In the WSJ, “inauthentic” Iranian Amir Taheri offers his insights into the current (manufactured) cartoon controversy:
“The Muslim Fury,” one newspaper headline screamed. “The Rage of Islam Sweeps Europe,” said another. “The clash of civilizations is coming,” warned one commentator. All this refers to the row provoked by the publication of cartoons of the prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper four months ago. Since then a number of demonstrations have been held, mostly–though not exclusively–in the West, and Scandinavian embassies and consulates have been besieged.
But how representative of Islam are all those demonstrators? The “rage machine” was set in motion when the Muslim Brotherhood—a political, not a religious, organization—called on sympathizers in the Middle East and Europe to take the field. A fatwa was issued by Yussuf al-Qaradawi, a Brotherhood sheikh with his own program on al-Jazeera. Not to be left behind, the Brotherhood’s rivals, Hizb al-Tahrir al-Islami (Islamic Liberation Party) and the Movement of the Exiles (Ghuraba), joined the fray. Believing that there might be something in it for themselves, the Syrian Baathist leaders abandoned their party’s 60-year-old secular pretensions and organized attacks on the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus and Beirut.
The Muslim Brotherhood’s position, put by one of its younger militants, Tariq Ramadan—who is, strangely enough, also an adviser to the British home secretary—can be summed up as follows: It is against Islamic principles to represent by imagery not only Muhammad but all the prophets of Islam; and the Muslim world is not used to laughing at religion. Both claims, however, are false.
There is no Quranic injunction against images, whether of Muhammad or anyone else. When it spread into the Levant, Islam came into contact with a version of Christianity that was militantly iconoclastic. As a result some Muslim theologians, at a time when Islam still had an organic theology, issued “fatwas” against any depiction of the Godhead. That position was further buttressed by the fact that Islam acknowledges the Jewish Ten Commandments—which include a ban on depicting God—as part of its heritage. The issue has never been decided one way or another, and the claim that a ban on images is “an absolute principle of Islam” is purely political. Islam has only one absolute principle: the Oneness of God. Trying to invent other absolutes is, from the point of view of Islamic theology, nothing but sherk, i.e., the bestowal on the Many of the attributes of the One.
The claim that the ban on depicting Muhammad and other prophets is an absolute principle of Islam is also refuted by history. Many portraits of Muhammad have been drawn by Muslim artists, often commissioned by Muslim rulers.
[…]
Some of these can be seen in museums within the Muslim world, including the Topkapi in Istanbul, and in Bokhara and Samarkand, Uzbekistan, and Haroun-Walat, Iran (a suburb of Isfahan). Visitors to other museums, including some in Europe, would find miniatures and book illuminations depicting Muhammad, at times wearing his Meccan burqa (cover) or his Medinan niqab (mask). There have been few statues of Muhammad, although several Iranian and Arab contemporary sculptors have produced busts of the prophet. One statue of Muhammad can be seen at the building of the U.S. Supreme Court, where the prophet is honored as one of the great “lawgivers” of mankind.
There has been other imagery: the Janissaries–the elite of the Ottoman army —
carried a medallion stamped with the prophet’s head (sabz qaba). Their Persian Qizilbash rivals had their own icon, depicting the head of Ali, the prophet’s son-in-law and the first Imam of Shiism. As for images of other prophets, they run into millions. Perhaps the most popular is Joseph, who is presented by the Quran as the most beautiful human being created by God.Now to the second claim, that the Muslim world is not used to laughing at religion. That is true if we restrict the Muslim world to the Brotherhood and its siblings in the Salafist movement, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al Qaeda. But these are all political organizations masquerading as religious ones. They are not the sole representatives of Islam, just as the Nazi Party was not the sole representative of German culture. Their attempt at portraying Islam as a sullen culture that lacks a sense of humor is part of the same discourse that claims “suicide martyrdom” as the highest goal for all true believers.
The truth is that Islam has always had a sense of humor and has never called for chopping heads as the answer to satirists. Muhammad himself pardoned a famous Meccan poet who had lampooned him for more than a decade. Both Arabic and Persian literature, the two great literatures of Islam, are full of examples of “laughing at religion,” at times to the point of irreverence. Again, offering an exhaustive list is not possible. But those familiar with Islam’s literature know of Ubaid Zakani’s “Mush va Gorbeh” (Mouse and Cat), a match for Rabelais when it comes to mocking religion. Sa’adi’s eloquent soliloquy on behalf of Satan mocks the “dry pious ones.” And Attar portrays a hypocritical sheikh who, having fallen into the Tigris, is choked by his enormous beard. Islamic satire reaches its heights in Rumi, where a shepherd conspires with God to pull a stunt on Moses; all three end up having a good laugh.
