Guest post by Leo Igwe.
People across the world are slowly being coerced into treating Islam with ‘respect’ or, better, with fear. We are gradually getting to a point where criticising the Islamic faith is a form of death sentence.
The reason which some people give for this ugly development is that ‘Many people believe in Islam.’ They say: ‘There are over I billion muslims in the world’. And my question is: And so what? That billions of people, including children, youths, illiterates and semi illiterates, profess Islam or believe that something is true does not make it true, does it? Billions of people have held mistaken, absurd and irrational claims over the centuries and still do. Majority can carry the vote but not ‘the truth’
Personally I do not understand what ‘respecting’ religion or Islam in this case means.
If one does not profess a religion, how is one expected to respect it? If one has a different idea of a religion, what does respecting that faith mean? When people say one should respect a religion, do they mean one should embrace it? Or one should not question it? I guess they mean that nobody is expected to poke fun at that religion…or let us be specific, nobody is expected to cartoon or make caricature of Pr. Muhammad. Does that include those who do not profess Islam? Those who think Muhammad is not a prophet? Those who are of the view that Islam is founded on 7th century Arabian cultural mythologies?
The reason they give is that cartooning Muhammad is offensive to Muslims. What is interesting is that this time nobody bothers to find out which group of Muslims – the extremists or moderates – is being offended. Any one who tries doing today something that can be interpreted to be offensive to ‘Muslims’ may be killed. And to some people, this is justifiable. I mean, in which way is it justifiable to kill a human being for drawing Muhammad, for burning the Quran or for doing any thing that can be interpreted (most times by fanatics) as insulting Islam? How is drawing Muhammad an insult, a form of disrespect? If a person does not want to draw Muhammad out of faith, another person wants to do so out of curiosity or as an expression of art. What is wrong with that? Why should anybody be killed because of that?
For me this is arrant nonsense. This is lunacy masquerading as piety. This is barbarism being mistaken as civilisation. Why? Every religion is a caricature of other religions. Just try doing a reality check of religious teachings and you would find out that religious business thrives on absurdity, fantasy and contradiction. For instance, to believe that Jesus is the saviour of the world makes a caricature of the belief that Muhammad is the greatest prophet and vice versa. Believing that the Koran was revealed by God (Allah) ridicules the idea that the Bible is the word of God, and so on.
Actually all religions are in the business of making caricatures of themselves. So what is special about Islam in this case? What is special about Pr. Muhammad? What is special about the Quran? Islam is not the only religion in the world. Islam is not the first religion and will not be the last. Pr. Muhammad was not the first or the last prophet, though some Muslims would disagree. The Quran is not the only ‘holy’ book out there that thrives on treachery. The Quran is not the only ‘sacred text’ which humans finished writing at a time and later claimed it was revealed by Allah, just to make us believe what is written in it…even when some of the things contained in the text are not what a thinking and intelligent human being in this 21st century should believe.
More importantly, Christianity and Islam owe their growth and spread in Africa to poking fun at African traditional religious beliefs and practices. African traditionalists have not rioted or resorted to killing and burning embassies in protest because christian and islamic missionaries insulted their religion or made a caricature of their gods. I mean, making caricature of traditional religious ‘prophets’ and beliefs is the pastime of christian and islamic preachers and missionaries in the region. Just go to any of the churches and mosques in Nigeria or Malawi, Mali, Ghana or Senegal and listen to their pastors and Imams talk about traditional religious beliefs. Just try and listen to the sermons and preachings of people who are replacing a set of superstitions with another ridicule the ‘idols’ and ‘fetish gods’ which they say Africans worship. Many churches and mosques in Africa are built on traditional sacred sites, on the ashes of burnt sacred objects. Is that not desecration? Why has nobody categorised this as offensive? What muslim scholars, missionaries and their sympathizers in Africa and around the globe are telling Traditional Africans is this: ”We can make caricature of your religion, poke fun at your gods and prophets, burn and destroy your sacred sites and symbols, but if you dare poke fun at Islam, cartoon Pr. Mohammad, criticise or desecrate the Quran, we will kill you.
Personally I don’t get this. Yes I don’t. Do you?
No. No I don’t get it either. Well writ.
Does it matter?
Surely the only fact of any importance is this: if you do it, they might kill you.
You’re kind of answering your own question, really, aren’t you?
[meta]
sonofrojblake @2:
I don’t share your certitude — are you suggesting that unless some group will kill you for doing something, their expressed opinions about that something are unimportant facts to you?
It is the way of rhetorical questions that they’re not really questions.
Pretty much, yes. I don’t give a monkey’s about their opinions – why would I? I do, however, care a lot about their actions.
