Allah directs my attention to what I’ve come to expect will be the typical response to Muslim rioting over cartoon depictions of Mohammed from the “progressive”, soft-socialistic side of our contentious philosophical divide over autonomy vs. group identity here at home. From University of Southern California Center on Public Diplomacy research associate Reza Aslan, concluding his Slate essay, “Picturing to Depicting”:
[…] as a Muslim American I am enraged by the publication of these cartoons. Not because they offend my prophet or my religion, but because they fly in the face of the tireless efforts of so many civic and religious leadersâ€â€both Muslim and non-Muslimâ€â€to promote unity and assimilation rather than hatred and discord; because they play into the hands of those who preach extremism; because they are fodder for the clash-of-civilizations mentality that pits East against West. For all of that I blame Jyllands-Posten. We in the West want Muslim leaders to condemn the racial and religious prejudices that are so widespread in the Muslim world. Let us lead by example.
[My emphases]
On the surface, Aslan—not so subtly noting his authority to speak on this question (“as a Muslim-American I am enraged”)—seems to be arguing that, for his perspective, the problem with the publication of the illustrations is not so much the fact of the cartoons themselves (as somehow demanding of the current violent response), as it is the unfortunate ancillary consideration that the choice to publicize them, from a strategic standpoint of fighting a culture war (one that then Aslan ironically downplays), only helps those more radical Islamists who have gained the upper hand in the current identity politics war, the ones who have managed to put an official extremist face on official Islam.
All of which would seem to jibe with the idea that the battle over control of the face of Islam is essential—something I’ve been trying to explore from a structural perspective in my series of posts on the subject.
But a closer look reveals that Aslan’s complaint is not at all similar to my own; rather, he seems more upset that his particular camp in the battle over defining the group (“they fly in the face of the tireless efforts of so many civic and religious leadersâ€â€both Muslim and non-Muslimâ€â€to promote unity and assimilation rather than hatred and discord”) is losing the battle than he does with the paradigm that allows for the legitimacy of such a battle of will to power in the first place.
Ironically, the message Aslan sends is the correct one: we should indeed be, here in the west, working to “promote unity and assimilation rather than hatred and discord.” But sadly, Aslan misses the importance of his own ostensible dictate: as with, say, legal conservatives’ views on juridical decision making, it matters just as much how we get there as where we end up, for reasons that become apparent when the slow structural imperatives that guide us to rigorously-considered conclusions are surrendered to the impatience and expediency of those who wish to hurry the process along out of idealism alone, a strategy that leaves gaping holes for unintended consequences. For Aslan, the publication of those cartoons served as a provocation, one he suggests prevents moderates from making headway against extremism (though he doesn’t explain how; several commentators have already called into question the underlying premise of the purported abuse of doctrinal Islam) —rather than acting, performatively, as an expression of the interconnectedness of free speech with freedom of religion (specifically, the freedom to parody or satirize religion), which is one of the great strengths of liberal democracy, especially insofar as it promotes and actual vs. a superficial grounds for tolerance. And as Allah asks in his email, “How is this different from a wife-beater [or maybe his brother or cousin Terry, enablers both] blaming his wife’s “provocations” for the trouble in the marriage?”
The answer is, there is no difference. To point out that “provocation” simply empowers the bullies is to surrender to their bullying. Instead, the west needs to stay confident and recognize that the kind of tolerance that Aslan is promoting here—a tolerance that requires of us always to be on guard against giving offense to those we are seeking to undermine, lest their power and influence grow—is the precise wrong strategy, and is a “tolerance” that is in its very nature “intolerant.”
The idea of universal freedom needs to be reiterated and defended, not mollified for the sake of some tenuous diplomatic advance—particularly when that advance is simply another gambit within the identity politics paradigm (here “authentic” Muslims as tolerant moderate, provided their core beliefs are left unmolested by western Others). And the reason this defense is so important is because in the end, it is the very confidence in ones convictions that wins the battle—particularly when those convictions carry with them the happy coincidence of being “true,” or, if you prefer, globally< preferable within a paradigm that promotes useful "tolerance".
