Qatif rape case

[dreamer_easy]

I get very impatient with the constant call for moderate Muslims to decry the words and works of extremist Muslims, when moderate Muslims do that all the time: it's just not as headline-grabbing. And if you didn't happen to hear about it from the news sources you follow, it may as well not have happened. (The same rubbish is said about feminists, often without even the effort of a thirty-second Web search.) The aim is to tar with the same brush over a billion human beings, from different countries, speaking different languages, from different races, with different politics (even within Saudi Arabia), following different beliefs and practices... but they're really all the same, you see.

Some more recent Saudi commentary on the Qatif case:

From Arab News: How 'Culture' Is Defended in a Globalized World: "Time after time judgments such as that passed in the “Qatif” case mortify us as Saudi nationals by their appalling and overt misogyny that inevitably makes headlines in the international press. It is an urgent issue because these authorities keep catching us by surprise and exposing us to international ridicule and condemnation with their own narrow religious-political agenda."

The Real Issue Raised by the Qatif Verdict: "The morality of the Qatif girl is not (and should not) be the main discussion point. The real issue at hand is that of a due process within our judicial system."

British Muslims on the Sudan teddy bear case:

A bear called Muhammad is no blasphemy; Blasphemy caused by cuddly animals; There's far more to Islam than a teddy

Comments

[qthewetsprocket.livejournal.com]

Our humanity must transcend adherence to scriptural literalism, especially if it leads to mayhem and loss of innocent lives.

i would vote for this sentence to be repeatedly writ upon the brain cells / stamped across the forehead of every religious zealot on the planet, regardless of denomination or dogma.

[jadekirk.livejournal.com]

Agreed, or branded on their foreheads.

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

Theologically, one might argue that this is why God gave human beings consciences as well as an instruction manual.

on moderation

[thegameiam.livejournal.com]

Have a chat with Code Monkey (http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com/2007/12/there_is_no_compulsion_in_reli.php).

The letters in the Guardian aren't exactly ringing in their defense of free expression... (one refer to Sudan having descended into zealotry - but doesn't say that the zealots have actually done anything beyond the pale. Another says that Ms. Gibbons should receive a token fine - that's like arguing that Darrow was wrong and Bryan was right...)

Further, the real issue isn't that there are a handful of reasonable people somewhere writing in English - it's the gazillion unreasonable people speaking and writing in Arabic on Al-Jazeera, Al-Arabia and the parts of the Islamic press. I'm glad to see that there are sparks of decency - but boy, there sure are buried in an avalanche of horror.

c.f. MEMRI (http://www.memri.org/index.html).

Re: on moderation

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

Controversy over MEMRI

Re: on moderation

[thegameiam.livejournal.com]

If the worst that polemecists like Juan Cole can come up with is that MEMRI looks for inflammatory things and publishes them, the fact that they find some many things all over the place proves my point.

Islamic moderates are few and far between, and generally not actually located in Islamic states. Consider also the fact that Rushdie is STILL in hiding from the fatwa in the 80s. The small number of sensible moderates have a lot of work to do...

Re: on moderation

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

I wanted to add that I don't think that Edward Ani, the letter writer who suggested a token fine, is actually a Muslim.

Re: on moderation

[thegameiam.livejournal.com]

Ok, whether or not he's a Muslim, he's clearly an idiot - zealotry cannot brook compromise, and bowing to it only incourages more zeal.

Re: on moderation

[jblum.livejournal.com]

Sixty seconds in Wikipedia will tell you that Salman Rushdie came out of hiding just under a decade ago, after Iran withdrew its support for the fatwa (now they officially "will neither support nor hinder" attempts on his life).

This rather underlines Kate's point about what news sources you listen to!

Re: on moderation

[thegameiam.livejournal.com]

Hmm - did you and I read the same Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie) entry? The one which includes this bit:

On 24 September 1998, as a precondition to the restoration of diplomatic relations with Britain, the Iranian government, then headed by moderate Mohammad Khatami, gave a public commitment that it would "neither support nor hinder assassination operations on Rushdie."[12][13] Hardliners in Iran have, however, continued to reaffirm the death sentence.[14] In early 2005, Khomeini's fatwa was reaffirmed by Iran's spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in a message to Muslim pilgrims making the annual pilgrimage to Mecca.[15] Additionally, the Revolutionary Guards have declared that the death sentence on him is still valid.[16] Iran has rejected requests to withdraw the fatwa on the basis that only the person who issued it may withdraw it[15], and the person who issued it is dead.

Would you still call that a supporting argument?

And by the way, Theo van Gogh is still dead.

Seriously, when folks publicly say "we'll kill people for speaking X," it pays not to dismiss them out of hand. Consider also that if a Christian preacher issued a proclamation saying that anyone who apostacizes will be killed, s/he would be shouted down by an overwhelming number of other Christians. The Muslims who react in a similar way to that very mainstream teaching (i.e. that the penalty for apostacy is death) are a tiny, tiny whisper amid the shouts for the blood of the heretics.

I encourage moderates, but I do not belittle the magnitude of their task.