I’m making the assumption that the “something” I’m doing is legal, and that their expression of their opinions doesn’t include violence, harassment or any other kind of illegal activity. But yes, absolutely – if I (for instance) tell a joke, and a certain group are offended by that joke, then to quote Stephen Fry, so fucking what? If I’m joking about what they believe, it’s more or less axiomatic that I don’t care what they think, isn’t it?
[meta + OT]
sonofrojblake @4, I appreciate your clarification.
Interesting that I am less amoral than you.
That’s precisely the sentiment I have seen expressed in a particularly slimy place.
It’s precisely the sentiment I’ve seen expressed here, repeatedly.
Example: http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2015/05/when-muslim-students-complained-about-posters/#more-19693
Quote: “Observant Muslims can go right ahead and consider any kind of physical representation of Muhammad off-limits to themselves, if they want to, but they do not have the right to impose that silly and childish rule on anyone else… It’s all bullshit. It’s touchy, short-fuse, looking-for-grievances bullshit”
[meta + OT]
sonofrojblake @6, I don’t think so.
Your claim is that you care about what someone thinks about your actions only to the degree that their averse reaction might cause you harm, the other is about a limitation of personal rights.
(Or: morally, the one is a principle and the other a determination)
sonofrojblake @4
If I’m joking about what they believe, it’s more or less axiomatic that I don’t care what they think, isn’t it?
No, it’s not. That’s just wrong and most certainly not axiomatic. You’re going to have to form an argument to support this conclusion. That’s not to say that this can’t be the case, but I’m going to suggest that there are other possibilities. Why can’t one think that the belief is laughable (and thus joke about it) while still caring what the person thinks?
For example, my father has some laughable beliefs. He picked up this idea over a year ago that Russia may invade the United States like they did Crimea because there are Russians living in the United States. Totally ridiculous. Totally joke worthy. So you think that means I don’t care what my father thinks???
I would contend that it depends on the belief, and possibly on the person. For instance, if my mother believed her iPad works by sucking fairy dust out of the computer, well, I don’t care what she thinks about anything to do with technology because she’s clearly entirely incompetent in that area. I guess I still care what she thinks about ME, because of who she is… up to a point, but again, that level of care is filtered through my opinion of her as a person and the weight I might place upon her opinion is contingent on that. But her opinion on the workings of the iPad doesn’t define her entirely as a person – it’s a quirk of her ignorance.
Islam is different. Its own followers are at pains to point out every time they’re given the chance that it’s not a religion, it’s an entire way of life. A Muslim – EVERY Muslim, they tell us – is a Muslim FIRST, and a mother/father/doctor/lawyer/American/Saudi a very distant second. It’s not some eccentric quirk they have, it’s not some tiny blindspot. It’s everything they believe, the lens through which they see the universe. The same goes for Christians, if they’re “proper” Christians like those in the US rather than the wishy-washy variety we have in the UK – y’know, loonies.
I have considered whether it’s likely I might ever be able to know one of these dolts well enough to care on some level what they think of me, and I have concluded that no, I couldn’t.
I can’t comment on your relationship with your father, but if my father was a devout [insert religion] then no, I definitely would not care what he thought about anything. Why would I? It would be tiresome trying to care what everyone thought about me. I value the opinions of perhaps a hundred people. Beyond that, so long as you stay off my lawn, I couldn’t care less what any of the rest of you think of me. Again – why would I?
Why would anyone give a monkey’s about anyone’s opinions? It depends on what you’re doing, doesn’t it. If you’re just talking to yourself, then no reason. But if you’re attempting to argue and/or persuade – or to amuse, or to interest, or to inform, or to enrich – etc – then there are many reasons.
Rejecting other people’s attempts to impose their religious taboos on the whole world is not at all the same thing as being or claiming to be indifferent to opinions in general. sonof wouldn’t bother typing all these comments if he were entirely indifferent to our opinions.
Excellent article, Leo, as always!
I think one real way there could be respect for others’ opinions/beliefs/whatever — NOT shutting down everything offensive to somebody everywhere — would be to make sure people don’t have to stumble across the things they don’t like. I’d hate to have Rush Limbaugh piped at me everywhere, for instance. Well, anywhere, actually.
I know this isn’t what the in-your-face believers want, but what I’m suggesting is that any expression that is not in-your-face cannot (within the normal bounds of free speech) be considered offensive. That kind of expression, such as Charlie Hebdo, where you need to get the magazine or access the web site to see what they say, is showing all the respect necessary.
(Does this mean ads you can’t avoid are potentially unprotected offensive speech? Yes, it does, but that’s another story.)