Has The West Been Silenced By Islam?

Independent, 04 October 2006

In an age scarred by flashpoints between cultures and religions, it is easy to make accusations of prejudice or bigotry. But, argues Paul Vallely, we have all got something to gain from developing new sensitivities

A cartoon in Private Eye neatly summarised one side of the argument. First Muslim: "The Pope says Islam is a violent religion."Second Muslim: "Let's kill him then."

Cartoons, as we have come to learn, can be dodgy guides through the minefield in which European and Islamic cultures meet. But there are fears of a clash of civilisations in which Europe's enlightenment values are under attack from religious obscurantism. Cherished traditions, such as freedom of speech, the alarmists complain, are being surrendered out of political correctness and appeasement.

Thus we see this week that Spanish villagers who have for centuries donned medieval costumes to re-enact battles between Moors and Christians are now abandoning the custom of burning effigies of the Prophet Mohamed to celebrate the end of 800 years of Muslim rule in the Iberian peninsula.

Meanwhile, in France a philosophy teacher is in hiding after publishing a newspaper article critical of Islam. In Germany a production of Mozart's opera Idomeneo has been cancelled for fear of angering Muslims. And in Rome, Benedict XVI continues to issue apologies - he's done four so far - for his ill-judged quotation from a 14th-century Byzantine emperor who had called Islam "evil and inhuman". The Pope clearly still isn't sorry enough in the view of the two hijackers.

By contrast, in the West, even those who judged that the Pontiff, and others, may have gone too far have been rushing for their dictionaries of quotations to find the exact words of Voltaire about disapproving of what you say but defending to the death your right to say it. (They were actually written by one Evelyn Beatrice Hall, a biographer of that icon of the European Enlightenment). Everywhere have sprung up champions of freedom of expression and crusaders against religious darkness in the name of Western values. Yet the truth is somewhat different.

This is not so much a clash of civilisations as one between religious and secular fundamentalists. For our world is very different from even that of our fathers, let alone that of Voltaire, In his day, religion was the dominant oppressive culture against which emerging rationalism struggled. Today, by contrast, Islam embodies the identity of one of the most vulnerable, and alienated, minorities in Europe.

That is not all. The reality of a multi-faith multicultural Europe, in which many feel threatened by the fear of new and growing waves of immigration, is provoking a crisis of identity characterised by increasing insularity and fear. It is in that context that the simplistic polarisation between "the inalienable principle of freedom of speech" and "the sphere of divine duty" is taking place. The result is all too often a dialogue of the deaf.

Take the article in Le Figaro written by the French high-school philosophy teacher Robert Redeker. In it he complained that France was "more or less consciously submitting itself to the dictates of Islam" by banning string bikinis during this summer's annual beach party in Paris, setting up times when only women can visit public swimming pools and allowing Muslim schoolchildren - horror of horrors - to get halal food in school cafeterias.

These are all reasonable issues for debate. The problem was that, for good rhetorical measure, he also added that the Koran was "a book of extraordinary violence". And that the Prophet Mohamed was "a pitiless warlord", a "murderer of Jews" and "a master of hate". His vocabulary was not quite as vile as that of the Dutch filmmaker, Theo van Gogh, who routinely described Muslims as "goatfuckers" before one of them murdered him. Nonetheless Redeker, who immediately began to receive e-mail death threats, feared that some Islamic zealot might try to carry them out.

The trouble with debate carried out in this adolescent fashion is that it obscures rather than enlightens. Though it purports to open a dialogue with Muslims about the values of a pluralist society, in reality it is simply gratuitously offensive. And it merely reinforces the prejudices of the fundamentalists on both sides. See, say the Islamists, the West is inherently anti-Muslim. See, say the Enlightenmentists, Islam has an intrinsic propensity for violence.

The Pope has not helped here. Though he has apologised for not distancing himself from the "evil and inhuman" quote he has not resiled from the substance of his Regensburg address. In it he insisted that, thanks to the influence of Greek philosophy, there was no conflict between faith and reason at the core of Christianity. The Christian God is incapable of actions which are not good: hence He could never endorse the use of violence to spread religion. In Islam, by contrast, he said, God is not bound by any human categories, even that of reason, which is why Islam sees no contradiction on spreading religion by the sword.

To back his argument he selectively drew on Christian theologians who endorsed his view, niftily omitting those like Tertullian or Calvin who leaned towards the "God beyond reason" view. And he cited a marginal medieval Muslim theologian, Ibn Hazn, who said that God is not bound even by his own word, ignoring the many Muslims, such as the Mu'tazilite school, who have said God must act in accordance with reason.

