Hmm. Meral Hussein Ece – she’s a LibDem peer. She’s not very liberal. She had this to say last week on Stephen Tall’s post about Maajid at LibDem Voice:
I condemn anyone issuing death threats, and of course this should be reported to the Police. Im all for a mature ‘debate’ on any religion, but using a cartoon is unhelpful and trivial. This cartoon is part of a cartoon strip which depicts the Prophet Mohammed in bed with Jesus drinking beer. Clearly offensive to even the most moderate Muslims, and even many Christians who will be aware of this. I believe in living and let living, and would not want to offend Jews, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, or any other of the major faiths in the UK. Why would anyone want to do that? Given there is a significant rise of Muslim children in our schools who have turned to Childline complaining of Islamphobic bullying (being called a terrorist in their schools is now common), and a significant rise in Islamophobic attacks, do we really want to go out of our way to offend people? How does that foster good community relations? Mature debate, yes, but crude cartoons, do not take this debate anywhere. It’s open season right now for Muslims in the UK, just as its was for Jews in the 1930s/40s. As a Liberal Democrat who believes in respecting others, regardless of their race and faith, forgive me if I don’t jump up and down in glee over this, particularly when the ‘Archbishop’ blogger informs us that many consider ‘Islam a vile faith’ I wonder if you would have reprinted this about any other religion?
She’s wrong that it’s “clearly offensive to even the most moderate Muslims,” for a start. What makes people think they know things like that? That’s a claim that Jesus and Mo is “clearly offensive” to all Muslims, and how could she possibly know that? There are certainly some Muslims who are “ethnic” or background or cultural Muslims, who don’t actually buy any of the religion itself. Why would they find Jesus and Mo “clearly offensive”?
And she doesn’t believe in respecting others. She doesn’t believe in respecting people who have no problem with cartoons that satirize religion.
And she’s a dang peer. Honestly.
I wish she’d be more explicit in her comparison of today’s Muslims in the UK and the 30s/40s Jews in the unnamed country. Also what the precise meaning of “open season” is and who it is that has declared it open and with what force of law.
I cannot recall a single panel of J & M in which the boys hoist a glass elsewhere than in the merry Cock and Bull.
The Peer’s comments seem very strange regarding the cartoon series “J*s*s and Mo.”
Why does she think that it is offensive to mention Mo (who is not an actual deity), while it is not offensive to mention Jesus (whom the crown officially considers to be semi-identical to the deity)?
Is she saying this on some logical basis of inherent offense?
Clearly not. Clearly, the only distinction is that some Muslims are choosing to feel offended, while no detectable number of Christians are choosing to interpret things that way.
That is, this is not an inherent offense. It is merely a choice by some to view it that way.
At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, the answer is: because if it is off limits to criticise bad ideas, we have no defence against those bad ideas.
Dawkins was right, lo these many years ago, when he pointed out that special pleading is afforded to religion that we would not countenance in any other area of thought. No one says that political cartoonists should not mock Republicans, or Democrats, or Communism, or Capitalism, because adherents of these various ideologies might get offended. No one says you mustn’t caricature Obama because you might hurt his supporters’ feelings. No one says we mustn’t lament the casting of Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan because his fans might get miffed. No one said we shouldn’t criticise the Steady State Theory of the universe because Fred Hoyle is very invested in it and he’s a nice guy and we don’t want to upset him. Only in the area of religion, it seems, is saying that a stupid idea is stupid an unconscionable act.
And I’m aware of the standard theist response to this, which is: “But religion is personal! Many people base their identity on their religion. It’s not like politics or economics or aesthetics or science. Insulting someone’s religion is like insulting their mother”. To which I can only reply that if your mother is duping millions of people and encouraging them to behave atrociously, then it is indeed righteous and laudable to criticise and even ridicule your mother. She’s not being criticised because she’s your mother, she’s being criticised because of her behaviour.
Certainly we should be mindful of not tarring people or marginalising them unfairly, but doesn’t this cut both ways? If it is wrong to tar all Muslims as terrorists, is it not also wrong to tar all those who are willing to stand up, and say a bad idea is a bad idea, as bigots?
@ ^ Silentbob :
Yes, exactly. Well said.
An individual is an individual. A bad idea or ideology or religion is just that. X is X and its not wrong to attack a bad idea or ideology or religion which is a very different thing to attacking an individual.
