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.

Comments

[dadw5boys]

NAFTA HAS ALLOWED MORE DRUGS INTO THE USA !!!!!!!!

Inspect all shipments!!!!!!!

WE HAVE A LOT OF UNENPLYED PEOPLE TO DO IT !!!!!!!!!!!

[breakfast]

At the very least, legalize pot.

And, rather than tax it. let people grow their own. It is about as hard as growing tomatoes in your back yard, or in a pot or two on your back porch.

And decriminalize the other drugs too. If there are problems with their use, they would be social problems to be dealt with in an intelligent and humane way. It is just insane to have made this a criminal issue.

The vast criminal drug enterprises in America, South America, Europe and Asia exist only because of prohibition.

[Geauterre]

Johann, we live in a constant state of making unwise policies. Don't let us stop to think now!

[jupitor]

Mccains had 26 years to help his state deal with drugs comeing over his boarder, done nothing!

[1differentdrummer]

To sort of quote a philosopher, "America can be trusted to do the right thing, after all else has failed."

[JJK]

I think that the "War on Drugs" is a misguided waste of resources and lives for reasons and with alternatives that have been well-conceived and well-described by many others.

However, I don't think it's a good idea to put this issue on the agenda of the Presidential campaign as it will only force Obama to take a hard line stance. He can't afford to allow himself to be caricatured as "weak" on drugs in his battle for moderate, swing voters. I think we would have a much better chance of getting a sympathetic response from President Obama if we don't back Candidate Obama into a corner today.

[1differentdrummer]

Consider, it is what keeps farmers from growing a benign, beneficial crop, hemp. I think colonists like Washington and Jefferson grew hemp for oil seed, cordage and fabric use. I could be wrong.

[woodchips]

You're not wrong. Although hemp is an entirely different (though related) plant from marijuana, it is, against all logic, regulated as if it were a dangerous narcotic. This source may be a little biased, but there are some interesting facts about hemp included here:

http://www.illuminati-news.com/marijuana-conspiracy.htm

Wide-scale hemp production could do a lot for the agricultural economy in many areas of the US.

While we're at it, legalize pot. Does anyone know what percentage of drug-related incarcerations are for marijuana? It is unbelievable that we are locking people up for using a naturally occurring substance that has no known lethal dose, is not physically addictive, does not cause violent tendencies (alcohol anyone?) and for which there is (as far as I know) no verifiable record of a fatality caused exclusively by its use. How many people die each year from the direct and indirect consequences of using alcohol and tobacco? There are millions upon millions of people in the U.S. who use marijuana on a regular basis. They lead busy, productive lives. They pay taxes. The biggest side effect, by far, is the legal trouble that they can get into if they are caught. End the madness.

[TRex86]

This "war" reflects American culture: we love bad ideas. Our puritanical roots make us incapable of accomodating human nature. Moreover, we try to punish away problems. Good ideas have a life of one TV season. Bad ones live forever. The extravagant War on Drugs--a war on black people--has endured nearly 100 years since the Harrison Act of 1914. Moreover, as long as the criminal justice system is used to control IV drugs we shall never contain AIDS or other contagious diseases spread by needles.
What to do? End it now. Release all non-violent drug offenders from prison. Mandatory treatment for new offenders. Decriminalize key schedule 1 drugs: heroine, marijuana, cocaine, methaqualone, LSD, and other hallucinogens. Establish medical treatment programs where these drugs can be obtained or substituted for other drugs that pose too much harm TO THE USER (e.g., crystal). Initiate needle exchange programs and legal "shooting galleries."
None of these are new ideas, but they would instantly eliminate the risk premium on contraband drugs. Why can't this happen? Four more reasons (beyond our cultural addiction to stupidity):
1. Politicians need scapegoats--preferably non-voters and minorities--they can courageously campaign against.
2. Police and prison officers need work. Nothing is easier than entrapping (framing) drug offenders.
3. Third rate scientists need work talking about the horrors of drug abuse.
4. The cartels LOVE THE WAR ON DRUGS. The enormous profits corrupt everyone along the supply chain including law enforcement.

[meanguy]

anyone who equates heroin, coke, LSD with marijuana has, quite possibly, indulged in far too much of one or more of these drugs

[CyrusBeaucephus]

And prohitbiting all those other drugs you mentioned accomplishes NOTHING

[rinpochet]

You don't equate them but legalizing them all would take away the profit motive thereby putting a lid on the supply.

Rehabilitation programs should be opened for those wanting to get off hard drugs. For others, clinics should be established to legally administer drugs to addicts.

Save this country billions and save the lives of countless others. You have to wonder how many people die in drug-related crimes.

The only people benefiting from the war on drugs are the dealers and the prison system.

[MinuteMan]

The it would appear that we ought to drug-test the folks that put all these drugs into Schedule 1.

[TRex86]

You unintentionally make my point. These drugs have nothing in common and by themselves pharmacologically pose little risk. The concept of lumping "narcotics" together in C. I has no scientific basis. Your post exposes the ignorance that is a consequence of a century of Narco-propaganda.

[Citizen54]

To answer the question in the headline: They will do nothing about it. McCain we know will maintain the status quo, if not worse. I suspect his contributors include those who profit from building prisons. And Obama, well, he's not going to be elected, so the point is moot.

Welcome to our dumbocracy.

