Either speak only good, or nothing at all

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

Why is the figure of the prophet Muhammad who lived in the 7th century still so important and why does his life define the life of Muslims throughout the world in the 21st century to such an extent? And why are they so sensitive to everything that's even remotely related to him? Many of us might've asked themselves these questions.

First off, the followers of the prophet don't call themselves Muhammedans, they call themselves Muslims. And that's because Muhammad is not a god but just a prophet - one among many. And still, to every act that they interpret as an insult to Muhammad, they react in a way that many people from other religions would deem unacceptable, even if their own religious feelings do get hurt occasionally.

There's a huge set of examples for this - from The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie to the outcry about the Muhammad cartoons, to the Pakistani law against blasphemy, which is practically used for persecuting religious minorities. The recent attacks on the US embassy in Cairo, the assassination of the US ambassador in Libya and the protests and flag burning throughout the Muslim world are examples of such reactions on a massive scale. Because here we're not talking of Muhammad the historic person, but rather his image that the people of the Muslim faith have created for themselves.

This book, The Truth About Muhammad, is an attempt to dig a bit deeper under the surface of these issues. The main question there is why the prophet still has such a huge impact on the Muslims' lives. The author Rainer Brunner has searched through the three main sources of info about Muhammad's life (the Quran, the Sunnah and the chronicles of Ibn Ishaq), and explores the way Muhammad's image has evolved through the centuries, becoming one of the pillars of the Muslim identity. The reverence for the prophet is now being used as a political weapon. There's a law in Pakistan against blapshemy, which says that "Whoever desecrates the holy prophet either by word of mouth or written word, or through a concealed mentioning of his holy name, they shall be punished by death or life prison".

The argument that's being made in the book is that Muhammad is so extremely important for the Muslims for two reasons. On one side, he is present in all 5 pillars of Islam. #1, the Islamic creed (Shahada) even explicitly begins with, "There is no god but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God". On the other hand, Muhammad is a projection of the Muslims' hope for a better life. And hope is a powerful motive.

In fact, a religion is what its adherents make it to be, the author concludes. The history of most religions is a story of people's hopes. And the prophets are the earthly projection of these hopes. That's why the Muslims are so extremely sensitive and they're prepared to resort to violence at every attempt to place the prophet Muhammad in a context that's different from the one they've chosen to see him in. No matter how well educated, how highly positioned, and from how advanced a society they may come, the believer doesn't need to trust any scientific arguments. They don't necessarily want to hear arguments like the one that you need evidence in order to firmly believe in something, or in the case of Islam, that today many of the writings of early Islam may have a problem passing the test of critical historic examination. In other words, chances are that the Muhammad of the 7th century may've been a different person from what he's now imagined to have been, and yet he's what his followers choose him to be, and that's the image that defines their identity, even in the 21st century.

And when we think about it, that kind of approach is not solely a prerogative of Islam.

Why am I saying this? How many times have you heard the words "Hurting one's religious feelings"? It's a concern that's become very fashionable these days, and that's proven not just by the Muslim protests against that offensive movie, or the reaction to the Muhammad cartoons in Denmark.

A few weeks ago there were some far-right protests in Berlin against the mosques. There was a big uproar on both sides, because some of the protesters were holding depictions of Muhammad while protesting. That was interpreted as a deliberate provocation, an attempt to hurt the feelings of the Muslims. There were concerned voices that this wouldn't end well and it would lead to violent clashes.

Fortunately, that didn't happen there, unlike what's happening throughout the Middle East at the moment, ironically, especially in countries whose liberation from dictators the US had supported. But no doubt, in recent years the notion that "We shouldn't hurt people's religious feelings" has gained momentum. In 2006, the whole cartoons outcry was doubled down by the Berlin authorities who at some point banned the staging of a Mozart opera (Idomeneo), just because the director had dared to decapitate Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha and Poseidon (nobody seemed to be too concerned about Poseidon, by the way). If we skip through a few other such similar incidents, we'd eventually turn the page on the episode where Pussy Riot's "heroic" act in that Russian cathedral is now printed in golden letters. Those girls dared insult the precious religious feelings of the Orthodox Christians in a country that doesn't seem willing to tolerate deviation from the norm in any shape or form. The scandal quickly spread beyond the Russian borders.

So let's be clear. The protests against the mosques are stupid taken by themselves, because what are they protesting against, actually? Against a religion? Or against some pieces of architecture? Maybe the minarets somehow disturb the futuristic 21st century skyline of Berlin? Muhammad's cartoons in most cases look silly and boring, full of cliches and all in all, not worth much attention but the occasional smirk. In other words, they were made just for the sake of provocation. And the political protest of Pussy Riot against Putin was only remotely related to Orthodox Christianity (as Dear Comrade himself has ascertained). Choosing a church to do it was only the excuse that the Russian state found very convenient in order to explain the harsh punishment that was handed to them.