This is all high-brow stuff but it boils down to the same kind of triumphalism, without the gross insults. Both say that Islam is alien and can never be truly European.

Others are less narrow-minded. The decision in Spain to scrap the burning of effigies of Mohamed reveals that a new sensitivity is developing in many quarters. It was evident in the cancellation of the production of Mozart's Idomeneo at the Deutsche Oper. The Hans Neuenfels production, which inserts a scene not in Mozart's score - in which the heads of Poseidon, Jesus, Buddha and Mohamed are pulled from a bloody sack - may have been unexceptional when it opened in 2003 but that was before the riots that erupted around the world after a Danish magazine last year published a series of puerile cartoons of Mohamed, including one in which the prophet's turban contained a bomb. Not everyone is so convinced.

Wolfgang Boersen, the German government's culture spokesman, accused the opera house of "falling on its knees before the terrorists". One Austrian newspaper spoke of the "high point of self-censorship". But in many places there is a growing realisation that freedom of expression is not absolute but needs to be governed by a sense of social responsibility. To elevate one right above all others is the hallmark of the single-issue fanatic. Sometimes it is wise to choose not to exercise a right.

There are signs too of a growing maturity among the Muslim community. The wild men have been in evidence - and much quoted by a confrontation-hungry media - but many Muslims are coming to see that they must respect the traditions of the culture into which they and their fathers have immigrated. And if cynicism, irony and indeed blasphemy are - going back to Voltaire - part of the culture they have decided they must observe it with detachment. A group of German Islamic leaders, meeting in Berlin for a routine forum with the government, called unanimously for Idomeneo to be performed as scheduled next month. One imam even said they would all attend the performance.

That was a refreshing contrast to the hyperbole about art and free speech being "the elixirs of an enlightened society". Instead of a power struggle, or a test of wills, it opens the way to a more mature approach. Instead of an emotional debate which closes down rational discourse, it is the way to build common values - ones which recognise the inalienable right to freedom of expression but which, at the same time, demand it be exercised in a measured way.

Voltaire, the great deist, had something to offer here too. Calling out to God, he wrote, "you did not give us hearts to hate nor did you give us hands to kill. May our differences in attire, our ridiculous customs, our imperfect laws and our nonsensical opinions, may all these nuances not be interpreted as signs of hatred and persecution".

Now there is a European inheritance which perhaps all might embrace.

The festival
This year villages around Valencia have dropped the ancient custom of burning effigies of the Prophet Mohamed to mark the reconquest of Spain from the Moors. Mayors in a number of villages near Valencia said they did not want to offend Muslim sensibilities. "It wasn't necessary and, as it could hurt some people's feelings, we decided not to do it," Antonio Valdes, the mayor of Bocairent, said.

Majed Kadem, the president of the Islamic Community of Alicante, said the tradition was viewed by most Muslims as a "healthy diversion". But Asid Farrod, the Imam of Barcelona, said the fiestas were offensive and should have been stopped years ago. "That they have gone on so long is a disgrace. We are living in a country where hatred of our Prophet is everywhere," he said.
The Reconquista (Reconquest) holiday in February celebrates the victory of the Catholic King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella over the Muslims in 1492 and the expulsion of the Moors after seven centuries of Muslim domination of Spain.

The Pope
Pope Benedict XVI astonished moderate Muslims, and infuriated extremists, when he used a learned address to a German university to quote a Byzantine emperor describing Islam as "inhuman and evil". The Pope characterised the quotation as "brusque", but did not otherwise suggest that he disagreed with it, provoking protests across the Muslim world from Turkey to Pakistan to Turkey to Jakarta in Indonesia, left.

The Vatican moved into withdrawal mode, with the Pope's spokesman, then the Pope himself, on two separate public occasions, saying he did not endorse the emperor's words, and that he was "very sorry" for the misunderstanding.

Such corrections were damaging to the Pope's image among Catholics of infallibility.
After the Pope summoned ambassadors to his residence and pledged himself to peaceful dialogue, the row finally died down. But the central paradox remained: if Muslims react so violently when their religion is identified with violence, doesn't it prove the accusation right?

The politician
John Reid, the Home Secretary, was heckled by protesters as he gave a speech in east London last month urging Muslim parents to watch their children for signs of extremism.

Abu Izzadeen called Mr Reid an "enemy of Islam" and asked how he could "dare" come to a Muslim area after so many had been arrested under the terror legislation. "Shame on all of us for ... listening to him," he said.