****
related: via Jihad Watch (by way of MEMRI): “Let Them Eat Dates” (h/t Tom Pechinski)
Reza Aslan has made an interesting career out of being a spin doctor for extremists:
<a href=”http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18062″ target=”_blank”>
Well, I screwed that up. Anyway, make with the cut’n’paste and you’ll see what I mean. I knew that same sounded familiar as soon as I saw it up top.
Upon reflection, it wasn’t fair of me to equate Aslan with the wife-beater in that analogy; he’s not the one throwing punches, after all. He’s more like the wife-beater’s brother, who admits that yeah, sure, his bro’s not the nicest guy, but what do you expect when that bitch he’s married to keeps antagonizing him?
Also, in case anyone’s wondering whether I chose a metaphor that equates the West with an abused woman simply because I know it’ll drive Jeff’s feminist critics crazy: I’ll never tell.
But it’s a comfort to know that if Amanda Marcotte were to try to kill me because of it, Reza Aslan would be right there to blame me for provoking her. Because, hey—that bitch Allah had it coming.
Assimilation of who by whom? Aslan appears to be saying that cultural assimilation can only take place here as long as radical Muslim members of a Western society essentially aren’t required to conform to any of that Western society’s most basic and fundamental tenets–rather, everyone else is expected to cut them a wide berth and be careful not to test their nonexistent commitment to the social contract. In what way is that really ‘assimilation’? A large part of joining the liberal (small l) world is acknowledging the right of others to free speech without physical intimidation, regardless of how vile or blasphemous you may find it. If you don’t acknowledge that principle, then you simply can’t be considered a lawful member of a liberal society. Does Aslan think that a stable world can be built on two groups of people nominally under one law, but one of which simply never breaks the law because the other is always scrupulously careful not to give them any opportunity or ‘provocation’ to do so? He calls that assimilation? Ridiculous–he just wants to replace legal bars on freedom of speech with self-censorship. Which is a kind of assimilation, perhaps–but in the wrong direction.
Here’s how “inauthentic” Muslims are reacting to the cartoon controversy.
An interesting political/economic/technology blog here. Something for everyone.
I’d believe that guy if he could point to any examples of “unity and assimilation” spearheaded or even tolerated by any substantial part of any Muslim community. They are simply pre-Enlightenment barbarians. In a thousand years Islam, if it is studied at all, will be relegated to a footnote on crazy Judeo-Christian heresies. They are anathema!
Re: “Clash of Civilizations”
Primus: You’re gonna get beat like a rented mule and you know it. Hence the histronics.
Secundus: Fuck you anyway. You think that shit was insulting? We’re just gettin’ warmed up, assholes.
Tertius: Put that in yer hookah and suck on it.
SB: coming
Uh-Oh. My Two Year old will incite riots
Here
Wow…not to promote violence, but one wonders if you could go down to the local mosque, shoot everyone in sight and blow it up, then claim that one was “provoked” by the horrifying images of men being beheaded, women and children being blown up and the dead tortured, sometimes headless armless, bodies of men, women and children due to suicide bombers?
Maybe one could claim that being called an infidel one too many times was an unprovoked offensive provocation?
Or, as a woman, the site of my veiled, cowed and ill treated sisters was just one too many provocations along with the hangings, beatings and honor rapes?
I don’t know. I am feeling really provoked right now.
Lotta invective for Aslan here. Somoeone needs to reread Narnia.
From the Belmont club:
And now it turns out that these cartoons have been circulated in the Muslim world, in Egyptian newspapers to be precise, as far back as October 2005. Amir Taheri says the Multiculti “intellectuals” have been humbugged. Taken. Sold some phony interpretation of Islam the way you would take a rube to the Olive Garden for Italian food, Taco Bell for Mexican, or serve up chop-suey and General Tso chicken as authentic Chinese cuisine. According to Taheri the whole “you can’t portray Mohammed” injunction was largely drummed up by snake-oil salesmen who found a ready market of people ready to fall all over themselves in the West.
As an American-American, I think Reza’s rage is less important than he thinks it is.
Well there you go.. irritating those special muslims. Why oh why can’t you see it adds hurt and discord to life?
TW: we realy all know better
realy has two ells but what of it.
TW: york…now this is getting weird.
