Demonizing of Islam and the Prophet: Free speech not absolute – by Agha Shahi
Source: Dawn, 12 Feb 2006
THE European newspapers which have printed the outrageous cartoons demonizing the Holy Prophet (PBUH) of Islam have given the deepest possible offence to more than a billion of his followers across the world. To justify this defamation their editors invoke the right to freedom of speech and expression. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan thinks this amounts to licence, “pouring oil on fire”
To make amends the Danish newspaper Jyllands Postens which first published the caricatures last September is reported to have decided to print an equal number of cartoons satirizing Jesus. This is not acceptable to Muslims because they believe that he also is a messenger and prophet of God.
The right to freedom of expression is not absolute. It is limited by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which requires due regard to maintenance of public order, health and morals. The sacrilegious drawings are so provocative to Muslims that many in the world wonder if this is not an opening salvo for a clash of civilizations, of the West vs Islam.
The cartoons are patently an expression of hate against the Holy Prophet and therefore Islam. As such, they violate the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) which outlaws dissemination of ideas of racial superiority, hate speech, and incitement to racial hatred. This convention makes it obligatory for states to punish those responsible.
Thus the drawings violate international law.
Civil societies in the countries concerned, in particular Muslims’ organizations and law experts, should take recourse to seeking rulings from their relevant judicatures, and most importantly, the European Court of Human Rights for redress against the wound inflicted on the Muslim faithful in the name of freedom of expression.
That this freedom is not absolute is clear from the above-mentioned international instruments (ICCPR and ICERD) to which the overwhelming majority of the international community (the UN) has acceded, and also from the case law of several European courts of justice and the European Court itself.
To cite the indicative jurisprudence, let me draw attention to the following:
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) which monitors implementation of ICERD lays down:
State parties are required “to penalize dissemination of ideas of racial superiority or hatred … or incitement to racial hatred … Any advocacy … of national, racial or religious hatred….that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law. (Such penalization) “is compatible with the right to freedom of expression”. To satisfy these obligations, state parties have not only to enact appropriate legislation, but also to ensure that it is effectively enforced. “The citizen’s exercise of this right (freedom of expression) carries special duties and responsibilities” (General Recommendation XV of CERD).
The fact that the insulted communities of Muslim belief are mostly different racially and ethnically from the white offenders brings the provocative cartoons within the purview of ICERD and CERD mandates.
The Human Rights Committee (HRC) which monitors the implementation of ICCPR, has produced voluminous jurisprudence on the interpretation of the rules of law relating to human rights and fundamental freedoms under the Covenant. It has endorsed the judgment in Faurisson vs France that “restrictions may be permitted on statements which are of a nature as to raise or strengthen anti-Semitic feelings in order to uphold the Jewish communities’ right to be protected from religious hatred. Such restrictions also derive support from principles reflected in Article 20(2) of the Covenant…” The exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities…”
The HRC concluded that the restriction of this right was no violation of Article 19 of ICCPR.
The question arises why do not the European judicatures extend the same protection to Muslim communities as they do so zealously to the Jewish communities? Turning to the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights one finds the followings:
“The right to freedom of expression is also applicable to information and ideas that offend, shock, or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of pluralism and tolerance without which there is no “democratic society” (Handyside Case)
In other cases — Dichand and others vs Austria, Karatas vs Turkey, Bladet Troms and Stensaas vs Norway, the European Court’s rulings have extended journalists’ absolute freedom to exaggerate and provoke. Nevertheless the court gave a different judgment in Wingrove vs UK (No 17419/90 Rep 1995 para 58).
“Whereas there is little scope under Article 10(2) for restrictions on political speech or on debate of questions of public interest …a wider margin of appreciation is generally available to the contracting states when regulating the freedom of expression in relation to matters liable to defend intimate personal convictions within the sphere of morals or, specially religion,….”
