The Insult and the Attack: Cartoons of the Prophet and the Modern Defensive Jihad
Just a few days ago, in reaction to the republication of the famous cartoons insulting the Prophet Muhammad (I have no idea whose idea that was, or why the German interior minister thought this such a good idea, but anyway), Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah issued a public statement that I think exemplifies well some of the continuing themes of this blog, of a modern Islam with its own modern notions reacting to modern circumstances and conditions, albeit not in a manner many of us, myself included, are happy to see.
The first thing Fadlallah points out in his statement is that Islam favors freedom of expression, as the West does. In fact, he describes the reissuance of the cartoons as a "deepening of the chasm" "تعميق الهوة" between the West and Islam, as if this were a bad thing and the west was to blame. This is made clear later on, as part of his fifth point, which is that there needs to be ongoing dialogue with the West notwithstanding the insistence of some in the West to force this divide. (Like most Arab theologians and lawyers actually, Fadlallah has this annoying habit of dividing his ideas into a number of "points", sometimes dozens, without trying to link them into any unifying theme. I've worked with Arab law students for weeks and weeks trying to get them to drop this at least in public international law moot courts where it is not going to help--what court is going to remember 17 points--but it's not easy to get this incorporated. Anyway, the reason I bring this out is I am trying to link across points to develop the themes, check out the statement, it's on the website if you prefer the original organization.)
It's important to realize how fundamentally modern this position of Fadlallah's is. Dialogue of civilizations? Freedom of expression? I issue this challenge, someone go find me a classical Muslim text, anywhere, that uses the phrase "freedom of expression" حرية التعبير at all. Or dialogue with the west, as something other than a temporary peace with the House of Unbelief on the way to war later on. Now I'm sure my classical law friends will provide wonderfully sophisticated arguments on how in fact you can read classical law to suggest it embraces these values even if it never mentions them, but that's not the point. You can pretty much argue anything from anything, all of us lawyers know that. The point is that rather conservative clerics and deeply authoritative ones are embracing as unambiguously Islamic certain values that are for let's call them what they are Western originated.
So is Islam just Christianity then? Of course not, let Fadlallah continue. We believe in freedom of expression, with a limitation. This cannot be ignored. If you INSULT something holy to a religion, no matter which religion, (بقطع النظر عن الاختلاف في تحديد المقدّس لدى هذه الفئة أو تلك.)
it's over the line. That is where you need to rethink this whole freedom of expression thing. That's not freedom, that's an "insult".
In fact, when arguing with others about the Rushdie death sentence, this was the distinction that was drawn. (If they actually wanted to debate--some just screamed infidel as if that made them holier). So you can say what you like about the Prophet, but you cannot "insult." When you cross that line, then the freedom is done for. Fadlallah isn't calling for death, we'll get to that later, but the point is that there is a distinction to him. In fact, not only is it clear to him, he insists the West knows it damn well too. That's why Europe has anti-Holocaust denial laws, because they draw this distinction. They don't want to insult Jews, they go out of their way to avoid it, they know that there is a difference between freedom of expression and insult.
Now of course I realize that Westerners don't see it this way. There are First Amendment absolutists, like myself, suspicious of any state incursions onto speech, no matter how odious that speech, and there are others who seek to protect minorities under threat of continual harassment that makes it impossible for them to live in peace and comfort. And of course there are those who want to make sure that the horrors of the second World War are never repeated. But the idea that you can pass a law saying "no offending Jewish people" in Europe is silly--there is no such protection. To most of us, it seems like an impossible line to draw.
But this distinction is so clear to him, that he's sure it's clear to the West too. There's really no issue about it. Of course this idea of the insult has a long Islamic pedigree, the idea that insulting the Prophet and the Qur'an is a crime is deep. Classical scholars generally put it under the category of "apostasy" and executed people for it if they didn't repent. Others said it might not be apostasy but added a discretionary crime (making up crimes at a judge's discretion was allowed in classical law though no modern Muslim society accepts it) and still the punishment was death. This is modern, no discretion in the crime like before, and it's far more ecumenical what Fadlallah is saying (not just Islam, ALL religions), but of course there is history to it notwithstanding changes, broadening, loosening penalty, fixing it by statute, to make it conform to modernity.