As a writer I go to a group where some of the stuff I read out to other writers gets metaphorically torn to shreds.by them. We are told – correctly – that it isn’t the writer who is being attacked but the words on the page. You don’t take it too personally even though that’s sometimes hard, you think about it and go home and improve and edit those words on the page when the critic is right. A similar thing applies here.
Individual moderate Muslims (people) aren’t being attacked or mistreated by fair and reasonable criticism of their religion when aspects of their religion and its associated practices and policies (ideas) are appalling wrong. Criticising a bad religious idea isn’t the wrong thing to do – ever. (well *almost* ever, there are always very rare exceptions that prove the rule!)
This seems so incredibly obvious to me. Its an axiom.
But, for some reason so very many people just don’t seem to get it (especially in the specific case of the Muslims = people versus Islam = ideological religious memes instance) and I really don’t know why or what about it is so hard to grasp.
I’m generally a really polite considerate person – I don’t set out to hurt or upset others even when i get upset at things myself. I don’t try to cause offence. But, oy vey, just say a few reasonably critical rational words about the nastiness inherent in many aspects of Islamic ideology and cultural practices and, OMFSM, the reactions and flaming that results!
Its a stereotype, of course, that Muslims are unable to take any criticism however fair and justified well and are disproportionately intolerant towards anyone expressing opinions against their belief system. But, yeesh, does that stereotype ever seem to get backed up by things like this in the news and experienced in person by so many so very often!
A lingering Salafism and Takfirism, perhaps?
If you’re not offended, then you’re not even a moderate Muslim, which means you’re not a Muslim at all. Therefore all Muslims are offended. QED.
In another context we’d call it the “no true Scotsman” fallacy, except that I’m not aware of anyone being threatened for using sugar rather than salt in his porridge.
The idea that a cartoon even belongs in the same thought as Jews being rounded up is beyond contempt, too.
There’s an excellent piece on Left Foot Forward:-
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2014/01/the-illiberal-democrats/?fb_action_ids=10202649714061710&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%5B1455923331288133%5D&action_type_map=%5B%22og.likes%22%5D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D
Meral Hussein Ece – she’s a LibDem peer. She’s not very liberal.
Imagine that! A Muslim who isn’t a liberal! A religious believer who dishonestly pretends to be what she’s not! Who could have guessed, looking at Pakistan or Bangladesh or Saudi Arabia or Somalia, that Muslim immigrants wouldn’t bring their proud traditions of liberalism, free speech, feminism and uncompromising secularism with them when they arrived in the UK?
And she doesn’t believe in respecting others. She doesn’t believe in respecting people who have no problem with cartoons that satirize religion.
And she’s a dang peer. Honestly.
I mean, how could it happen? How? Why are Muslims not following their proud traditions of liberalism, free speech, feminism and uncompromising secularism? Why can’t Muslims see that they should be behaving in ways pleasing to atheists rather than to Muslims? And how much more hot air is the atheist community going to have to vent before Muslims see the error of their ways?*
*A lot.
@BestovSest
If you follow my link above you’ll see a sound piece of liberalism written by Amjad Khan, a British Muslim.
Kenan Malik, British ex Muslim, is our most consistently liberal writer.
Salman Rushdie is a good liberal.
Maajid Nawaz is a Muslim and a liberal – one who’s been prepared to take a lot of flak.
So some Muslims carry on the liberal tradition pretty well, rather better than the native shufflers and equivocators and respect-mongers.
Kenan Malik, British ex Muslim… Salman Rushdie is a good liberal… So some Muslims carry on the liberal tradition pretty well…
Ah, so Kenan Malik is an ex-Muslim. And so, I believe, is Salman Rushdie. But they’re also proof that “Muslims carry on the liberal tradition pretty well”.
That’s interesting logic you’re using there.
Whose liberal tradition is it, btw? Saudi Arabia’s? Pakistan’s? Somalia’s? And are there any Muslims who are “carrying on the illiberal tradition pretty well”? If so, where does that illiberal tradition come from? Holland? The Czech Republic? Hampstead?
Serious questions that I’d really like to have answers to.
@BestovSent
By the “liberal tradition” I mean the English liberal tradition which started building up speed in the eighteenth century and has been highly influential in Britain’s ex-colonies from the USA on.