Similar principles are reflected in Otto Preminger Institut vs Austria in which the court considered that
….”respect for religious feelings of believers as guaranteed by Article 9 can legitimately be thought to have been violated by provocative portrayals of objects of religious veneration and such portrayals of objects of religious veneration can be regarded as malicious violation of the spirit of tolerance which must also be a feature of a democratic society…”
Strong regard must be had to the religious beliefs of others.
“…The manner in which religious beliefs and doctrines are opposed or denied may engage the responsibility of the state, notably the responsibility to ensure the peaceful enjoyment of the right guaranteed under Article 9 to the holders of those beliefs and doctrines”.
Thus, the court would be entitled to impose on any individual expressing such views (opposing or denying religious beliefs) a positive obligation “to avoid as far as possible expressions which are gratuitously offensive to others.”
This approach was followed in Dubowska and Skup vs Poland 40.
“Violent and provocative portrayals of objects of religious veneration may violate the rights under Article 9. The State is under a positive obligation to protect minorities with strongly held beliefs from attack. It is legitimate for the state to regulate the exercise of any right which interferes with an individual’s manifestation of belief. There may be an obligation on the part of the state to secure respect for freedom of religion in the sphere of relations between individuals as well as individuals and public authorities. It is in developing this duty that the (European) Convention may come to play an important part in promoting minority religions in the UK” (the Otto Preminger Case).
Besides this jurisprudence developed by the UN human rights treaty bodies (CERD and HRC) and the European Court, laws passed by the parliaments of France, Germany, Austria, Italy and some other countries have made it a crime to deny the Holocaust thus restricting the right to freedom of expression in this regard. Why then is expression of hate against the Holy Prophet permitted to be disseminated unchecked by the governments, legislatures and courts of the countries concerned? Is it because Muslims are considered to be less equal than Christians and Jews?
Hate speech if not checked can unleash violent conflict, even genocides. In the last decade in Rwanda and Bosnia inquiry commissions and international criminal tribunals at The Hague and Arusha have compiled voluminous evidence that goes to prove that expressions of hate, spoken, written or in drawing if widely disseminated by the media, are indicators of potentially massive violations of human rights. If European countries do not curb expression of hate in their media, tendentious theories of clash of western and Muslim civilizations could become self-fulfilling. Therefore, the imperative of an enlightened moderation must be reflected in the exercise of the right to freedom of expression in the interests of public, order, health (HIV/Aids, avian flu) and morals (pornography)
In the light of the aforesaid jurisprudence, civil society organizations in European countries need to draw the attention of the authorities, parliaments and judiciaries concerned to protect the 15 million Muslims in the EU from insult and onslaught on their religious sanctities. In particular, Prime Minister Rasmussen may be respectfully urged to act in behalf of meeting Denmark’s international obligations under human rights law.
A welcome gesture towards respecting religious sentiments of the peoples of the Muslim world is the condemnation by the US state department of the crass cartoons first published in Jyllands Postens, and more recently by the European newspapers. One also appreciates that most US and UK newspapers refrained from publishing the Danish cartoons.
The West sometimes questions whether Islamic values are compatible with the values of western societies. Yes, they are in unison on fundamentals but with marked differences in some respects as for example the right of absolute freedom of speech and expression in respect of religious sanctities.
The Islamic nations are parties to many human rights instruments, e.g. the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Prohibition of Discrimination against Women, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and some other instruments that translate the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights into binding rules of law that obligate states parties to upgrade their legislative, administrative and criminal justice systems to conform to international standards and to enforce them.
It is true that quite a few of them have made reservations to many of the provisions of these instruments — but so too have many other western, Asian, African and Latin American states. In the implementation of these standards many of the parties fall short of full compliance with their obligations. It is the task of the monitoring bodies like CERD, HRC and other such committees elected on the basis of equitable geographical representation to point out shortcomings and to follow up their recommendations and conclusions to the reporting states for full compliance.
To talk of the incompatibility in the values of the two cultures and civilizations is to accentuate the differences and not the conjunctions.
To criticize Muslims states for not embracing western values in their totality is an unrealistic demand given the diversity in forms of civilization to which they are historically conditioned.
