- BIG NEWS:
- Health Care
- |
- Iraq
- |
- Michele Bachmann
- |
- Barack Obama
- |
 |
||
This is a column condemning cowardice -- including my own. It begins with the story of a novel you cannot read. The Jewel of Medina was written by a journalist called Sherry Jones. It recounts the life of Aisha, a girl who really was married off at the age of six to a 50 year old man called Mohammed ibn Abdallah. On her wedding day, Ayesha was playing on a see-saw outside her home. Inside, she was being betrothed. The first she knew of it was when she was banned from playing out in the street with the other children. When she was nine, she was taken to live with her now-53 year old husband. He had sex with her there and then. When she was fourteen, she was accused of adultery with a man closer to her own age. Not long after, Mohammed decreed his wives must cover their faces and bodies, even though no other women in Arabia did.
You cannot read this story today -- except in the Koran and the Hadith. The man Mohammed ibn Abdallah became known to Muslims as 'the Prophet Mohammed', so our ability to explore this story is stunted. The Jewel of Medina was bought by Random House and primed to be a best-seller -- before a University of Texas teacher saw proofs and declared it "a national security issue." Random House had panicked visions of a rerun Rushdie or MoToons affair. But her publishers have pulped it. It's gone.
In Europe, we are finally abolishing the lingering blasphemy laws that hinder criticism of Christianity. But they are being succeeded by a new blasphemy law preventing criticism of Islam -- enforced not by the state, but by jihadis. I seriously considered not writing this column, but the right to criticize religion is as precious -- and hard-won -- as the right to criticize government. We have to use it or lose it.
Some people will instantly ask: why bother criticising religion if it causes so much hassle? The answer is: look back at our history. How did Christianity lose its ability to terrorize people with phantasms of sin and Hell? How did it stop being spreading shame about natural urges -- pre-marital sex, masturbation or homosexuality? Because critics pored over the religion's stories and found gaping holes of logic or morality in them. They asked questions. How could an angel inseminate a virgin? Why does the Old Testament God command his followers to commit genocide? How can a man survive inside a whale?
Reinterpretation and ridicule crow-barred Christianity open. Ask enough tough questions, and faith is inevitably pushed farther and farther back into the misty realm of metaphor -- where it is less likely to inspire people to kill and die for it. But doubtful Muslims, and the atheists who support them, are being prevented from following this path. They cannot ask: what does it reveal about Mohammed that he had sex with a child, or that he massacred a village of Jews who refused to follow him? You don't have to murder many Theo Van Goughs or pulp many Sherry Joneses to intimidate the rest. The greatest censorship is internal: it is in all the books that will never be written and all the films that will never be shot, because we are afraid.
We need to acknowledge the double-standard -- and that it will cost Muslims in the end. Insulating a religion from criticism -- surrounding it with an electric wire-fence called 'respect' -- keeps it stunted at its most infantile and fundamentalist stage. The smart, questioning and instinctively moral Muslims -- the majority -- learn to be silent, or are shunned (at best). What would Christianity would be like today if George Elliot and Mark Twain and Bertrand Russell had all been pulped? Take the most revolting rural-Alabama church, and metastasize it.
Since Jones has brought it up, let's look at Mohammed's marriage to Ayesha as a model for how we can conduct this conversation. It is true those were different times, and it may have been normal for grown men to have sex with children. The sources aren't clear on this point. But whatever culture you live in, being penetrated when your body is not physically developed is an excruciatingly painful experience. Among Vikings it was more normal than today to have your arm chopped off, but that didn't mean it wasn't agony. If anything, Jones' book whitewashes this, suggesting Mohammed's 'gentleness' meant Ayesha enjoyed it.
The story of Aisha also prompts another fundamentalist-busting discussion. You can't say Mohammed's decision to have sex with a child has to be judged by the standards of his time, and then demand we follow his moral standards to the letter. Either we should follow his example literally, or we should critically evaluate it and choose for ourselves. Discussing this contradiction inevitably injects doubt, the mortal enemy of fanaticism. (On the Independent's Open House blog later today, I'll be discussing how Ayesha has become a central issue in the debate in Yemen about whether to protect children from forced marriage.)
So why do many secularists -- people who cheer The Life of Brian and Jerry Springer -- the Opera -- turn into clucking Mary Whitehouses when it comes to Islam? If a book about the life of Christ was being dumped because fanatics in Mississippi might object, we would be enraged. I feel this too. I am ashamed to say I would be more scathing if I was discussing Christianity. One reason is plain fear: the image of Theo Van Gough lying on a pavement crying "Can't we just talk about this?" Of course we rationalize it, by asking: does one joke, one column, one novel make much difference? No. But cumulatively? Absolutely.