So in all of these stories and episodes one could find all sorts of aesthetic and/or political problems, we could question the intelligence and the common sense of the protesters or their methods of making their case... But meanwhile the dramatically hysterical and often violently threatening reaction of those religious communities and people who are feeling "deeply offended and disturbed" is as absurd and inappropriate, not to mention how hypocritical.

In all the above mentioned scandals and conflicts there's one thing present - the free expression of opinions and positions. The protesters themselves (whether they're waving stupid cartoons or making shitty punk music against Putin), are not infringing on anybody's right to believe in this supernatural invisible friend or the other, they're not insisting on political repressions against the believers, and certainly not on banning any faith. And yet, the religious people instantly recognize a profound insult in the very act of expressing an opinion itself, and say things like "Anyone who puts our faith in question is offending us". And obviously I'm not solely talking about Muslims.

Well hello, if we're to accept such an argument without reservations, that would mean we'd have to scratch off a huge chunk of the history of knowledge, science, and the progress of the human civilization overall, because it's exactly the healthy amounts of questioning, critical thinking, and constant search for new explanations due to curiosity and distrust in the social dogma that has driven this progress over the ages. And since this is the case, shouldn't the largest group on Earth in terms of faith (probably 2nd in the US), that of the non-religious, be also claiming hurt feelings? But who would ever think of protecting the emotional comfort of atheists, agnostics or other non-believers from all sorts of religious fundamentalists who are constantly yelling anathemas at them from all sides, in almost all corners of the world?

Of course this stunning asymmetry between the "emotional" tuning/tolerance of believers and non-believers (or should I call it, the discrepancy in the thickness of their skins), has a very long history and a very complex explanation, for which I don't have the time right now (moreover, I'm sure most of us would be able to provide it for themselves). But at the end of the day, the fact of the matter is that we all live on the same planet, and from a purely pragmatic standpoint, it would've been a bit more recommendable if we tried to live together, each with the little quirks and occasional moments of douchebaggery, without resorting to head-rolling and stoning to death, or burning the house of thy neighbor just because he said something that plucks a painful chord inside your precious soul.

It's impossible to prove who's right and who isn't, as far as gods and deities are concerned. So why not just leave that stuff to the theologians and philosophers, and do something more useful, like, you know, sitting side by side with a bowl of popcorn while watching football or the latest reality show? ;)

Comments

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

(controversial opinion alert?)

And why are they so sensitive to everything that's even remotely related to him?

One word: Ignorance.

The vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, hospital, loving people, but statistically when you look at the Muslim population, they tend to be more impoverished than Christians, less educated, less employed, etc. Their being Islamic is secondary to them being poor. You can look at Middle Ages Christians to see a similar picture. Fear and religion is used to keep people in check so they don't revolt against their oppressive overlords.

I say it's more of a cultural thing than a religious thing.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

It certainly is a cultural thing. I mean, just look at Bhutan (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1369845.html). They've invented the concept of Gross National Happiness. One of the poorest nations in the world.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

I find your opinion quite reasonable.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I would disagree that the majority of them care all that much. We don't see mobs on a vast scale doing this, we see the same dim-bulbs who firebombed The Last Temptation of Christ and murder abortion doctors in churches doing this,, just from another culture.. Muslims globally are also not some great universal that can be judged on this. Certainly the elites of Muslim-majority states are not, but there are also only two avowedly Muslim states in the 21st Century: Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Measured death for death and atrocity for atrocity, as well as in terms of structure, Christianity is by far the more menacing of the two, having a parallel system to the state and a well-established tradition of trying to destroy states. The claims that medieval Christians were effectively distracted by this or that this was an established pattern in Medieval Christianity is also belied by the biggest battle of Medieval times (Tannenberg) being fought between dynastic states over territory, and the longest medieval war (the Hundred Years' War) originating over who was really King of France, the Angevin Empire's ruler or the guy in Paris.. Medieval Islam, of course, was on the whole more civilized than medieval Christianity with the singular exception of the Roman Empire's medieval phase, itself given the killer blow not by Muslims but by the barbarian Ferenji who didn't understand the politics of a genuine state.