For example, if the West were to expect that Muslim countries embrace freedom of expression no matter how shocking and repugnant it may be to their religious sensibilities, even to the extent of the demonization of what is most sacrosanct and holy to them, the critics must be made aware there can be no takers for such freedoms which even in western societies are replete with internal contradictions and double standards vis-a-vis state parties.
To meet the challenge of the profanities against the Islam, Muslim world needs to level with the West in the ongoing intellectual debate and not let its righteous anger be appeased by resorting to any form of violent retaliation.
The Muslims owe their allegiance to the Holy Prophet who though reviled and persecuted, maintained a noble composure. Even though eventually he made a victorious entry into Makkah he put aside revenge and forgave his enemies. The peace of Makkah which he made remains unique in the annals of history as an example of mercy and magnanimity in victory.
So, to follow the Sunnah (practice) of the Holy Prophet his ummah (community of believers) in demonstrating allegiance to him must maintain their unity and discipline in the face of even the greatest of provocation from the irresponsible, crass and contemptuous attacks.
About the author: Agha Shahi (August 25, 1920 – September 6, 2006) was a Pakistani statesman and a career Foreign service officer who was the leading civilian figure (as Foreign Minister) in the military government of former President General Zia-ul-Haq from 1977 to 1982. A diplomat and technocrat by profession, he joined Foreign Services in 1951 and held important diplomatic assignments in the United States, China and the United Nations. He served as the Foreign secretary— a leading bureaucratic position in Pakistan Government, in 1973 until 1977 after Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s government was dismissed. However, he was immediately served as the foreign policy adviser to upcoming Chief Martial Law Administrator General Zia-ul-Haq who appointed him as the Foreign Minister shortly after assuming the control of the country. In 1982, after losing General Zia’s favor when he made an attempt to keep country on Non-Aligned Movement membership, he lost the foreign affairs ministry to senior military officer Lieutenant-General Yakob Ali Khan. His relationship with General Zia-ul-Haq and his military government further deteriorated, with Genera Zia complaining about Shahi’s speech on improving Pakistan’s relations with Soviet Union and the Non-Aligned Movement. He departed from country in 1982 to join the United Nations General Assembly and served as the Chairman of UN Committee on Elimination of Racial Discrimination until 1990, and served as the Chairman of the Pakistan delegation at World Conference on Human Rights.
A tribute to Agha Shahi
By Aftab Shahban Mirani
IT was indeed heartrending to hear about the demise of Agha Shahi, a distinguished Indian Civil Service (ICS) officer from the 1944 batch. My reminiscences of Agha Shahi go back to my childhood when he and my brother-in-law Nazir Ahmed (ICS 1938 batch), each occupied half of the same double-storied rented house at 2, Bleak House Road, below Karachi’s Clifton Bridge.
Agha Shahi lived in that house for about 15 years and then moved to Islamabad. Later, when in Karachi, he used to live in his own house in PECHS. Nazir Ahmed and my sister lived in that house all their lives and died there.
Agha Shahi was posted in Thatta as the collector and district magistrate in 1946. He was averse to tyrants and oppressors exploiting poor people with no place to seek justice. His modus operandi was to dress up as a common man and sit in wayside hotels catering to the poor. He would then inquire from various people about the criminals and the godfathers of that area. After visiting several such places, he evaluated rogue elements recurrently mentioned by the people and then ensured that all of them, including their godfathers, were apprehended and punished. Once they were arrested, even the high and the mighty could not get them released. No criminal could get relief during his tenure.
Subsequently, he was transferred from Thatta, and never held district charge again — for obvious reasons. Sixty years have passed since, but the people of Thatta, where Agha Shahi has become a legend, still remember him. Later, he opted for the foreign service of Pakistan where he had a distinguished and an unblemished career.
About 20 years ago, I read an article, perhaps in Dawn, about war-related developments in the post-1971 phase. Around one and a half years ago, I asked him about this and he recalled it with clarity. The reason why I solicited his response was because I was invited to be chief guest at the launching ceremony of Hafeez Kashmiri’s book at the Arts Council in May 2005 where I narrated the story.