Re: on moderation

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

Nonetheless, Rushdie came out of hiding in 1998.

Re: on moderation

[thegameiam.livejournal.com]

forest. trees.

The point is that a NOVELIST is living under a death sentence. WTF?

Re: on moderation

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

Found quite an interesting article about censorship, free speech, and Islamic countries from earlier this year from a writer whose books were banned in Malaysia: "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."

Re: on moderation

[jblum.livejournal.com]

Different article -- the one on The Satanic Verses controversy is the one which mentions Rushdie's 1998 declaration that he's come out of hiding.

And yes, it does still support my argument, because Kate's point -- and mine -- is that you're only hearing the "shouts" over your preferred news channels, and not actually hearing the facts which don't match what you're saying. As above, where you claimed he was still in hiding.

Part of the shoutiness is the megaphone effect of centralized media -- especially in nations with direct control of the press, which hide the alternate viewpoints within a country, but Kate's point is that the US is hardly immune from this either. (That's why she's highlighting these other comments.) It is indeed a struggle for moderates to make themselves heard... but we also need to struggle to listen for them. Maybe the reason it sounds like a whisper is because you're not listening?

Re: on moderation

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

Putting aside questions of media bias, "Mad beardy bastard decapitates teddy" is always going to be a better headline than "Moderate Muslim holds sensible opinion". :-)

Re: on moderation

[thegameiam.livejournal.com]

My knowledge of Islamic attitudes comes from reading media published in the middle east, my graduate work in Middle Eastern History, and from the Muslims I know personally, not from Wikipedia.

I highly recommend getting to know some religious Muslims (in real life, not online), and evaluating whether their attitudes about things like the Rushdie fatwa would be well described by the word "moderate."

My point is a bit tautological - if the voice is so quiet that you have to struggle to hear it, then it's really, really quiet. The not-so-moderate voices are a hell of a lot louder, more prominent, and more dominant. Really, I feel like I'm being forced to argue that water is wet - moderate voices in Islamic countries are routinely executed or driven into hiding.

Re: on moderation

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

Understandably, Rushdie is strongly critical of Islam, but he also knows that the extremists don't represent all Muslims: "Traditional Islam is a broad church that certainly includes millions of tolerant, civilised men and women..."

Gillian Gibbons has shown the most extraordinary grace. "I don't want any resentment towards Muslim people", she told her son. She's also spoken about the Muslim parents who had no problem with the naming of the teddy bear, the school director to whom it was pretty much a non-issue. "I went into court and I saw one of the parents of one of my children and she was smiling at me and people don't understand how much something like that means to you when you're in such a desperate state because I was terrified."

It was two British Muslims who negotiated Gibbons' freedom and brought her home; the British PM said, Gordon Brown praised them both: "Through the course of Ms Gibbons's detention I was glad to see Muslim groups across the UK express strong support for her case. I applaud the particular efforts of Lord Ahmed and Baroness Warsi in securing her freedom."

Re: on moderation

[thegameiam.livejournal.com]

Rushdie is correct: there are millions of tolerant civilized men and women who are Muslims. However, there are tens of millions (hundreds of millons?) of Muslims who are anything but tolerant. Ignoring that fact is borrowing trouble.

Religious reformations don't happen easily, and I don't expect that the needed Islamic reformation will be a pleasant process.

Re: on moderation

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

No-one's ignoring the extremists. In fact, it's the opposite: they're the ones who get all the attention! There are forty million people in Sudan, 70% of them Muslims, yet the bloodthirsty protesters could only scrape up a thousand people for their rallies against Gibbons? Even in Sydney that would be a piddling effort! I see no sign of hundreds of millions, or even tens of millions, of zealots. Too many of the bastards, certainly, with too much power - greedy dictators, fossil judges, mostly hurting other Muslims.

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

Yes, its quite dispiriting that the Western political dialogue continuously criticises moderate Muslims while empowering the zealots with press attention, but so seldom actually does anything to help and support them.

I highly recommend the book Desperately Seeking Paradise by Ziaudin Sardar, a book by an active engaged moderate Muslim (also a respected Western academic, but its largely incidental to the book), which reads very much as a lament for the world of moderate Islam caught between Islamic zealotry and Western dismissal and hostility (which, of course, feeds the zealotry).

From the second Arab News link
We spent years telling people that Saudis are not monsters. That our religion is one of peace and fairness.
The problem is not with the Saudi people, or even with their religion. The problem is, their government are monsters, a hereditary monarchy wildly out of touch with the rest of the world and able to maintain its backward and anachronistic, often deliberately ignorant, stance purely due to a combination of oil money and Western support, and that empowers and fosters zealotry as long as it keeps them in power and turns a blind eye to aristocratic hypocrisy. As long as there is very little economic or political pressure on them to change, they will not -- the Saudi regime is a case where the West props up and empowers the zealots in real terms, and then uses their excesses to attack all Islam.

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

*makes note of title* Ta!

Moderate Muslims must feel like progressive Christians - caught between the Creationists on the one hand and the hardline atheists on the other!