Islam has no responsibility for terrorist ideologies, but neither is it the reason Muslim states (or more technically Muslim-majority states) are poor. That has to do with uneven demographic structures, poor economic structures for the purpose of establishing a consistent economic basis, autocratic leadership structures that often depend on foreign bases to stay in power and as such have no reason even for the dictatorship's accountability, that is fear of revolution, and with a continual pattern of poor geographic bases and low domestic capital to invest in actually building the state.

But as this is an analogy that relies on treating all people as equally human, neither the Islamist nor his Western counterpart the Culture Warrior will care for it. Both are more akin to each other than either is to liberal civilization in its Western guise.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

...and the rest of them are infantile beardless cry babies who we have no buisness acknowledging much less trying to appease.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

> the followers of the prophet don't call themselves Muhammedans

Here they're called exactly that, by the way. Mohamedani.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

You guys are special in so many ways!

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

They were called that in English, too, when civilization was brought by arcing machine guns through crowds of them and through releasing artillery and air power on their civilians when they objected to civilization through bad faith and betrayal of solemn promises of independence. Nowadays nobody uses the term anymore, as Victorian mores have in theory fallen.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

In other words, chances are that the Muhammad of the 7th century may've been a different person from what he's now imagined to have been, and yet he's what his followers choose him to be, and that's the image that defines their identity, even in the 21st century.

This sounds familiar from somewhere. Oh I recalled. Same applies for Jesus. Who occasionally either "hates fags", or "hates socialism", or "wants a tax break" or something that fits this or that political agenda. If Jesus could see what bullshit is being spewn around in his name, he'd probably have pushed the Armageddon button and wiped the whole place out in a heartbeat.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Luckily he achieved buddhahood and escaped the cycle of rebirth before that happened.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

Now that you've mentioned the-name-that-should-not-be-uttered 17 times, expect the Taliban ninja assault in 6, 5, 4...

Oh wait. Except no one expects the Taliban ninja!

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

This is a little more lethal than disputes over the historicity and nature of the historical Jesus, but anything too grounded in historical methodology applied to Jesus in Christian countries very much will come in for flack and a great deal of passive-aggressive whinging.

However in Islam theology is different than that of Christianity. Muhammad is held to be a great man, but just this: a man. he is not the incarnation of Allah, nor is he God's Son, and indeed that whole concept is considered polytheism.

I consider any leap between this and conclusions about Muslims as a culture/civilization to be a wee bit too broad and too little grounded in logic.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

As said above, the issue with states where the population is majority Muslim ultimately revolve around a triumvirate of interlocking factors. Autocratic regimes that rely on foreign backing are the predominant form of organization, having both nothing in common with the masses they repress and having little fear of them due to being able to depend on a foreign pipeline to save themselves control states whose economies tend to be monocrop economies or dependent on exporting and not on domestic sources of income, where the demographic pattern is also one that favors huge masses of young people who as such have no means to secure any kind of consistent employment. Islam isn't really the problem with any of this, it's a reflection of the spread of modern medicine and thus the same demographic boom that happened in Europe.

The issue of Muhammad, even then, applies to fanatics whose lethal and barbaric acts ensures they have the eye of global media, but always in specific areas, not in the whole of the Muslim world. Pakistan, which is debatably Muslim (if you consider it a Muslim theocracy Israel is a Jewish one) as a state but is certainly Islamic-nationalist, Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, all are areas damaged by civil wars, which in the reality as opposed to the mythology produce violent, bloodthirsty, radical movements who live and die by the gun. This is a problem without real solutions bar a Bene Gesserit-style unrealistically prolonged global social engineering project.

So, it's notoriously bloody minorities seeking a cheap rallying point to distract from complex issues they cannot control. It's both neither unique to the Muslim world, nor are the solutions easily found here. The treatment of it as an apocalyptic clash of civilizations, however, is both fairytale and the irony of the blind condemning the blind as both stand poised over the abyss.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Eric Allen Bell (http://www.globalinfidel.tv/profiles/blogs/true-face-of-facebook-by-eric-allen-bell) used to be a reasonable man but has since come to the conclusion that Islam is a religion of hate. And it's not hard to see how he has reached that conclusion after the increase of death threats made against him, deepening his resolve.

But it's not that hard to reach the same conclusion about Christianity, so perhaps it is something about religion that causes people to hate the sin as well as (hating) the sinner, even though the scriptures seem to warn us about doing just that. Tolerance isn't a characteristic of most religions, although it is a teaching by most religions.

It very well could be simply cultural. poverty and ignorance go hand and hand. But simply encountering people(s) who are different (either in person or by proxy (such as the role National Geographic used to play)) doesn't necessarily inspire hatred towards them. Jesuit priests would initially have pity on those who don't know the Lord. While others have varying degrees of curiosity, such as passive tourists, to those who immerse themselves in foreign culture (including learning languages and customs). Fear is certainly a common reaction about anything unknown.