[sarapy]

remember "just say no" ? remember reagan and the iran contra ? and the buying and selling of drugs by the reagan administration to pay for arms to be shipped overseas ? the drugs were sold here to put more americans behind bars while lining the pockets of the corrupt politicians...so, how are the drugs imported so easily into the country ? are they helped in by the very ones who are paid to prevent them from coming in ? and all those drugs "confiscated" that are "eaten by the rats" : do you really think that rats are addicted to drugs also ? who else is making a fat buck today on this in the administration ? if it's a "failure" it's because it was never meant to be anything else.

[myzenthing]

Brilliant column! I agree completely.

Unfortunately, we are dealing with Big Government., where if they are still good at anything, it is allowing disastrous programs to keep running for decades, even if they are proven to be ineffective.

Therefore, I don't really see a change in the "War on Drugs" until there is a huge change in the nature and form of our government itself.

[TRex86]

Here's where the Libertarians have it right. It isn't the government's business to regulate private behavior that causes no harm to others. Period. Prohibition doesn't work, hasn't worked, won't work. Human nature cannot be repealed or transformed by fiat.
Furthermore, the science of addictionology has left the criminal justice system in the dust. The nature of substance use and abuse is well understood: the peak vulnerability (adolescence and early adulthood), and the fact that experimentation is NORMAL BEHAVIOR during this stage of life. Treatment is far more effective than prison in rehabilitating addicts to normal life. Prison is utterly counter-productive, expensive and wasteful.
Ergo, using the criminal justice system to control human nature (even aberrant human nature) is as cruel and barbaric as the snakepit mental hospitals of the 19th century. But then American has no problem with cruelty and barbarism (see torture, Guantanomo Bay).

[rinpochet]

Actually it does do harm to others. A great deal of crime is drug-related. It is not a victim-less crime although I feel drugs should be legalized and controlled through clinics to administer to addicts and programs to rehabilitate for those wanting it.

[Gma11]

I know it's bad. My husband and I have spent a great deal of time in Bolivia over the past quarter century.

But, right now, it's more important to get Obama elected. THEN we can talk about drugs.

[OgreDaddy]

The real problem is that they have spent so much money on all their anti-marijuana propaganda, that
it is political poison for any candidate to oppose this unwarranted legislation.

Of course they always use the most extreme as an example to promote their distortion of truth.
You know, the guy who drank a 6 pack, and and smoked marijuana, of course blaming marijuana
for his real problem.

Most adults who have grown up in the 60's and 70's know that these laws are ridiculous and that
responsible use of marijuana is not only the norm, but far less dangerous than alcohol by leaps and bounds.

Most of us also understand that some people will always over-do things to an extreme, but they
are not representative of the norm.

Small quantity cultivation for personal use would put an end to the money that drives organized crime.

Of course the government once again uses extremes to argue against responsible use in any manner.

I know for certain that I'm in much worse shape after drinking two beers than I've ever been in my entire past experience smoking marijuana on it's own.

[NicholeWebb]

I believe that the entire problem is wrapped up in the fact that big industry does not profit from the sale of illegal drugs. When a large corporation can control the entire supply then you will see a change in policy. Our government is bent on protecting its "true" and most valuable citizens, corporate America. If they just allow the regular man to smoke a reefer grown by his neighbor they risk taking profit out of the hands of their corporate contributors like pharmaceutical companies and brewers and distillers.

I agree with your article 100% but think its a pipe dream given today's current political climate that favors the big money over we the people.

[Soothsayer08]

What they should do is legalize soft drugs like cannabis and take away the penalties for addiction to hard drugs like heroin and cocaine, and call it what it is an illness. If someone is ditributing then there should be jail time. This country is so behind the times, in comparison to countries like England for example.

[elgrande]

There finally seems to be an attitude shift about the wasteful, violent drug war, especially as it applies to cannabis. Ending prohibition puts serious hurt on criminal organizations that rely on drug money. How is that "surrendering"? Drug war logic says that handing over marketing and distribution of certain drugs to the criminal community is "controlling" them. What nonsense.

[justobserve]

What will happen when war on drugs ceases? We will have a bigger problem than with alcohol or cigarettes?

[davism97]

If the war on drugs is ineffectual in preventing people from using drugs, than ending the war on drugs won't have any effect on drug abuse at all (this follows very logically from the article). It will, however, prevent thousands of otherwise productive citizens from being thrown mercilessly in jail.

[TRex86]

Alcohol and cigarettes kill 25 times as many Americans as illegal drugs. Yet we know that making them illegal will only make matters worse. Why not apply the same logic to other drugs of abuse? It's unlikely that decriminalizing will significantly increase drug abuse, but nobody suggests selling heroine over the counter.
A decrease in usage over time is more likely. No profit; no incentive to sell the stuff. In truth, most of the negative consequences of drug abuse are DUE TO ITS ILLEGALITY. No breaking laws that no longer exist. No burglaries, B+E's, etc. to support cheap drugs that are readily available through legal means. The upside of decriminalization is an immense savings in the societal cost of our current system.
After 100 years of failure we should be willing to test the hypothesis of harm reduction. Look at what other countries are doing. Try some new ideas. What's to lose?

[iyamchazz]

Notice how quickly legislation is enacted but that same legislation takes years to repeal? All thats needed here is the collective will and the stroke of a pen. This won't happen anytime soon unfortunately because apart from the drug lords, some people are making a lot of money. The question is, who?

[vietveter]

MAKE POT LEGAL

Require an ID to purchase, like booze

Tax it hard -

empty the jails of pot users

clear out the courts

FIGHT CRIME