn’t seem to me much to help your case if, in fact, that’s only true because you’re always this fast and loose with that bigot smear.
And ah, yes, speaking of, do let’s bring in those who are justly seen as repugnant, and compare Namazie to them. Look: you’re just like Palin… And do you feel like human garbage, yet? You don’t feel like shutting up, yet? I guess I’d just better hope you’re a sucker enough to do so. As I only got this one smear, this handful of delivery mechanisms in which to dress it, and see, thing is, I’m just not terribly creative, otherwise.
Yeah, Bee. Palin. Gingrich. Right. Chilling effects and intent have been mentioned. And they shall be again…
… See also: Chill, baby, chill.
(/Yes, I went there.)
(I’ll admit that Bee’s theory isn’t the oddest yet. At my place someone’s suggested that they might have bombed their own offices to pocket the insurance. Again, it falls within the realms of possibility, but, then, so does the hypothesis that it was Ian Hislop trying to remove the competition.)
But accusing everyone of it and trying to shut down reasonable complaints is not. You do it all the time, Bee…
Quote me accusing EVERYONE of doing that, even once, or admit you’re full of shit.
Pro-tip: try allowing that there are reasonable people discussing these issues around these parts who are not bigots and are not allied with them.
If I didn’t allow that, I wouldn’t be hanging “around these parts” at all.
Get off it, Bee. Your MO is well-known. And tiresome.
The realms of possibility accomodate that, I’ll admit. The “neocon” scenario suggests we’re drifting into the realms of fantasy, though.
True, the latter scenario is less plausible. The reason I bring up such scenarios, is that there are governments and interest-groups in Muslim countries that have shown a desire to sabotage any rapproachment between the West and the Muslim world. (I also suspect that was a primary goal of 9/11.) Note the botched assassination attempt on US soil that seems to have been traced to Iran’s Quds Force. If the Quds Force did that, it’s not a stretch to suspect that they may also have orchestrated this bombing, either to punish the publishers, or to sow mistrust and discord between Euro-Muslims and their neighbors, or both. And if we’re too hasty to blame the wrong parties, we could end up compounding the damage done. Just because we’re right to be angry about something, doesn’t mean we don’t have to think about a proper response.
So, John, I guess that means you’re not going to back up your accusations with evidence.
Bee, did you miss the fact that I said yesterday “It’s entirely possible that some far-right group did the bombing”?
I do think it’s possible, and not all that unlikely. But it’s even less unlikely that another enraged Islamist did it. That’s hardly a rare event.
I don’t discount either of those possibilities. But if it turns out that a foreign agency did it, or someone did it under the guidance of a foreign agency, then that means we can’t consider it “representative” of the Muslim immigrants’ mindset.
This action seems to have been done in the wee hours, not when most people are awake; and it seems to have been done by one or two people, not an angry mob pouring out of a mosque, church, or funeral. That’s another reason I’m reluctant to try to pin this on some general characteristic of “Islam.” Either way, this isn’t what “Muslims” do, this isn’t what “Islam” does; it’s just what one or two people did, without needing much extra help from their neighbors.