We Should Never Scrap Books Out of Fear of Fanatics
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
We can no longer afford the war on drugs!
Why is no one talking about this? Thanks for this column!
There is one small step we can all do. I was recently called for jury duty, and it just so happened that the case I was in the jury pool for involved a young man who was camping near a field of marijuana that the local sheriffs had been staking out. For two weeks they had seen no one at the grow site, and when this unfortunate man set up camp a half mile from the field, they raided his camp and arrested him. When my number was called from the jury pool, I took my place in the jury box. When questioned by the judge and prosecutor, I explained that I would never find this person guilty under any circumstances, as I feel that our drug laws are draconian and immoral. I explained that as a citizen I refuse to take part in the enforcement and prosecution of these drug laws, and that in my opinion, a person who grows marijuana is no more a danger to society than the farmer who grows grains that are used to make alcohol. I was immediately dismissed from the jury. Oh, and the charges were dropped after the trial ended in a hung jury. I like to think that my little speech influenced those chosen for the jury.
If people refused to sit on juries in drug trials, the government would have no choice but to stop prosecution of drug offenses.
Nothing.
Of course the "war" on drugs is unwinnable.
But that doesn't make it unprofitable.
All the "right" people are getting rich and powerful in this phoney war, from the people who sell the drugs at a premium because of prohibition, the police departments who get a pass on the Constitution because they are at "war" and get to supplement their budgets through confiscation, to the people who run the for profit user packed prison systems.
They have absolutely no intention of stopping this disastrous criminalization policy, and doing anything rational like education or treatment policies, not while the profits from criminilization are so good and so certain.
How can a country that is so anti-intellectually religious as to have voted the worst president in history into office TWICE - not to mention keeping the prospect of a clone administration close now - be intelligent enough the decriminilize drugs and save the criminal justice system?
You want rationality? Move to Scandavia.
Our stupid war on drugs has turned northern Mexico into a war zone. From Reynosa to Juarez, the body count is exploding. Mexican troops are everywhere from the bridges to Monterey. The problem is, you can't tell the good guys from the bad guys because so many of the local police are bought off by the drug runners. My last motorcycle trip to down there was spooky, troops everywhere, it looked like Bosnia.
The Rio Grande is a place you don't want to be around at night. My border patrol friends are overwhelmed between the drug runners and illegals.
So far, the shootings between US agents and drug runners has been random. Trust me, these guys are getting more gutsy and it's about to change for the worse.
End the drug war now. If folks want to get high , let them, who cares?
Hear hear!! Great post.
Lot of good it'll do though.
I'd just as soon that this subject stays off the radar until after the election. Any solution that actually addresses it in an adult manner will just become red meat for the conservatives to use against O. Why invite controversy? O has already made his feelings known on the subject and for some reason the Mc.Cain camp hasn't yet used it against him. Let sleeping dogs lie...
How can McCain bring up illegal drug use when his own wife was using drugs illegally? Think Man!
There is no use in attempting to stop the drug war from the top down. In all my years of working against it, the only successes I've seen have come from the bottom up.
Reclassifying non-patent drug use as a medical issue, not a criminal issue, works, but it cannot be championed by a figurehead such as the president of the United States.
Sadly it seems only states with citizen sponsored ballot initiatives have gotten anywhere with reclassifying one particular drug.
It will take a lot of work from the ground up to rewrite the laws that have made simple possession and responsible personal use of certain plants and chemical derivatives of said plants illegal.
Of course a President can tackle this problem from the top down. When there is trouble in the ranks, it starts at the top.
You've seen what little power or progress California has had when it comes to the Feds coming in and busting the legal medical marijuana shops and growers.
IF it remains a Federal law, the Feds have to change it. A lot of grass roots activism to push the President for a repeal can get his attention.
Declaring that "nothing can be done" so lets just not talk about it is suspect.
People need to REMEMBER and STUDY HISTORY if they want to figure this out.
IGNORANCE intersecting with RELIGION (which some say are the same thing) cause ALL the problems in this country.
Personal use of the now illegal drugs: Cocaine, Marijuana, Amphetamines, etc. was NOT ILLEGAL until 1954. Remember, it was called Coca Cola for a REASON, it contained Cocaine and was sold legally everywhere. After the disastrous "Prohibition" (fueled by fundamentalist religion) of the 1920/30's all these drugs were perfectly legal to use and sell.
It took the rise of the Pharmaceutical companies in the 50's to get them declared illegal, with HEAVY tinges of racism attached. Marijuana is a perfect example; A southern senator needed something to run AGAINST in 1954 so he chose "Ni##er Marijuana" as an "issue" and won in a landslide. With the "Red Scare" in full swing the government banned anything not adhering to the "Mom, Country, and Apple Pie" of the fictitious earlier days. They even added "In God We Trust" to our money and amended the National Anthem too.