I would think anything that raises doubt in our certainty has one of two reactions. Either we re-examine all that we know to be real and true (which is time consuming and exhausting as we start from scratch) or we hunker down and protect our truths and deny all that which makes us uncomfortable. As the introduction of difference threatens us, then protecting ourselves, our families, our society, etc could very well be the more base reaction.

As burning the American flag is seen as a threatening action, so is burning the Qur'an. It's a quasi-violent act that disrespects that thing others hold dear. Just as subverting a country with propaganda, aid for a coupe, or full scale invasion doesn't respect a society for what it is as it is.

Depicting the prophet in a disrespectful way is as threatening obviously only as far as being disrespectful. No lives are lost when burning the stars and stripes either. But if they are hateful enough to burn the flag, do they hate us? Where does that hate end or how far does that hate go? It's a threatening action although just passively so. So I kind of understand why Salman Rushdie books or Danish cartoons provoke such reaction.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

How is Mohammed present in all five of the pillars of islam? Sure, he is in the Kalima but the rest?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Officially in Islam everything was originated in/influenced by the Prophet, right down to the length of beard people have. Muhammad mandated prayer five times a day, the Zakat tax (which is not the one collected on Dhimmi, that would be a separate one), he taught the Shahada, and so on. Whether this is accurate historically would of course be a different manner, just as the origin of Christian rites/rituals theologically and historically can be two very different things.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

The five pillars:

Kalima: God is one and Muhammad is his prophet.
Salah: Daily prayer in praise of God and his prophet.
Zakat: Charity is the best deed, as postulated and initiated by Muhammad.
Sawm: Fasting is purifying the body, as initiated by Muhammad.
Hajj: Pilgrimage to Mecca, the place associated with the life of the prophet.

In fact Muhammad is mentioned more often in the pillars than God himself.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Good angle on an interesting subject. Applaux

[di-glossia.livejournal.com]

First off, the followers of the prophet don't call themselves Muhammedans, they call themselves Muslims. And that's because Muhammad is not a god but just a prophet - one among many.

That's only part of the issue. Muslims call themselves Muslims because the central idea of Islam is submission to God, and Mohammedean was never used by the Prophet, so it'd be a bit like saying "Mosesian". Not only is it not a concept to believers, it just sounds weird.


In all the above mentioned scandals and conflicts there's one thing present - the free expression of opinions and positions. The protesters themselves (whether they're waving stupid cartoons or making shitty punk music against Putin), are not infringing on anybody's right to believe in this supernatural invisible friend or the other, they're not insisting on political repressions against the believers, and certainly not on banning any faith.

The main issue with cartoons of Mohammed is that Sunni Muslims believe that depictions of any of the prophets, but especially the Prophet, encourage iconography and so should be banned. This has led to images of Mohammed being seen as offensive by Sunni Muslims. Add to that the offensiveness of any religious cartoons and you have a hotbed of contention.

That right wing group in Germany was Bürgerbewegung pro Deutschland (Pro Germany Citizen's Movement) and they were displaying the cartoons that caused the Jyllands-Posten controversy in 2005 along with signs saying "Stop Islamisierung" (Stop Islamization). Pro Deutschland is xenophobic and anti-Semitic, is currently petitioning for Turkey not to be given membership in the EU (http://www.pro-deutschland-online.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12&Itemid=27), is working to get "Innocence of Muslims" shown in Berlin (http://www.pro-berlin.net/?p=4837), and enjoys making signature protests to stop the erection of mosques. Pro Deutschland is actively working to get rid of Muslims and Turks in Germany. They could probably have put just about anything on those signs and it would still be seen as offensive, since Pro Deutschland is little more than a sanitized version of the KKK. Of course, as the courts have shown, this isn't considered an attack, just free speech. But it's still as offensive as anything coming from the Westboro Baptist Church.

[mybodymycoffin.livejournal.com]

The ambassador was assassinated by radical Islamists that knew nothing about the faked anti-Islam video. It was an attack planned at least weeks before ANYONE knew about the video. Knowledge about the video occurred just after the assassination happened, and media outlets assumed the attack was caused by it. The fact that everyone wants to run this the opposite way is -telling-. In this dialogue it's important that we sell the image of the bearded foreigner that demands from 'us' our 'right' to do what we want to do.