The last time I met Agha Shahi was some six months ago during his last visit to Karachi. He invited me and my wife for lunch at the Sindh Club where I again asked him to recollect the facts.
His narration was as follows:
After the December 1971 war, the constant demand of Sheikh Mujib-ur-Rehman and the Indian government was to try the Pakistani troops. They had pinpointed 192 officers and jawans who they intended to put on trial. The Simla accord came into being at 12:40 am on July 2, 1972. It did not mention the return of the 92,000 Pakistani troops (war prisoners) because insistence at that stage was not leading to an agreement. This was left to be discussed at a later date.
Some time in August 1972, Atal Behari Vajpayee, then the leader of his party in the Lok Sabha, criticised Mrs Gandhi on the floor of the House for signing the agreement. Mrs Gandhi’s response was, “We still have the Pakistani troops with us” (which confirms that our troops were being used for their ulterior motives).
Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, a man of vision and a statesman par excellence, was greatly disturbed. Once Bangladesh was recognised by the United Nations that year (1972), India had plans to try the Pakistani troops — for that would then have amounted to being tried for “war crimes”.
Bhutto called over Agha Shahi — then Pakistan’s ambassador to China — from Beijing. He was told that the only way to thwart the entry of Bangladesh into the UN was to request China to veto its entry. It was only that year that China had replaced Nationalist China on the permanent seat of the UN and had thus been empowered with the right of veto.
Agha Shahi was asked by Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto to immediately fly back to Beijing and personally speak to Prime Minister Zhou Enlai and request him on his behalf. This was at the beginning of September 1972.
When Agha Shahi made this request in person to the Chinese prime minister, he was told that this was the first year of China’s entry into the United Nations and it would be the first veto for China. The prime minister, however, paused for a moment and agreed to veto the entry of Bangladesh. He asked Agha Shahi to convey this news to Prime Minister Bhutto. Agha Shahi thanked him on behalf of Prime Minister Bhutto and Pakistan. As the issue was highly sensitive and secret, telephonic conversations were kept to the bare essentials due to possible interception by intruders.
The Security Council was to meet very shortly during the same month. Since China was a new entrant in the United Nations, Prime Minister Zhou Enlai asked Agha Shahi to assist his delegation in New York (earlier Agha Shahi had been permanent representative of Pakistan at the United Nations where he served for over five years, having the rank of a senior ambassador). Shahi responded: “Sir, who will look after the affairs of my country in my absence?” To which the Chinese prime minister said: “Don’t worry, I will serve as ambassador of Pakistan in your absence.”
Pressed for time, Shahi had to fly the next day to Pakistan to brief Prime Minister Bhutto and then fly on to New York. To his surprise, there was no flight going out from Beijing on that day. He informed the Chinese prime minister. To his astonishment, he was given a special plane to fly him to Hami in Xinjiang province from where he caught a connecting flight to Islamabad. After his meeting with Prime Minister Bhutto he flew to New York.
India had lined up a majority in the 15-member Security Council. (If I recollect correctly, Shahi had said it was nine for entry and six against.) Until the last moment, the use of the veto was kept a closely guarded secret. Thus to the surprise of everyone, the first veto of China was cast, and Bangladesh was not given entry into the United Nations that year.
This was a turning point for Pakistan. The cherished desire of India for recognition of Bangladesh by the UN that year was delayed. The trials never took place. The rest is history.
This, perhaps, is amongst the greatest contributions of Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto to Pakistan and its people. In this endeavour, he was ably assisted by Agha Shahi. Intellectual giants of such stature are very rare in the present time.
The writer is a former chief minister of Sindh, and a former federal defence minister.
http://archives.dawn.com/2006/12/09/ed.htm#4
American, obscure LA filmmaker Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was picked up by Los Angeles sheriff’s deputies acting like jackbooted thugs.
