Re: [chchskeptics] draw muhammad day
| From: | Isaac Freeman |
| Sent on: | Friday, May 14, 2010 3:30 PM |
On 14/05/2010, at 1:07 PM, Benjamin Wiseman wrote:
1/ Yes, however the creators of south park were issued death threats for depicting the prophet. The real issue is that while Muslims shouldn't care if people who do not share their religion disobey Islam. Unfortunately this is not the case as has been demonstrated all too tragically before.
First, I hope you won't misunderstand me: I'm not talking about there being any kind of moral equivalence between publishing cartoons and issuing death threats. Death threats should be taken seriously, and condemned by Muslims and non-Muslims alike. I don't think the crime is mitigated by provocation. But neither do I think the provocation is ethically neutral just because there was a criminal response.
I'm not a Muslim, and there's a limit to what I can do directly to deal with radical groups who use Islam. They're not going to listen to me personally. The people on the front lines of this debate are mainstream Muslims. Imams preaching tolerance to their own congregations. Experienced Muslims talking calmly with teenagers who've read radical pamphlets. People sitting on committees to decide whether the local Muslim Association should accept funding from a Saudi Wahabbist charity. Pakeha Muslims who demonstrate by example that Islam isn't about race or nationality, or any of the other hot-button issues that radical groups try to associate it with.
The best thing I can do to support these people is acknowledge that they exist, that they're the mainstream, and that I don't have a problem with them. If I pretend all Muslims are the same, or that the reasonable Muslims aren't True Muslims, then I'll only reinforce the message being pushed by the minority radical groups. It will also help if demonstrate respect for views I don't have a problem with at the same time as I speak against those I do.
I should also point out that many depictions of Muhammad appear in Islamic literature, so I wouldn't say "they" were upset by the act of depiction, moreover by criticism being applied to their religion.
I would say the offense lay in the deliberate provocation. There's a long history of reasoned, thoughtful criticism of Islam practice and belief (including by Muslims), but it doesn't provoke much anger, because that's clearly not its intent. The Danish cartoons were much easier to whip up a frenzy about, because they were deliberately intended to offend. I think there's a practical difference between criticising and baiting.
2/ An obscure newspaper does still have the right to publish what it wants, including criticism of any religion. If it is offensive, don't buy it. The fact remains that the Jyllands-Posten publication was a legitimate exercise of free speech. If the newspaper devolves into marginalized racism then so be it, while it may keep a few readers, it will likely run it self out of business.
Granted, they had the right to publish. Likewise, you have the right to sit in the Square and draw pictures of Muhammad. I just don't think it serves the overall goal of defending freedom, because it undercuts the moderate Muslims who have the best chance to deal effectively with radicalism.
Additionally, The claim of a public appeal is unfounded. The cartoons were submitted by 12 professional cartoonists. The cartoons were a far cry from a blatant attempt at being offensive.
Sorry if I've got the details wrong. My point was that the newspaper didn't just accidentally publish the cartoons. It was a calculated attempt to provoke a reaction.
I've seen the National Front attempt the same tactics in Christchurch. They used to front up to public concerts against racism and stand at the edge of the crowd in formation, saying nothing and waiting for someone to hurl abuse at them. Sure enough, eventually someone would do so, and they'd get a little ring of angry people around them. Their objective, of course, was to get someone to throw a bottle at them so that the papers would report a fight between twenty people instead of a peaceful concert attended by thousands. Fortunately that didn't happen,
3/ This was no more bulling than any other form of satire given to any social group, politician, or religion. Over 100 people were murdered in the ensuing tantrum (including as far as I am aware one of the cartoonists), this was far from a few minor protests by a bullied few.
I'm not at all interested in defending the attacks. They were unexcusable, and much worse than the publishing of the cartoons. I'm just not willing to buy into the notion that there's an epic battle being fought over freedom of speech with all Muslims in the world on one side and everybody else on the other. You don't help the cause of freedom by pretending its enemies are more numerous than they really are.
(For convenience and tidiness I have not quoted you and have continued with numeric points)
4/ Yes, I am advocating making an issue of it, as has already been stated, it is imperative to send the message that terrorism will not be effective.
The way to deal effectively with terrorism is to respect moderates. People don't choose terrorism if they feel they have a choice. It's dangerous and unpleasant and fairly obviously self-defeating. It only seems a viable option in circumstances where the "enemy" can be portrayed as implacable and unreasoning. To fight terrorism effectively, you isolate the terrorists and talk to the moderates.
5/ Is thunderf00ts video emotional? Yes, it is also very honest and pulls no punches. Granted he does get caught up in his emotion which I will concede, is an awful tactic, I still found it worth while. Sure, we can nit pick for hyperboles and such he used to make his video appeal to a broader audience, however the point he was (probably) trying to make was one of the importance of rational inquiry, and the great advances it has brought the world.
Forgive me if I misunderstand, but this seems like an ends-justify-the-means argument. That is, in order to defend rationality, it is acceptable for thunderf00t to use irrational tactics. The fact that he's willing to throw rationality away so easily in the short term makes me doubt his commitment to it in the long run.
6/ Fear mongering seems an overstatement. Conscious raising in a controversial way, sure but it's far from writing "the Muslims will kill you in your sleep". If anything it is a statement against the fear generated by terrorism by blatantly defying those who use fear as a political tool.
What I mean is that by blurring the very important distinction between Muslims and terrorists, it encourages people to fear not just terrorists who call themselves Muslims, but anybody who calls him or herself a Muslim. Thunderf00t doesn't allow for the existence of Muslims who don't want to destroy freedom of speech. But these are not only the majority of Muslims, but also the ones who can do most to defend freedom of speech itself.
I was not suggesting that this should be an official thing,
Thanks. I do appreciate your clarifying this. I'm not interested in challenging your freedom to draw cartoons of Muhammad. My personal interest lies only in not wanting to be identified with it inadvertently because we both happen to be skeptics. Beyond that, I can only express my opinion that it's not a good idea.
For the record, this is not an abstract issue for me. I'm a Baha'i, and my religion has a similar practice of not creating images of our founder (there are several photographs and one drawing in existence, and we're not forbidden to see them, but we don't keep them in our homes or publish them ourselves). I'm also involved with the local interfaith movement, so I interact with moderate Muslims quite often. And I'm the editor of a local comics anthology. I've never has an artist give me a cartoon of Muhammad, but if they did I'd be the one making a judgement about whether to publish it.
Isaac Freeman
Web Design & Development
[address removed] ++64 21 1511209 AIM: isaacfreem