Anyway, if this is so obvious to him, if Fadlallah sitting in his own seminary is indoctrinated into his own belief system that he cannot believe the West fails to grasp the distinction he sees as blindingly obvious, what explains the protection of Judaism and the failure to protect Islam? The "differing standards" as he calls them. الانتقائيّة في الاستخدام
Easy, it's an attack.
On on Islam by Europeans who hate it. This is an unambiguous assault on our religion, we are under attack by these people, they wish to destroy us. The words are clear, hujum, or attack, adwani, aggressor. They see what we see, they know that our distinction between expressing an opinion and insulting something deeply sacred is a universal one, they hold to it for Jews, just not for us.
Now Fadlallah doesn't then call for "jihad" or doesn't use that word anyway, probably because he knows the reaction, not only in the West, but also among Muslims. He doesn't seem to want to see a replay of the violence that happened the last time these cartoons came out. He's quite upset, but this isn't the kind of war he really wants to sanction.
But he does call for the use of "civilized means" to DEFEND (note the word) Islam from its attackers. And not just words inthe media and in demonstrations, though those are good, but deeds, specifically boycotts in the Arab world. They started this war, not necessarily all Europeans (remember, the dialogue), but groups that are deepening the chasm with Islam, attacking it aggressively, and they must be met, and the (nonviolent) battle joined, to defend Islam from this unspeakable attack. So our reactions to this, you see, are defensive, not offensive. We aren't supressing speech, merely asking for the same protection against insult that Jews get, the argument runs. And of course Westerners scratch their heads and say "huh? Nobody gets protected from insult, that's never the point."
Perhaps the dialogue would be worthwhile, both so that Fadlallah might absorb the Western position--that one cannot legislate against an "insult", irrespective of the religion in question and the so-called protection to Jews (really, Holocaust denial laws) stem from another source entirely. And the West might absorb and engage this quite popular position in the Muslim world, that this distinction, historic and meaningful to Muslims, is so clear, so obvious, that even the West knows it, they just apply different standards when it comes to Muslims because they seek to engage in an aggressive attack on the Muslim faith. Seems like just the kind of talk we need, rather than the back and forth name calling that seems to achieve little.
HAH
The first thing Fadlallah points out in his statement is that Islam favors freedom of expression, as the West does. In fact, he describes the reissuance of the cartoons as a "deepening of the chasm" "تعميق الهوة" between the West and Islam, as if this were a bad thing and the west was to blame. This is made clear later on, as part of his fifth point, which is that there needs to be ongoing dialogue with the West notwithstanding the insistence of some in the West to force this divide. (Like most Arab theologians and lawyers actually, Fadlallah has this annoying habit of dividing his ideas into a number of "points", sometimes dozens, without trying to link them into any unifying theme. I've worked with Arab law students for weeks and weeks trying to get them to drop this at least in public international law moot courts where it is not going to help--what court is going to remember 17 points--but it's not easy to get this incorporated. Anyway, the reason I bring this out is I am trying to link across points to develop the themes, check out the statement, it's on the website if you prefer the original organization.)
It's important to realize how fundamentally modern this position of Fadlallah's is. Dialogue of civilizations? Freedom of expression? I issue this challenge, someone go find me a classical Muslim text, anywhere, that uses the phrase "freedom of expression" حرية التعبير at all. Or dialogue with the west, as something other than a temporary peace with the House of Unbelief on the way to war later on. Now I'm sure my classical law friends will provide wonderfully sophisticated arguments on how in fact you can read classical law to suggest it embraces these values even if it never mentions them, but that's not the point. You can pretty much argue anything from anything, all of us lawyers know that. The point is that rather conservative clerics and deeply authoritative ones are embracing as unambiguously Islamic certain values that are for let's call them what they are Western originated.
So is Islam just Christianity then? Of course not, let Fadlallah continue. We believe in freedom of expression, with a limitation. This cannot be ignored. If you INSULT something holy to a religion, no matter which religion, (بقطع النظر عن الاختلاف في تحديد المقدّس لدى هذه الفئة أو تلك.)
it's over the line. That is where you need to rethink this whole freedom of expression thing. That's not freedom, that's an "insult".