Nakoula was paraded in front of a hostile media, his face hidden behind a scarf reminiscent of Claude Rains in “The Invisible Man,’’ and delivered into the hands of federal authorities for interrogation. Ostensibly, officials wanted to know if a cruddy, little film Nakoula created on a tiny budget violated terms of his probation for financial crimes — because he was forbidden to use the Internet.
Nakoula is the creator of “Innocence of Muslims,’’ a sleazy film meant to hit Islamists where they live. It’s been blamed for anti-American riots in 20 countries, from Libya to Lebanon.
It may not be a good film, but it has every right to exist — a right guaranteed by no less than the US Constitution.
Somewhere, Thomas Jefferson weeps.
The questioning of Nakoula on a flimsy pretext was a ploy to scare him. And it sent a message of appeasement to maniacs in the Middle East: America is on your side!
The government also went after YouTube, asking the Google-owned company whether “Innocence’’ violated its terms of usage. To its credit, YouTube refused to take down the film’s trailer in the West, although it yanked the offensive video from several Arab countries.
When did the land of the free turn on its own people?
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/appeasing_thugs_by_trampling_our_PMW5Bvfib9O1hibaUgNdAK#ixzz26iRmmpFi
Reaction to anti-Islam film fuels debate on free speech versus hate speech
By Dan Gilgoff, CNN.com Religion Editor
(CNN) – The deaths of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans amid protests against a film that denigrates Islam has sparked global discussion and debate about whether there is a line between free speech and hate speech and, if so, where it lies.
“They don’t regard perceived insults to the Prophet Mohammed or the Quran as being protected by free speech, they regard it as a capital offense,” says Peter Bergen, CNN’s national security analyst, referring to protesters in Libya and Egypt, where the U.S. Embassy was attacked, who were angered by the film.
According to The Wall Street Journal, the movie was made by a real estate developer who wanted to portray Islam as a hateful religion. The attack on the U.S. personnel in Benghazi, Libya, was orchestrated by extremists who used the protests as a diversion, U.S. sources told CNN Wednesday.
“In some of these cases, the people releasing these films or cartoons are trying to make a statement about free speech, which is fair enough,” says Bergen, referring to the film and other provocative recent depictions of Mohammed, Islam’s founding prophet.
“But in some cases they are deliberately trying to provoke,” Bergen says. “The film that is at issue is certainly very provocative, the way it treats the Prophet Mohammed, and people who release these things are being very irresponsible.”
Read: Why Muslims are sensitive on Mohammed
Newt Gingrich told CNN Wednesday that the United States should seize on the violence spurred by the film “to teach the Muslim world about freedom,” specifically about freedom of speech.
His remarks, echoed by other conservatives on Wednesday, signaled something of a divide in reaction to developments in Libya and Egypt between the political right, which stressed freedom of speech, and the left, which added condemnation of those behind the anti-Muslim film.
“The horrific attacks in Libya & Egypt are a stark contrast to our American ideals of free speech, civil disagreement,” wrote Todd Rokita, a Republican U.S. congressman who is from Indiana, on Twitter.
CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories
Gingrich, the former presidential candidate and speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, said that after the attacks, “We had an opportunity to stand up and say, ‘You know, it is true – some people in the United States might make a film that is totally whacked out.’”
“Sooner or later, we in the modern world have to say to those who are living in a different way, ‘Look, we stand for freedom,’” he said.
Gingrich criticized statements from the U.S. government that he said went too far in condemning and apologizing for the anti-Muslim film.
In a statement on Tuesday morning – before the violence – the U.S. Embassy in Egypt wrote that it “condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.”
Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter
“Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy,” the statement continued. “We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”
Some U.S. officials spoke to the tension between U.S. support for free speech and what some have described as the film’s “hate speech,” in reacting to the attacks.
“The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others,” U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a statement.
“Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation,” she said. “But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”
Some other political and religious leaders also cited the tension between free speech and what they said was hate speech. “I support #freespeech AND believe this film is hateful,” tweeted Eboo Patel, an American Muslim leader based in Chicago. “I stand up for #Islam AND condemn violence of extremist Muslims #fb #responsibility.”