The other reason is more honourable, if flawed. There is very real and rising prejudice against Muslims across the West today. The BBC recently sent out identically-qualified CVs to hundreds of employers. Those with Muslim names were 50 percent less likely to get interviews. Criticisms of Islamic texts are sometimes used to justify US or Israeli military atrocities. Some critics of Muslims -- Geert Wilders or Martin Amis -- moot mass human rights abuses here in Europe. So some secularists reason: I have plenty of criticisms of Judaism, but I wouldn't choose to articulate them in Germany in 1933. Why try to question Islam now, when Muslims are being attacked by bigots?
But I live in the majority-Muslim East End, and this isn't Weimar Germany. Muslims are secure enough to deal with some tough questions. It is condescending to treat Muslims like excitable children who cannot cope with the probing, mocking treatment we hand out to Christianity, Judaism and Buddhism. It is perfectly consistent to protect Muslims from bigotry while challenging the bigotries and absurdities within their holy texts.
There is now a pincer movement trying to silence critical discussion of Islam. To one side, fanatics threaten to kill you; to the other, critics call you "Islamophobic." But consistent atheism is not racism. On the contrary: it treats all people, irrespective of skin colour, as mature adults who can cope with rational questions. When we pulp books out of fear of fundamentalism, we are decapitating the most precious freedom we have.
To read an archive of Johann Hari's columns for the London Independent, go here.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Mr Hari meet Ms Hirsi Ali ...
I don't often agree with you but finally you have hit the mark.
"Why try to question Islam now, when Muslims are being attacked by bigots?"
Because maybe if we do, we might be able to save one of those little girls being strapped to a kitchen table somewhere in Western Europe or North America about to have her genitalia mutilated.
What makes it worse is the multicultural attitude of winking while its happening as if its OK because it's "their culture."
Ayaan Hirsi Ali writes of her own firsthand experience with it in Somalia and later on in Holland when those in power were ignoring it.
For the sake of moderate well intended Muslims who seek freedom in the west this must change. If no one can question or criticize Islam than how will it ever reform? If no one can question the Quran, then how will Islamic culture ever progress? How can it progress? How can it deal with science or sex or women or any of the thousands of issues that come up in daily life ? Nothing will change until we make it change and that can only be done via open discussion about it.
How long are we going to allow honor killings for example?
Ms. Jones should self-publish, maximize the publicity, and enjoy the benefits of sole ownership if her contract allows it.
If her contract doesn't allow it, she should give her publisher the nastiest, most brutal lawsuit possible until they give her back the rights to first printing.
The Dutch have already proved to the world that drug decriminalization works. They have one of the lowest rates of hard drug use (1/3 that of the U.S. for heroin and cocaine), and their rates for soft drug use is comparable to nations where it is illegal. as has been pointed out by others; legalization just means the people who were already using those drugs keep using them. Those who wouldn't use them illegally are not much more likely to use them legally. They also have an EXTREMELY low violent crime rate. Their children are well educated on the TRUE FACTS (not lying propoganda like our anti drug campaigns) about drug use and the 18+ law for soft drug purchase is highly enforced. As a result their use of soft drugs by minors is a fraction of what it is in the U.S..
http://www
Well some say a conspiracy
of the petro-chemical and pulp-paper industries combined
to kill the compitition.
Government hysteria,monopoly and conflict of interest,
with total impunity.
If you don’t buy the conspiracy,
just look at the reality
that your tax dollars go
to spray poison on the fields of a farmer in South America.
And as an added bonus,
your neighbor might be the proud recipions of that poison weed.
Reefer madness, chronic sadness,
what is the half-life of bad propaganda?
Policies fail, denied bail,
you made him a demon now pay for his trip to prison.
Hired to promote the status quo,
but what is the shelf life of bad legislation?
The hypocrite smirks, 'it’s a moral disgrace'
as he reads from a law that was written
about the same time that he had
his last original thought.
Well the men said he was dying,
and the nausea and the pain left him wasting away
and unable to keep a meal down.
So he tried everything a prescription could obtain
but to no avail.
The side effects were worse than the pain.
So now he breaks the law
to use the one thing that seems to help him out.
But people say, 'Oh he's just getting’ high.'
And not to change the subject but,
DIDN'T YOU EVER WONDER WHY GETTING HIGH'S A CRIME?