In fact, when arguing with others about the Rushdie death sentence, this was the distinction that was drawn. (If they actually wanted to debate--some just screamed infidel as if that made them holier). So you can say what you like about the Prophet, but you cannot "insult." When you cross that line, then the freedom is done for. Fadlallah isn't calling for death, we'll get to that later, but the point is that there is a distinction to him. In fact, not only is it clear to him, he insists the West knows it damn well too. That's why Europe has anti-Holocaust denial laws, because they draw this distinction. They don't want to insult Jews, they go out of their way to avoid it, they know that there is a difference between freedom of expression and insult.
Now of course I realize that Westerners don't see it this way. There are First Amendment absolutists, like myself, suspicious of any state incursions onto speech, no matter how odious that speech, and there are others who seek to protect minorities under threat of continual harassment that makes it impossible for them to live in peace and comfort. And of course there are those who want to make sure that the horrors of the second World War are never repeated. But the idea that you can pass a law saying "no offending Jewish people" in Europe is silly--there is no such protection. To most of us, it seems like an impossible line to draw.
But this distinction is so clear to him, that he's sure it's clear to the West too. There's really no issue about it. Of course this idea of the insult has a long Islamic pedigree, the idea that insulting the Prophet and the Qur'an is a crime is deep. Classical scholars generally put it under the category of "apostasy" and executed people for it if they didn't repent. Others said it might not be apostasy but added a discretionary crime (making up crimes at a judge's discretion was allowed in classical law though no modern Muslim society accepts it) and still the punishment was death. This is modern, no discretion in the crime like before, and it's far more ecumenical what Fadlallah is saying (not just Islam, ALL religions), but of course there is history to it notwithstanding changes, broadening, loosening penalty, fixing it by statute, to make it conform to modernity.
Anyway, if this is so obvious to him, if Fadlallah sitting in his own seminary is indoctrinated into his own belief system that he cannot believe the West fails to grasp the distinction he sees as blindingly obvious, what explains the protection of Judaism and the failure to protect Islam? The "differing standards" as he calls them. الانتقائيّة في الاستخدام
Easy, it's an attack.
On on Islam by Europeans who hate it. This is an unambiguous assault on our religion, we are under attack by these people, they wish to destroy us. The words are clear, hujum, or attack, adwani, aggressor. They see what we see, they know that our distinction between expressing an opinion and insulting something deeply sacred is a universal one, they hold to it for Jews, just not for us.
Now Fadlallah doesn't then call for "jihad" or doesn't use that word anyway, probably because he knows the reaction, not only in the West, but also among Muslims. He doesn't seem to want to see a replay of the violence that happened the last time these cartoons came out. He's quite upset, but this isn't the kind of war he really wants to sanction.
But he does call for the use of "civilized means" to DEFEND (note the word) Islam from its attackers. And not just words inthe media and in demonstrations, though those are good, but deeds, specifically boycotts in the Arab world. They started this war, not necessarily all Europeans (remember, the dialogue), but groups that are deepening the chasm with Islam, attacking it aggressively, and they must be met, and the (nonviolent) battle joined, to defend Islam from this unspeakable attack. So our reactions to this, you see, are defensive, not offensive. We aren't supressing speech, merely asking for the same protection against insult that Jews get, the argument runs. And of course Westerners scratch their heads and say "huh? Nobody gets protected from insult, that's never the point."
Perhaps the dialogue would be worthwhile, both so that Fadlallah might absorb the Western position--that one cannot legislate against an "insult", irrespective of the religion in question and the so-called protection to Jews (really, Holocaust denial laws) stem from another source entirely. And the West might absorb and engage this quite popular position in the Muslim world, that this distinction, historic and meaningful to Muslims, is so clear, so obvious, that even the West knows it, they just apply different standards when it comes to Muslims because they seek to engage in an aggressive attack on the Muslim faith. Seems like just the kind of talk we need, rather than the back and forth name calling that seems to achieve little.
HAH
Salaam brother,
It seems so many people and groups are fighting over the warm blanket of victimization.
Reply to this