It later transpired that Mr Izzadeen has been investigated over comments about the London suicide bombings, after describing the attacks as "mujahedin activity" which would make people "wake up and smell the coffee", during an interview on the BBC's Newsnight last year.
Mr Izzadeen's actions were regarded with contempt by moderate Muslims. Khalid Mahmood, the MP for Perry Barr, condemned a planned visit to Birmingham this month by Mr Izzadeen and his followers for an Islamic rally. He said: "The people who follow Izzadeen are idiots and he should be banned from ever entering Birmingham."

The opera
Germany's first case of self-censorship in the face of a perceived Islamic terrorist threat provoked uproar last week when one of Berlin's opera houses banned a production of the Mozart opera Idomeneo, which depicted the beheading of the world's spiritual leaders, including Mohamed. (The head of Jesus is pictured left). The scene does not appear in the original plot.
Kirsten Harms, the director of the city's Deutsche Oper, quit because she had been warned by police that the work would pose an "incalculable security risk" if it was shown, provoking criticism from politicians, theatre directors and the majority of Muslim community leaders. Kenan Kolat, the head of Germany's Turkish community, said: "The opera should be shown. Art must be free." Ali Kizilkaya, the head of the Islamic Council, disagreed. "The ban is right because the scene offends the feelings of Muslims," he said. "Whether it's an opera or a cartoon, it makes no difference."

The radio show
Being funny about fatwas on the radio has not got down well with defenders of Muslim civil rights in the United States. In recent weeks the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has taken action twice to chide those it believes have crossed the line from humour to abuse.
First to be reprimanded was a Minnesota radio station which aired a skit called "Muslim Jeopardy" hosted by DJ Dave Ryan (left). With a mangled South Asian accent, an anonymous announcer named three categories of questions: "infamous infidels", "smells like Shia" and "potent portables". A female host was threatened with beheading if she got an answer wrong. After a letter of complaint from CAIR, the station apologised.

Then came a radio commercial from an Ohio car dealership which was withdrawn after complaints. It declared a "a jihad on the automotive industry" and said sales representatives would be wearing burqas.

The intellectual
Robert Redeker, a French philosophy teacher, and his family have been living in hiding under police protection since he wrote a newspaper article critical of Islam in mid-September. He has received death threats, and Islamist websites have carried his description and directions to his home.

In his article - inspired by Muslim reaction to the Pope's comments in Germany - he complained that Islam was trying to destroy the West by attacking its liberties.

Soheib Bencheikh, the director of the Institute of Islamic sciences in Paris, said: "Anyone should have the right to criticise Islam, just as Christianity was attacked during the enlightenment in the 18th century... Not to criticise Islam would be a form of segregation."

But Abdelhakim Sefrioui, a member of the French Council of Imams, said: "The liberty of expression is invoked every time someone wants to stigmatise Islam. There is a climate of Islamophobia in France."

------------------------------------------------------------
It will be beautiful world when everybody respected everyone’s religion without any jealousy or hatred. Freedom of speech is one thing but to attack a religion deliberately (whether it is Christianity, Judaism, Islam or any other religion) or to attack any of the prophets (Jesus, Abraham, Moses, Muhammad – Peace be upon them) or any holy books is the most evil crime one can commit. Why deliberately stir up trouble when there is no need for it?

The west has not been silenced By Islam, but what has happenend is that racist remarks have been exposed against Muslims and Islam. Those who made the statements have retracted from their statemennts because they realise that their they have done wrong or their actions/ statements cause offence to the Muslim community and cause religious hatred to Muslims for no paticular reason.

Islam is a religion that defends itself when provoked. Why does other religions not get as provoked? Well, as I have stated in previous articles, if someone attacks the Jewish community - it is anti-Semitic, if someone attacks gays and lesbians, - it is homophobic, if someone attacks people of different skin colour – it is seen as bigotry, but if someone attacks Islam, it is seen as freedom of speech!

Islamophobia is rife in many countries. People of authority need to be careful with comments they make. Should they not be using their position of power to unite all religions as one? Should we not share and rejoice all our common beliefs?

Recently in the United Kingdom, Jack Straw, Leader of the Commons, sparked controversy by describing the Muslim women's veil as "a visible statement of separation and of difference" between Muslim and non-Muslim communities and suggested they discard them.