-Phish
This is a sticky problem. The "legal," drug manufacturers are most definately threatened by street drugs, mainly pot. Think of all the prozac and zoloft and wellbutrin and other pyschotropic drugs that will drop in sales. It's bad enough that our own president pushed to get legal, prescription drugs from Canada made illegal, so his buddies in big Pharma can make even more billions. Drugs and oil are the two biggest money makers for our government. It's high time this stopped. (no pun intended)
Then there is the question of energy sources. Legal hemp would solve many of our current energy needs, and it is 400% more productive for alternative fuels per acre. It is a resinous plant that grows tall and thin and would be 4 times more productive than corn. Corn is food, hemp is not. (although it can be made into protein sources of a sort) Nobody would be deprived food due to the growth of industrial grade hemp. It has literally a thousand uses. Safe economical uses, from everything from clothing to oils and fibers for industry. But no, our draconian drug paranoia is keeping us down, economically and spiritually. It's stupid and greedy, that's all there is to it.
An old friend was stationed in Myanmar ( Burma) several years back and actually had photographs
of a FAKE cocaine bust set up with full cooperation of DEA, the local officials and the local drug cartel.
The DEA was under pressure to show results, so they had all the agents take a photo op in front
of the shipment, knowing full well that is was all a ruse.
It's all government sponsored money laundering and job security for those who benefit from
current laws.
Drugs are readily available everywhere. Everybody who wants to do drugs is doing them and everybody who does not isn't. Decriminalization won't change a thing about who's using. A lot of benefits will accrue as well. However, the religious zealots are opposed to pleasure in any form. Swat teams will have little to do. Jobs for prison guards will be lost. Ditto for jobs in the criminal justice system. I'm not optimistic about reform.
if they ended the war on drugs i don't think people would lose their jobs. i think they could then focus on more serious crimes and they would just be retrained in another area.
This insanity has been going on for way too long, and those who have posted above are right - it is sustained not by any logic, but by money. There's an enormous amount of money to be made in illicit, illegal, and "black market" dealings. Much more money than if those activities were legal. In fact, the same illustrious financial institutions that brought us the current "subprime" mortgage crisis - are up to their (never minds) in this travesty - they make billions laundering money from drug deals.
It's time to clean up the Aegean Stables .. and it's going to take a hell of big river to do it. And when we're finished, there will a hell of lot of "previously rich people" looking for honest employment.
Who goes to prison for growing a plant? Me and thousands like me! The well behaved, mannerly educated peaceful types. I guarantee the streets were no safer as a result of me being put in prison at a cost of $300 a day. There are 860 thousand people arrested every year for marijuana.
http://www
The feds will never let go of their dirty little war on drugs [war on some people]. It means power and billions in funds. The feds will cling to this loser like grim death!
Marijuanna was originally made illegal, as a means of ridding the southern western states of Mexicans. It was racial in origin and had little or nothing to do with public health and safety.
If you take the money incentive out of the drug trade, we'd see a dramatic reduction in crime.
When you grow your own strictly for personal use and understand responsible use, the money chain is broken.
Family funds are not spent on illegal transactions and otherwise responsible citizens are not
forced to deal with drug traders.
I totally agree that the laws must address irresponsible use such as DUI or situations where
you might risk the safety of others.
I also agree that age limits should apply, but knowledgeable parents also need to help their kids understand that certain drugs can be dangerous and they can affect their future development.
My kids are grown and they totally understand the dangers of some substances.
They also understand the difference between use and abuse and are especially
aware of how dangerous alcohol can be.
I can't keep them on a leash all the time, so I've educated them to the best of my abiity to help them
make smart decisions when they're out there on their own.
I do not promote experimentation, but also understand that they need to know what can hurt them and why.
Until the laws change, they must be aware of the risk involved in their decisions.
They know how to avoid unsafe situations and when to leave and when to call home.
It's all i can do to help keep them safe.
The only reason alcohol Prohibition was repealed was because Saint FDR wanted the revenue.
Before Prohibition, the largest federal guvmint take was ... the alcohol tax.
Pathetic.
Lost argument.
Try something worth discussing.
Remember to vote all.
:-)
Pray for all the troops.
Legalize all drugs. Make it available for addicts in a Medical Withdrawal Program. Remove the massive Profits Motive. No Drug problem. No massive Crime problem. Peace.
It takes a Brit to highlight the preposterousness of the situation. In my view, Cindy's use of the foundation for her prescription drugs habit is far worse than Obama's indulgences during High School and College. Cindy McCain used influence and money to avoid the consequences of her actions. This should be an issue in the campaign along with other facets of her story: the fact McCain divorced his existing frumpy partly disabled wife to marry into the money to enable him to play at politics.
Loading comments…
Posted August 13, 2008 | 07:54 PM (EST)