Islamic ethics is based on “limits and proportions,” which means that the answer to an offensive cartoon is a cartoon, not the burning of embassies or the kidnapping of people designated as the enemy. Islam rejects guilt by association. Just as Muslims should not blame all Westerners for the poor taste of a cartoonist who wanted to be offensive, those horrified by the spectacle of rent-a-mob sackings of embassies in the name of Islam should not blame all Muslims for what is an outburst of fascist energy.
[My emphases]
Taheri—whose knowledge on the subject of Islam far outstrips my own—nevertheless intimates with his essay the very kernel of the argument I’ve been making: namely, that the “branding” of what is “official” Islam can only be settled by a will to power, and by an adherence to identity politics that allows for the strong (often armed or more devoutly militant) within a particular identity group to claim control over that group’s narrative and become its public face.
Dissenters, once internecine battles have been settled, are then marginalized or excommunicated. They are inauthentic (as Taheri has been called) or (in other contexts) are “race traitors” or women “in denial” of their own oppression.
Taheri’s piece one again, I think, exposes the danger of identity politics—whose devious popularity is owing to its usefulness as a way to gather large and disparate numbers of individuals into manageable political forces, which—particularly in an electoral system like ours where polling and logistical analysis has reduced election outcomes to key targeted demographics—has proven invaluable as a tool for gaining power.
And indeed, Taheri outlines fairly clearly how certain motivated factions can fairly easily take control of a group’s narrative simply by making the concerted effort to do so: After all, the vast majority of Muslims (or any mass of people) are not as invested in such a desire for political power as are those who show a willingness to organize and put together such orchestrated propaganda campaigns as we are now seeing in opposition to the western depictions of Mohammed in cartoon form.
But the lesson we in the west need to take from this is that we should never sacrifice the difficulty of “managing” (from a social or governmental perspective) individualism for the ease and expediency of bloc power; because doing so practically demands two particularly pernicious social outcomes—first, it detroys actual and useful diversity (the diversity inherent in individualism) in the name of a superficial, birds-eye view of diversity (the diversity represented by easily identifiable groups); and second, such a surrender reinforces the underlying philosophy that gives it its power in the first place: namely, that when groups are allowed to define their own narratives and claim sole ownership over those narratives, they have successfully cleared the ground for dismissing “outside” criticism as uninformed, meddlesome “hegemony,” and so have set the stage for a global social relativism that will then be fought solely based on power and rhetoric (while stripping from “rhetoric” the appeal to universal norms that should be closely held by all free men and women).
And that is why in an earlier post I pointed out that the real clash of civilizations is happening, in an important way, between progressivism (which, for Machiavellian political and ideological purposes embraces the collectivism of identity politics, with its top down message structure masquerading as a defense of the disenfranchised and powerless) and classical liberalism, which continues to assert individualism and universal freedoms, which in turn is reinforced by a conception of “meaning” that eminates from individual actors responsibile for their actions.
In my introduction to his piece, I ironically referred to Taheri as an “inauthentic” Iranian; but this is sadly true in a sociopolitical ethos whose philosophy of (often rhetorically and semantically disguised) collectivism undergirds and validates the sociopolitical justification for such dangerous social experiments as hard multiculturalism—which has proven to amount to nothing more than warring grievance cultures vying for political power, often through extralegalistic means, within a central but non-assimilated geographical locale. Iran is currently one such country, whose identity as an increasingly radicalized and dangerous theocratic state is growing ever more ossified by the face it projects—a face created and maintained by force and will.
(h/t Terry Hastings)
related: “How Muslim Clerics Stirred the Arab World Against Denmark”; see also, Austin Bay at Strategy Page and on his blog—as well as Powerline, Meryl Yourish, and INDC Journal (h/t IP)
Co-ordinating … David Warren’s Organized apoplexy.
The appaling laziness of CNN, et al, is that you would never know there was any position contrary to the enraged Muslims. Too hard, I guess, to do any actual research work (including reading a blog or two)to find out the simplistic line of crap pushed by the “protestors” is so easily disproven. Bah.
Jeff, you should consider putting this ongoing series of posts together, ala Bill Whittle, into book form. This should be diseminated as widely as possible. And if you made a buck or two along the way…
“Pardoned a famous Meccan poet who had lampooned him…”
Think about that statement. In other words, Muhammad decided not to kill him for making fun of him. Can anyone point to anywhere in the Bible where Jesus ever decided to “pardon someone”, i.e., not KILL them for making fun of him? How about Abraham? Issac? Jacob? I’m not talking about followers such as the Spanish Inquisition (who naturally, no one expects), or even radical Islamists that may not be so kind. I’m talking about the main guy, the big kahuna, the numero uno.