ALL ATTEMPTS to legislate morality FAIL and this is the biggest failure of all.
The DUI issue is much more complex than it is with alcohol.
The military gives pilots Amphetamines to fly better over long periods. Stimulants actually improve the reflexes of a person at first. If a person stays up for days on end with stimulants then the lack of sleep can cause reaction problems.
Scientific studies on marijuana and driving have consistently shown that while novice marijuana users have slightly worse reaction time,experienced smokers actually drive more cautiously and their reflexes aren't effected.
Lack of sleep is the number one "DUI" followed by cell phone use .
We should stop ALL drug testing and use reaction time tests which have been shown to be much more accurate in determining someones ability to operate machinery.
Ah, well stated Dr. Black!! ... but the drug testing people don't wanna hear that!! - $$$
What can be done? Education, education, education.
The war on drugs as currently being executed makes no sense from any angle. Even if one disagrees with legalization on moralistic grounds, it is a fact that the current methodology enormously unsuccessful in terms of curbing use or the associated violence.
Unfortunately, the people who have been motivated or able to address it seem to have been completely unable to gain any sort of momentum. There have been numerous documentaries on the subject, but the public seems to be unable to relate to the issue.
I think the only way to get a meaningful shift on public perception is to frame the issue as one of ineffectiveness and waste.
People don't want to hear about the inherent racism or the disparity in consequences for those in different economic categories, no matter how demonstrably accurate these may be. People don't want to hear about the violation civil liberties or the federal government's refusal to use scientific research to determine medical suitability. These arguments all wind up sounding like affirmative action or pot-heads just looking for an excuse to get stoned.
So-called conservatives have been successfully branding any attempt to deal with polarizing issues like this as being soft on crime or otherwise treating criminals with kid gloves. This argument has to be framed as "We want to actually address the drug problem instead of allowing it to spiral out of control."
Maybe there is hope. Obama said he would be looking over any programs that interfere with or deny CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
Perhaps he'll have a commission that can strike the whole lot, all in one fell swoop. We won't have to march and beg, he can issue executive orders and be done with it.
A little shock to the system would be a great start for his administration. Let them holler while the progressives actually PROGRESS! Obstruct the obstructionists, ignore the republicants and restore govt.
In fact, we need to quit futzing around with hearings and time wasters and get on with the project of restoring the rule of law and the Constitution.
Nixon commissioned a study on Marijuana, which they quashed immediately, and all they'd have to do is bring it out and say: "Its all right here, nothing wrong with it."
A "war" on drugs is as logically absurd as a "war" against terrorism (which is a tactic practiced by people who cannot prevail against military might). There will always be a "war" against some ubiquitous enemy in order to feed the ever-hungry military machine.
Illegal drugs are basically a tax on the poor that floats a large enough chunk of our economy so that their legalization and the subsequent collapse of the black market would trigger an economic calamity. The profit margin is so huge that it would never be made up for by a simple tax like we have on alcohol.
I have heard it argued that the war in Afghanistan is mostly about keeping the supply of opium poppies and heroin (that were forbidden under the Taliban) available. I'm not a supporter of that regime in any way, but we should at least aspire to reach their level of substance control.
In the meantime, I'll be waiting for the "wars" against corruption, greed and idiocy that would be so helpful if not any more winnable.
What will they do..?
Absolutely nothing..!
It's a racket..!
When drugs are the number one problem in prison, we can see that the gov't. is, indeed an enabler. Prisons are 100% secure and drugs get in there. Maybe minibush and Obama should follow Reagan;s example. Have their wives do a just say no campaign while selling so much drugs that the profits won't even fit in the white house safe. Oliver North for drug czar.
Iran,China and Singapore are among countries who execute drug users and dealers and they STILL have drug problems.
The desire to expand and alter consciousness, sometimes with drugs, is genetically programmed into humans. The Drug War will NEVER be won but it can cause many problems.
Privitized Prison Industries wants to keep putting people in jail and this is the easiest way. They lobby big time along with prison guard unions to keep business booming. There are other people who make a living off "preventing" drug trade and use, and they would be out of business if it were no longer illegal. Booze companies partner with groups to keep drugs illegal so it's use doesn't eat into their profits.
The President has little effect on this policy. Start with your local, state and congressional reps. One guy in Marin County, CA proposed taxing MJ as a cash crop the same way they tax corn, wheat or vegs. He said MJ is their largest single income producer in Marin Co.
Also, consider that affluent people typically do not go to jail for drug related "crimes." The ones who do go to jail for it typically don't vote.
Then there is still the issue of dui.
Loading comments…
Posted August 13, 2008 | 07:54 PM (EST)