But it’s a comfort to know that if Amanda Marcotte were to try to kill me because of it, Reza Aslan would be right there to blame me for provoking her. Because, heyâ€â€that bitch Allah had it coming.
Ha! Allah you are so evil…
Yeah. Like Scarlett O’Hara.
(Pilin’ it on.)
I kind of like the way this is going. I’m too old and way to lazy to ride in the back of a HUMV with a 50 cal., but I still have the energy to whip out a cartoon or two now and then.
TW: part…just trying to do my part.
Mrph. It’s not so much (pace Taheri) that the ban on portrayals of Muhammed was just made up as a sort of in-joke on multicultural figures, as that it’s not Islam-wide. It’s very specific. To a particular sect. Which has a lot of other “sensitivities” and properties that aren’t necessarily typical of traditional Islam. Yes… it’s our friends the Wahhabis again!
(Wahhabism is very iconoclastic, and this extends to portraits of prophets.)
Unfortunately, Wahhabism has gotten really popular in the “Muslim belt” countries, as we know, in some cases partially displacing older Islamic interpretations. Which is a large part of this our present problem. The hysteria about the cartoons is, in part, a measure of how popular it’s gotten in Europe as well. Sigh.
But even if the proscription against images of Mohammed were Islam-wide, it’d still be absolutely both permissible and appropriate for (at least!) Western newspapers to produce such images. This is what we are. We are the liberal West because we allow freedom of expression even in the teeth of violent protests.
Back after 9/11, I made the mistake of telling a very leftist friend, a philosophy prof, that I didn’t need to understand any more than I already did about “why they hate us.” What I meant, as I eventually made explicit (it was obvious to me but evidently not to her – she emailed me one of those “surprised and disappointed” responses), was that it was clear that those who perpetrated 9/11 on us stood against the freedoms that make us what we are, and, knowing that, it was unnecessary to “understand” their hatred further, because to accommodate them would require us to become something other than what we are. Clash of civilizations, in short.
I wasn’t and am not condemning all of Islam, nor was I nor am I discounting whatever elements of economics apply to this conflict – but helping to establish and providing enthusiastic support for a system wherein “have-nots” are given the fair opportunity to become “haves” seems like a more equitable solution all around than making us “have-nots” too, it not being a zero-sum game and all. What’s non-negotiable for me is our foundational tenets. Darn Wahhabists.
The hyphens are getting out of control.
Moslem-American?
Great, now do we have to add in religion to everybody? So are there Christian-Americans? Atheist-Americans? What about Agnostic-Scottish-Iranian-Americans? How about Catholic-German-Italian-ApplePie-Americans?
This is just getting way silly.
As for another thread I do hope the Mighty Mustache (wait, is Bolton a Mustache-American?) wins the peace prize!
This&That
It doesn’t make sense that while WE are waiting for the fanatical muslims to catch up to the 21st century , we follow their rules. But that, apparently, what people like Aslan want.
Those who kowtow to bullies will forever be beset by them. This cartoon thing isn’t about the cartoons, it’s about power. This is just another turn around history’s dance floor with Islam (militant or otherwise) calling the tune.
Maybe somebody can clear something up for me. I have seen the cartoons in question. Take the one of the bearded guy with a bomb in his turban. Why is that guy Muhammed anyway? Cartoons are caricatures…how can you have a caricature of a forbidden image?
Noah…the image with the turban and bomb is probably the more, shall we say, in your face commentary about Mohammed and Islam than the rest because the yellow insignia on his turban is actually Islamic calligraphy which denotes Mohammed. I am not an expert but I believe that the phrase on his turban is the “There is no God, but Allah and Mohammed is his Messenger” also known as the “Rasoul” (sp?).
Interestingly, I believe that the original article that accompanied that drawing was simply a commentary on the coming possible explosion within Islam.
John Locke spoke to this…
http://www.claremont.org/writings/040908foster.html
I just simplify it and call ‘em all Offended-Americans.
Well, maybe none of this would have happened if Allah had gotten his new <a href = “http://bigpharaoh.blogspot.com/” >10 Commandments </a> here sooner.
I guess he didn’t use FedEx.
Papa Ray
West Texas
USA
http://www.john-leech-archive.org.uk/1856/crimean-war-10.htm