But liberalism is a fairly rare beast in human history. Much of Europe departed from it horrifically in the twentieth century and it has barely got going in other parts of the world.
Bruce @#3:
“Why does she think that it is offensive to mention Mo (who is not an actual deity), while it is not offensive to mention Jesus (whom the crown officially considers to be semi-identical to the deity)?”
The Queen as head of the Church of England must support the proposition that God is a Trinity: of Father, Son (Jesus) and Holy Ghost. All equals. Jesus was crucified only because he allowed Himself to be crucified. He could have stopped the buggers in their tracks any time by calling down lightning bolts, whistling up an earthquake, or maybe a volcanic eruption, not to mention a tidal wave, comet out of the sky; galactic collision. You name it..
But the sins of the world had to be paid for.
Ah yes. Those crazy mad suicide bombing Jews of the 30s who wanted everyone to become Jewish. Who can forget?
I’d forgotten. But if she says so, it must be somewhere in black and white. I mean, she couldn’t possibly be inaccurate going on the record like that, could she?
And yet Maajid Nawaz and others claim to be both Muslim and not offended.
So 3 possibilities:
1) Maajid and others are not Muslims (not even the most moderate of Muslims)
2) Maajid and others are lying about not being offended
3) Meral Hussein Ece is wrong in her assertion
I wonder where schoolchildren might possibly get the idea that all Muslims share the exact same thoughts and feelings about certain things (e.g. cartoons)? Does anyone have any examples of high profile politicians apportioning certain attitudes or opinions to all Muslims?
The most 1930’s element to all this is the “big lie” of Islamophobia.
While there are a few violent anti-Muslim incidents, it is non-Muslims who have been killed or attacked by Muslims in far greater numbers since 9/11. When you factor in the share of the population that is Muslim it is even more stark.
Muslims should be free of harassment and bullying, period. But the fact this “peer” (what an archaic joke) has to report schoolyard bullying shows what a disconnect between her Nazi-era rhetoric and reality.
@10
You owned kbplayer. Great post.
I am not even sure Mr. Malik was ever a Muslim. I just read his book on the Rushdie Affair. While his father came from a Muslim background, the impression he left is of a secular/non-religious man not inclined to raise his son a Muslim.
So it’s alright to offend the minor faiths? Plymouth Brethrens? Scientology? CofE?
Maryam often points out that by far the majority of victims of Islamist violence are Muslims. Think of Mali for example, where Islamists invaded what was already a majority-Muslim area, and terrorized the population.
By the “liberal tradition” I mean the English liberal tradition which started building up speed in the eighteenth century and has been highly influential in Britain’s ex-colonies from the USA on.
Thank you for an honest answer. Yes, it’s an English tradition. Not a Pakistani one. Therefore, if England imports huge numbers of Pakistanis, one might expect those Pakistanis to replicate Pakistani traditions in England. Lo and behold — they do!
But liberalism is a fairly rare beast in human history. Much of Europe departed from it horrifically in the twentieth century and it has barely got going in other parts of the world.
Yes, it’s a rare beast. A fragile beast too. And if it’s “barely got going in other parts of the world”, is it wise to import huge numbers of people from those parts of the world? I would say not. And importing huge numbers of Muslims is particularly unwise.
1. Illiberal Muslims are much more powerful and numerous than liberal ones. Evidence for this assertion: Salman Rushdie could not live safely in Pakistan or any other Muslim nation. Osama bin Laden, otoh, lived safely in Pakistan for a number of years and might be living there still, if not for the intervention of the US.
2. The problems caused by Muslims in a non-Muslim society will be directly proportional to the number of Muslims in that society. Evidence: all around you.
Actually, Bestof, in my opinion we should expect people who migrate, for one reason or another, to adapt to the customs and, above all, laws of their new society. Somehow this seems to work mainly in one direction, however, and many immigrants to the West instead want to bring the host country’s legislation and general behaviour to a state matching those of the one they left.
Who would try anything like that in Islamistic societies like say Saudi, Indonesia etc? Not more than once in a lifetime, certainly.
No. Leave your country – leave its laws and customs too. Otherwise you’re likely to despised, feared and isolated in an enclave or ghetto mimicking them.
Why leave in the first place, then?