When the Arab Spring occurred everyone was split between playing hope that the Ayrabs would -finally- become democratized or that the Ayrabs could never -really- embrace democracy, on account of being religious types, and now we see the latter position was always the real spirit of the former. You'd think that protest of people isn't in fact an act of democracy. And of course the fact that the only thing you see on television are the same cycle of images of a burning car, burning flags, and scary brown people with scary headbands and their flags, but never this
,
this, or
this (from here (http://farhanist.tumblr.com/post/31425008275/muslims-in-libya-condemn-violence-apologize-to)),
and certainly not any peaceable protests. Why is the default frame-of-mind that I'm seeing that bigots have the absolute right to be bigots but the offended don't have the right to voice their offense? It was okay when it was something you kind of agreed with, but not it's just too extreme? Please. Choose both or neither.

And as an aside, your critical history of Islam is outdated garbage, never mind hardly critical. There is not one Muslim in this world that thinks the Qur'an was given to Muhammad in one whole package, and there never will be. The process of revelation is key to interpretation of the Qur'an and understanding fiqh. The fact that the Qur'an as it is today was canonized at the end of Muhammad's life, and that there were recordings of ayat later deemed incorrect is not controversial, it's in the history. The controversy is the desire by Westerners to devise from this an infantile understanding of the book and the people who love it- a movement eerily similar to the desire to devise from inconsistencies in Gospel narrative that Jesus must simply have been a fictional character created by.. someone. This is controversial for fundies, of course, but any respectful text on the subject by a Muslim will explain how the Muslim interprets their history (one which you will disagree with, of course, but they DO have an intellectual tradition which is not mere grand-standing, naturally).

[musicpsych.livejournal.com]

Thanks for posting those photos. I did see the first one posted on Facebook by a friend, so hopefully more Americans are seeing images like those.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

It's hard to judge these things because the most I ever see of Muslim nations is on tv and the movies, and we all know how it likes to depict them...

[musicpsych.livejournal.com]

I don't think I'll read that book, but maybe I should. I just don't understand the reasoning behind the violence. There are photos on CNN.com of protests in Sydney. All of this, over some obscure video that likely 99.9% of Americans had never seen before, but only found out about due to the protests? Part of me thinks there must be more to it, like there must be some anti-American sentiment that has been simmering for a long time, and the video is being used as a reason for the violence. It's just a struggle to see it from that perspective.

And then there's this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9545597/Armada-of-British-naval-power-massing-in-the-Gulf-as-Israel-prepares-an-Iran-strike.html. I hope nothing comes of that, but I'm worried about that region.

[di-glossia.livejournal.com]

It's similar to the Jyllands-Posten cartoons: a private group in a country that allows free speech put out something offensive without consulting the vast majority of the population. Does violently attacking an embassy really do anything in this situation except garner an official, unfelt apology? Is the result any different from that of peaceful protest? I don't understand why people so often conflate the opinion of a small group of people with that of an entire country.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Watching the reactions of the politicians in the West made me puke. The inadequacy of the Western leaders is more than obvious. Their lack of principled position is appalling, and their cowardice is humiliating and demoralizing. There've been tons of apologies and condemnations coming from the likes of Hillary Clinton, and they're condemning a movie. A MOVIE! And this way they're condemning the freedom of expression in their very country and elsewhere in the world. The whining apologies directed at the violent mobs is obviously meant to appease their wrath, without realizing that this way we're apologizing for who we are and for the freedom of speech which we're supposed to cherish and protect. Those same politicians who a few days ago were all on the bandwagon of condemnation against the sentencing of three Russian girls for making a video where they had tried to exercise their right of free speech - these SAME politicians are now doing the exact opposite!

So what turns out now? That our famous democratic freedoms, the supremacy of law, and the courage to stand by our principles, are all only meant for domestic consumption, and only when they're politically beneficial to us, and most of all, when they don't pose a danger to us? And when we clash with the brute force and scorn of those who spit on these very values, we'd suddenly cringe shyly like guilty pussies, and lay low in wait for the storm to pass?

Very smart, very prudent, very tolerant, and very... "civilized", right?

[usekh.livejournal.com]

Have any politicians called for the movie to be banned? The producers prosecuted or the like?

Or have they just criticised it as the vile piece of deliberately provocative lying trash that is is?

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

This (http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/) (NSFW) pretty well covers what comes down as the problem of offensiveness and the violent reactions to such offense.

[usekh.livejournal.com]

I would say one thing, the author of that needs to research a bit of Indian history sometime.

[grundnorm.livejournal.com]

You're right. If you completely misrepresent a group of people, you can make them look silly. Well done.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

That's something someone wise like Lord Vetinari wouldn't do, amirite? ;)