Oh…but that’s right, Islam is a religion of “Peace” just like Christianity or Judaism right?
To paraphrase Slim “Taggart” Pickens: You use your keyboard prettier than a twenty-dollar whore.
If, you know, twenty-dollar whores used keyboards and stuff.
Seriously: You, Sir, are a bloody fookin’ genius!
Iraqthemodel says the same thing about jokes and about the political aspect of this event. Only the media/policy elites of the USA and the Arab theocracies are ignoring this. Iran and their enablers, the western media, have one thing in common: they are coercive states who rule by force rather than consent.
Meanwhile, the NYT today instructs us on how imagery can provoke violence–again not printing the offensive cartoons, but printing the Dung Virgin Mary instead!!
Shhhhh!
Don’t tell Jeff .. it’ll do irreparable damage.
Can anyone point to anywhere in the Bible where Jesus ever decided to “pardon someoneâ€Â, i.e., not KILL them for making fun of him?<blockquote>
You know, one thing I’ve noticed is that Christians aren’t very knowledgeable about Christianity.
There’s no correlation possible between Mohammed(pb&J)and Jesus as Jesus is the Son of God and, presumably, divine.
Mohammed isn’t.
A better analog for the current problem, and one Jeff may know quite a lot about offhand given where he lives, is Mohammed/Joseph Smith.
For example, Mohammed and Smith each claimed he was chosen by God to speak for Him.
Each religion has followers of varying degrees of zealotry.
Both religions have had cartoons made about their founders.
Yet, Salt Lake City rarely makes it into the papers due to riots.
But, Mohammed isn’t the equivalent of ‘Jesus – Son of God’
Moreover, there’s the Elisha example, in which some kids made fun of Elisha’s baldness and he called on God for vengeance. God complied and sent two female bears, who tore up 42 of the kids.
Old Testament, of course.
I have no particular axe to grind about Christianity, being an adherent myself. But this example has always bothered me.
A wee bit off topic…
This reminds me of how last week Rush Limbaugh portrayed former MO Senator Jack Danforth. In an article printed by the Washington Post Danforth was concerned about the Religious Right having too much power in the GOP. Rush dismissed Danforth as a liberal because he doesn’t toe the Religious Right line on pro-life issues. Rush Limbaugh’s punditry is the weapon used to decide the face of the GOP…it’s pro-life. Conservatism needs less voices like Rush (and all his clones) and more like Danforth. Neal Boortz is the only one that comes close.
Wonderful analysis Jeff. My thoughts have been running along the lines
A The 12 cartoons are not that big a deal
B Some Danish Imams fabricated additional images
that were pretty bad to stir up trouble
C The original demonstrations were pretty lame
400 in Tehran a City of 12 million and the
police lost control? Syria could not protect
embassies? They must have changed since they
leveled Hama
D But most of all it is the MEDIA who was
whipping makiing small planned
demonstrations into “massive demonstrations”
and their continual repetitions of some of the
sound bites Amir Tehri refutes.
What Massive Demonstrations?
Well, if by “not kill” you mean “not deny them everlasting life upon their physical death”, then sure.
The Gospels are chockablock with examples of Jesus forgiving people’s sins.
.
This is an inevitable failingâ€â€or, if you’re cynical and suspicious enough, a definitionâ€â€of democracy.
From day one in Athens to the Constitutional Convention, people we used to be able to call “liberals” made their case against it on these grounds, that democracy is a revolution-diverting public faceâ€â€a strategyâ€â€of another, un(publicly)speakable -archy.
They were right and we are screwed.
One of the problems that doesn’t get enough press is that the Muslim faith is too decentralized.
With sufficient centralization of the leadership of the faith then yahoos that manipulate the faithful could be threatened with the equivalent of ex-communication or some other form of casting out of the faith. Without these authority figures morons like Al-Sadr and whoever ginned up this latest attrocity can pretend to be the “true” interpreters of the faith.
I have always been curious about the fact that the Shia parade around with portriats of Ali (who I gather is sort of their founding ‘Saint’
, yet Muslims in general are usually described as being fiercely iconoclastic.
Does iconoclasm vary from sect to sect (as it does in Christianity)?
BoZ—thank goodness we went the representative republic route, and have the rule of law and inalienable rights. Otherwise, yeah, I hear that.
And it helps to have conservatism around to scoff at change and gum up the works from time to time.
“The Muslim Fury”. Was that a Kung Fu movie?
tw: opened, as in a can of whup ass.
I hate to say it but using a bunch of Sufi authors to demonstrate “Muslim irreverence†is misleading in the extreme.
