An inability to tolerate Islam contradicts western values

[Uthman]

Free speech is now the rallying cry of escalating tensions, but we can also use it to expose double standards on both sides

Karen Armstrong
Saturday July 21, 2007
Guardian

In the 17th century, when some Iranian mullahs were trying to limit freedom of expression, Mulla Sadra, the great mystical philosopher of Isfahan, insisted that all Muslims were perfectly capable of thinking for themselves and that any religiosity based on intellectual repression and inquisitorial coercion was "polluted". Mulla Sadra exerted a profound influence on generations of Iranians, but it is ironic that his most famous disciple was probably Ayatollah Khomeini, author of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie.This type of contradiction is becoming increasingly frequent in our polarised world, as I discovered last month, when I arrived in Kuala Lumpur to find that the Malaysian government had banned three of my books as "incompatible with peace and social harmony". This was surprising because the government had invited me to Malaysia, and sponsored two of my public lectures. Their position was absurd, because it is impossible to exert this type of censorship in the electronic age. In fact, my books seemed so popular in Malaysia that I found myself wondering if the veto was part of a Machiavellian plot to entice the public to read them.

Old habits die hard. In a pre-modern economy, insufficient resources meant freedom of speech was a luxury few governments could afford, since any project that required too much capital outlay was usually shelved. To encourage a critical habit of mind that habitually called existing institutions into question in the hope of reform could lead to a frustration that jeopardised social order. It is only 50 years since Malaysia achieved independence and, although the public and press campaign vigorously against censorship, in other circles the old caution is alive and well.

In the west, however, liberty of expression proved essential to the economy; it has become a sacred value in our secular world, regarded as so precious and crucial to our identity that it is non-negotiable. Modern society could not function without independent and innovative thought, which has come to symbolise the inviolable sanctity of the individual. But culture is always contested, and precisely because it is so central to modernity, free speech is embroiled in the bumpy process whereby groups at different stages of modernisation learn to accommodate one another.

It has also, as we have been reminded recently, become a rallying cry in the escalating tension between the Islamic world and the west. Muslim protests against Rushdie's knighthood have recalled the painful controversy of The Satanic Verses, and last week four British Muslims were sentenced to a total of 22 years in prison for inciting hatred while demonstrating against the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

It would, however, be a mistake to imagine that Muslims are irretrievably opposed to free speech. Gallup conducted a poll in 10 Muslim countries (including Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) and found that the vast majority of respondents admired western "liberty and freedom and being open-minded with each other". They were particularly enthusiastic about our unrestricted press, liberty of worship and freedom of assembly. The only western achievement that they respected more than our political liberty was our modern technology.

Then why the book burnings and fatwas? In the past Islamic governments were as prone to intellectual coercion as any pre-modern rulers, but when Muslims were powerful and felt confident they were able to take criticism in their stride. But media and literary assaults have become more problematic at a time of extreme political vulnerability in the Islamic world, and to an alienated minority they seem inseparable from Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay and the unfolding tragedy of Iraq.

On both sides, however, there are double standards and the kind of contradiction evident in Khomeini's violation of the essential principles of his mentor, Mulla Sadra. For Muslims to protest against the Danish cartoonists' depiction of the prophet as a terrorist, while carrying placards that threatened another 7/7 atrocity on London, represented a nihilistic failure of integrity.

But equally the cartoonists and their publishers, who seemed impervious to Muslim sensibilities, failed to live up to their own liberal values, since the principle of free speech implies respect for the opinions of others. Islamophobia should be as unacceptable as any other form of prejudice. When 255,000 members of the so-called "Christian community" signed a petition to prevent the building of a large mosque in Abbey Mills, east London, they sent a grim message to the Muslim world: western freedom of worship did not, apparently, apply to Islam. There were similar protests by some in the Jewish community, who, as Seth Freedman pointed out in his Commentisfree piece, should be the first to protest against discrimination.

Gallup found there was as yet no blind hatred of the west in Muslim countries; only 8% of respondents condoned the 9/11 atrocities. But this could change if the extremists persuade the young that the west is bent on the destruction of their religion. When Gallup asked what the west could do to improve relations, most Muslims replied unhesitatingly that western countries must show greater respect for Islam, placing this ahead of economic aid and non-interference in their domestic affairs. Our inability to tolerate Islam not only contradicts our western values; it could also become a major security risk.

Karen Armstrong is the author of The Battle For God: A History of Fundamentalism

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...131444,00.html

[Uthman]

[wilberhum]

only 8% of respondents condoned the 9/11 atrocities

Only? 8% support for terrorism and killing the inocent.

IMHO That is horrable.

[sojourner]

Only? 8% support for terrorism and killing the inocent.

IMHO That is horrable.

I concur...

[Uthman]

And me.

1% is 1% too many.

It truly is a sad world we live in.

[beespreeteam]

Only? 8% support for terrorism and killing the inocent.

IMHO That is horrable.

It's ridiculous, yes, but you need to realise that these people have probably got family back in countries that are being screwed over by America, and therefore see it as revenge or an eye-for-an-eye kind of thing.

I know a few people like that. Like my friend who's best friend was shot 'mistakenly'. He's changed a lot...

[wilberhum]

It's ridiculous, yes, but you need to realise that these people have probably got family back in countries that are being screwed over by America, and therefore see it as revenge or an eye-for-an-eye kind of thing.

I know a few people like that. Like my friend who's best friend was shot 'mistakenly'. He's changed a lot...