In a free society people should be able to wear what they want. If Muslim women are prohibited to wear veil, what next? sheikhs can’t wear Turbans? Or Jews can’t wear skullcaps or dress in a manner that reflects a Torah-true life? Christians can’t wear the symbol of the cross? Or Amish people prohibited wearing black clothes and beards? Everyone should have the right to wear such clothes and should be commended for carrying on their cultural tradition.

The Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott said that Muslim women should be free to choose to wear a veil, and said he feared the debate on the issue could harm community relations. He said he would not follow Mr Straw's example and ask women visiting him to remove the veil.

"I think a woman who wants to wear a veil - why shouldn't she? It is her choice. It is a cultural difference but it is her choice," he said.

"If somebody comes into my constituency, whether they are wearing a skull cap or wearing a turban or very dark glasses, I'm not going to ask them to remove it. I think you can communicate with them."

The Health Secretary, Patricia Hewitt, said she would not ask Muslim women to remove their veils. She admitted that she had in the past regarded the veil as a symbol of women's oppression, but changed her mind after a meeting with a Muslim woman in her Leicester West constituency.

Ruth Kelly, the Communities Secretary, said she saw wearing the veil as a " personal choice" and would not ask a woman who sought her advice to remove it.

Peter Hain, the Northern Ireland Secretary, who is expected to run against Mr Straw to become deputy leader of the Labour Party, said that women should be entitled to wear the veil if they chose.

"I believe that women, like everybody else, are entitled to dress as they choose to dress," he said on BBC Radio 4's Any Questions.

Since Mr Straws comments, The first sign of a racist reaction came in Liverpool on Friday when a man snatched a veil from a 49-year-old woman's face after shouting racist abuse.

Another young Muslim girl wearing a veil in Blackburn was confronted by three youths on Friday night. One threw a newspaper at her and shouted: "Jack has told you to take off your veil."

Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary General for the Muslim Council of Britain, said his organization had received a number of racist emails in the last few days.

"Many people have said 'How dare you let women wear full veils'," Bunglawala said.

The Race Relations minister Phil Woolas claimed Mr Straw's comments had provoked a backlash. The Oldham MP said that Muslims in his constituency had received phone calls from relatives asking if they were safe in Britain, following the extensive news coverage of the issue.

Also in the U.K. media had been the report that a Muslim police officer was excused from taking part in guard duty at the Israeli embassy in London. Newspapers failed to mention that as the officer had relatives in Syria and Lebanon, it could’ve compromised his position to protect the Israeli Embassy. It was a routine risk assessment made by the police but this un-newsworthy story was leaked to the press to cause hatred against Muslims.

Another media report was of a taxi driver who was of Muslim origin that prohibited a blind person on board a taxi because his dog was considered filthy according to Islam. But the media failed to mention that there was another driver, who was not a Muslim that did the same thing to the same blind man. So reporting the Muslim driver and not the non-Muslim driver – isn’t that a deliberate attempt to create racial hatred?

It is true that in every religion there are dump people, or people whose beliefs are exemptions to the mainstream of their religion. The driver of the mini cabs were clearly wrong not to take the blind man and his guide dog but the media could’ve reported the incident(s) properly and there was no need to state that the driver was a Muslim. The recent killing of Amish school children in the US did not mention that Charles Roberts was a Christian (as there was no need to) but had he been Muslim then the media would have a field day. What about the KKK in the US or Hitler and Stalin? Should they be reflected as Christin killers?

What about president Bush telling the Palestinian ministers in 2005 that “God told me to invade Afghanistan and Iraq - and create a Palestinian State” Is this the statement of a sane man? Is this not regarded a Christian fundamentalism? Lucky most people use common sense and see that the President as nothing but a dumb ass, how everyone wished Al Gore won that election!

In the UK, people feel that Islamophobia is very rife, so much so that many of the speeches and comments made by ministers and people of religious authority are similar to those made in the 1930’s & 40’s against the Jewish communities, and to the Afro-Caribbean people in the 1970’s.

Whatever opinions people may have it is important to protect vulnerable people, whether they are a majority or a minority. Lets learn from the mistakes made in the past, lets get the best out all the different faiths and unite as one, lets share a common goal and not argue with the differences, lets make it a better world.

Useful Reading/ Research Materials

Islamophobia Watch
http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/

Wikipedia - Islamophobia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia

The Runnymede Trust
http://www.runnymedetrust.org/projects/meb/reportIntroduction.html

The Forum Against Islamophobia and Racism
http://www.fairuk.org/

BBC News - Islamophobia pervades UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3768327.stm