While Islam has had dynamic history, swinging between fundamentalism and moderation and it was in those moderate times when Sufism’s influence thrived it is hard to find a society (outside of the Christian Byzantines) who contributed less to their own culture than Islam. Virtually all traditional music and poetry and writing in the Islamic world have been fostered by others within those regions, but not Muslims. In fact, often fostered at the cost of their own lives. I’ve noticed Taheri has a bad habit of glossing over some things like this to simplify his argument (that is to say, irreverence in Islam is a lot more common on the ground, between each other, than their own record would seem to indicate, which is true) but that is an lousy list for this argument, and he of all people should know better.
Salafist
Oooh, anyone who’s aware of the Salafi movement, and its impact worldwide, gets my admiration.
I remember common rhetoric with regard to this issue being: “We don’t depict Muhammad because then people will worship Muhammad, like those infidel Christians and Hindus. Islam forbids worshiping figures.” They also said, “We can’t make a figure of Muhammad because we don’t know what he looked like.”
Many Muslims would find Shiite portraiture – often of Ali, Hussein, the Imams, the battle and martyrdoms at Karbala, etc. – to be blasphemous (which would let Sunnis add another coal to the hate-the-Shiites fire).
Of course, this doesn’t prevent many Muslims from virtually deifying Muhammad anyway.
Islman needs a pope. So do the Methodists, the anarchic bastards.
“Father forgive them for they know not what they do”. A quote from Jesus while being crucified which is somewhat more personal than mere satire
unfortunately, this won’t carry a lot of weight with the arab street.
Taheri is a Sufi, reguarded by mainstream Islam as as goofy, near-heretical, backcountry mystics. Very much marginalized.
Muslihoon makes a good point, a good sized chunk of this will be about sectarian rivalries within Islam.
The Sufi are given very little credence in the larger scheme of things Islam.
Coallition of the Willing
The Sufi are being more than marginalised,they are being exterminated. And they STILL get up and denounce Jihadist Terrorism. Rather than being impugned when they make a statement they should be greeted as the Heros they truly are the Unofficial members of the Coallition of the Willing
“History will some day record that when Civilization was attacked by an implacable and vicious foe, some mounted the barricades in its defense and some jeered and threw rocks at the backs of those defenders.
We hear enough of our Foes and their Apologists, Let us think for awhile of those who have mounted the barricades in the defense of Civilization. “
Let me tell you this fable by Aesop…
—
The Frog and the Ox
“Oh Father,” said a little Frog to the big one sitting by the side of a pool, “I have seen such a terrible monster! It was as big as a mountain, with horns on its head, and a long tail, and it had hoofs divided in two.”
“Tush, child, tush,” said the old Frog, “that was only Farmer White’s Ox. It isn’t so big either; he may be a little bit taller than I, but I could easily make myself quite as broad; just you see.”
So the old Frog blew himself out, and blew himself out, and blew himself out.
“Was he as big as that?” asked he.
“Oh, much bigger than that,” said the young Frog.
Again the old one blew himself out, and asked the young one if the Ox was as big as that.
”Bigger, father, bigger,” was the reply.
So the Frog took a deep breath, and blew and blew and blew,
and swelled and swelled and swelled.
And then he said: “I’m sure the Ox is not as big as –”
But at that moment he burst.
Self-conceit may lead to self-destruction.
—
what should be and what will be are two different things.
the Sunni/shi’ia mainstream has already wiped out dozens of more tolerant schism sects in the last seven centuries.
i’m juss’ sayin’ this isn’t exactly a gotcha moment for thje West. taheri has little credibility with the majority of Islam.
Could we bring in Writer-to-Animals instead? He knows what a Shift key is for.
At the risk of invoking Godwin’s Law, I’ll say that Hitler didn’t call it “Triumph of the Will” for nothing.
Hi, Muslihoon
.
Have you by any chance read a book called ‘Idolatry’ by Moshe Halbertal and Avishai Margalit? I’m about halfway through it now, myself–and if you haven’t already read it, I suspect you would also find it interesting. It presents an overview of different theories of iconoclasm (though drawing mainly on ancient Jewish sources, particularly the Hebrew Bible and Maimonides–simply because this is where the specialized knowledge of the authors mainly lies) throughout history–tracing the idea of idolatry through its various and very different permutations–among them being those you speak of, namely, ‘If we depict it, the common man will want to worship it like an idol’, and ‘God has no image at all, so idolatry merely invites error’.
As it happens, iconoclasm throughout history is my current fascination (where art meets religion). But just thought you particularly would appreciate the book–which, in fact, traces the idea of idolatry from ‘folk religion’ and the ‘Religious Enlightenment’ through the Enlightenment and to Marxism (with its idea of ‘ideology’
, each of which philosophy used the idea of idolatry in some way to discredit its predecessors.