Ridiculous? Thinking it is OK to kill people because of where they live is not ridiculous.
It is blind hate. :mad:

[Muezzin]

Ridiculous? Thinking it is OK to kill people because of where they live is not ridiculous.
It is blind hate. :mad:

Didn't you support the Hiroshima bombing? A lot of innocent people died there, but I guess 'that's different because there was no other way'. Feh. This 8% tends to feel the same way. Is it right? No. Is it a human reaction? Yes.

To clarify where I stand: People should not wish death upon others who have done nothing to them. People should not wish death on civilians.

[- Qatada -]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6275772.stm

[wilberhum]

Didn't you support the Hiroshima bombing? A lot of innocent people died there, but I guess 'that's different because there was no other way'. Feh. This 8% tends to feel the same way. Is it right? No. Is it a human reaction? Yes.

To clarify where I stand: People should not wish death upon others who have done nothing to them. People should not wish death on civilians.

There is as much simularity as a fish and a bicycle.
I could call rape "A human reaction" so no one should get upset about that eather. Right?

[Muezzin]

There is as much simularity as a fish and a bicycle.

Sure.

I could call rape "A human reaction" so no one should get upset about that eather. Right?

That's not what I was saying. You don't usually deal in distortions. I quite clearly said where I stand, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. It's an unpleasant truth about that 8% (to which I do not belong, by the way, calling for or condoning the death of innocent people is monstrous)

[Keltoi]

The West has been "tolerating" Islam for a long time. That is why so many Muslims live here. What the West cannot and should not tolerate is a population of dangerous extremists, regardless of the percentage and regardless of what faith they belong to. Sure, this is a tough time for Muslims in the West, but realistically there is no way to avoid that. There is a cloud of suspicion over the Muslim community. I wish there wasn't, but it is now a reality. The extremists have done a good job at casting suspicion over the whole Muslim population by recruiting teachers and doctors to carry out attacks. The old profile of the young ostracized Muslim male no longer works, it could be anybody. It's a sad state of affairs.

[Cognescenti]

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings are absolutely not analogous to the deliberate targeting of civilians in acts of terror. Both cities had legitimate military targets. You can argue, perhaps, that the harm to civilian population was too high, but it did end a declared war of terrible brutality and suffering for hundreds of millions of people.

[Muezzin]

The West has been "tolerating" Islam for a long time. That is why so many Muslims live here. What the West cannot and should not tolerate is a population of dangerous extremists, regardless of the percentage and regardless of what faith they belong to. Sure, this is a tough time for Muslims in the West, but realistically there is no way to avoid that. There is a cloud of suspicion over the Muslim community. I wish there wasn't, but it is now a reality. The extremists have done a good job at casting suspicion over the whole Muslim population by recruiting teachers and doctors to carry out attacks. The old profile of the young ostracized Muslim male no longer works, it could be anybody. It's a sad state of affairs.

I agree.

Nontheless, that 8%, even though 8% way too many, do feel, rightly or wrongly, that they are ostracised, and that their pleas fall on deaf ears.

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings are absolutely not analogous to the deliberate targeting of civilians in acts of terror. Both cities had legitimate military targets.

Okay. I just detest the concept of 'collateral damage'.

You can argue, perhaps, that the harm to civilian population was too high, but it did end a declared war of terrible brutality and suffering for hundreds of millions of people.

Hindsight's great like that.

But I'm going off-topic here. I shouldn't even have brought Hiroshima up. My bad.

[wilberhum]

When 255,000 members of the so-called "Christian community" signed a petition to prevent the building of a large mosque in Abbey Mills, east London, they sent a grim message to the Muslim world: western freedom of worship did not, apparently, apply to Islam.

I just love junk like this. :confused:
Surly those “co-called Christians” were only Christians and made there decision based on faith and a thousand fold increases in traffic would have nothing to do with it. I’m also sure the hundreds of other factors played no part either.
And of course since Muslims don’t have the right to build any size mosque any were they want, they don’t have freedom of worship.
That is soooooooooooooo narrow minded that I can’t even think that thin. ffended:

[Amadeus85]

Bernard Lewis said that integration of muslims into western , democratic society isn't possible.

[Amadeus85]

Islamophobia should be as unacceptable as any other form of prejudice. When 255,000 members of the so-called "Christian community" signed a petition to prevent the building of a large mosque in Abbey Mills, east London, they sent a grim message to the Muslim world: western freedom of worship did not, apparently, apply to Islam.

Armstrong is a muslims. She would have right to say like that only when christians had free rights to build churches everywhere in muslim world.But they dont. So mrs Armstrong doesnt have right to say like that.

BTW islamophobia is a stupid term. What it means actually? Is criticizing islam on theological way also an islamophobia? I dont like any penalizing of free speech. Its like penalizing saying negative opinions about homosexualism.

[Uthman]

Armstrong is a muslims. She would have right to say like that only when christians had free rights to build churches everywhere in muslim world.But they dont. So mrs Armstrong doesnt have right to say like that.

She has the right to say that if the country in question promotes freedom of worship.

[wilberhum]

She would have right to say like that only when christians had free rights to build churches everywhere in muslim world

Wrong! She has a right to say what she thinks. Her rights are not dependant on what other governments do.

[Amadeus85]

Wrong! She has a right to say what she thinks. Her rights are not dependant on what other governments do.

Yeah sure but isnt this a big hypocrisy from her? I know that it may be getting boring for some of you, but she cried out because muslims couldnt build a huge mosque for thousands of people in England for some reasons,but (and this is this issue mentioned over and over again,boring huh?) building a new church in Egypt for example (or repairing the old one) is extremely hard because of the state's difficulties.