Others joined in venting disapproval of both the film and the attacks. “For the record, you can condemn violence in response to hate speech, and you can also condemn hate speech,” wrote Jeff Fecke on Twitter. “You don’t have to support either.”
Some American Muslims said Wednesday that while they support the right of free speech, they believe that the U.S. applies its values selectively in the Muslim world, especially when it comes to military and intelligence operations.
“Freedom of speech falls alongside other freedoms to live and be free from bombs falling on people’s heads and to be free from occupations,” says Omid Safi, religious studies professor at the University of North Carolina, referring to American military and intelligence operations in parts of the Muslim world.
“I will take free speech comments seriously when others take people’s freedom of life and dignity and to be free from occupation just as seriously,” he said.
What do you think? Share your thoughts on the discussion around free speech and hate speech and we’ll fold good ones into this post.
Dan Gilgoff – CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/12/reaction-to-anti-islam-film-fuels-debate-on-free-speech-versus-hate-speech/
Anti-Islam Film An Exception To Free Speech Protection – OpEd
By: Rob L. Wagner
September 17, 2012
The anti-Muslim film produced by Christian extremists may have sparked the violence that spread across the Middle East and South Asia this week. But the core issues in the following days of protests were unemployment, politicizing religion and the deep resentment against the United States for its wars that cost thousands of innocent lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Protest organizers just got a lucky break when Egyptian television aired and dubbed in Arabic the “Innocence of Muslims” film trailer. The movie simply got the ball rolling.
The debate in America is not whether rage against the US government’s meddling in Arab affairs is justified, but why Muslims get so riled up when the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is ridiculed. After all, other prophets get the same treatment in a secular society in which free speech rights are sacrosanct.
Muslims in the Middle East get the free speech thing, but often wonder why its advocates take such great pleasure in beating them over the head with it.
On Al Jazeera television the other day the news host brought in Arab and Western media types to talk about “Innocence of Muslims” and its impact in the Middle East. TJ Walker, a media-training consultant who works with Bloomberg TV and Fox News among other outlets, gave Al Jazeera’s mostly Arab and Muslim audience a brief lesson on the First Amendment, its importance to Americans and why all religious figures are equal opportunity targets for mockery and ridicule. Really, Walker implied, what’s the big deal about making fun of religious figures? We do it all the time. His tone and message was clear: Muslims should lighten up and accept the American standard of free speech.
Walker’s cluelessness about sensibilities of the audience he was addressing can be forgiven. His experience is how to train people to deal with the American media and not interpreting global news events. But he encapsulates many Americans’ “live and let live” approach to free speech.
Yet the extremists who made the film are not clueless, and have much darker goals in mind. It’s one thing to parody religious figures on “South Park” and quite another to deliberately produce a film filled with falsehoods with the intention to provoke violence.
Steve Klein, the Californian who provided technical assistance for the film, acknowledged in interviews that he knew the film was provocative. He announced that it was a success.
“We have reached the people that we want to reach,” Klein told the New York Times. “And I’m sure that out of the emotion that comes out of this, a small fraction of those people will come to understand …, and also for the people who didn’t know that much about Islam. If you merely say anything that’s derogatory about Islam, then they immediately go to violence, which I’ve experienced.”
Most people wouldn’t admit to falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater, but Klein seems to be proud of this accomplishment, even if it helped lead in some way to the deaths of four American citizens in Libya.
We are seeing a rise in violence prompted by hate speech. Norway mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik cited the writings of America’s leading Islamophobes as inspiration. The same Islamophobic gang and their confederates are now boasting of their success. They continue to defend their right to pursue objectives that result in violence.
The US Supreme Court had addressed the issue of false and dangerous speech in 1919. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. used the metaphor of “shouting fire in a crowded theater” when considering whether distributing anti-military draft leaflets during World War I was imminently dangerous to the nation’s security.
The court ruled there was no violation of free speech because the leaflets presented a clear and present danger to the US government’s efforts to recruit soldiers during wartime. Although subsequent decisions watered down the ruling, the issue of speech posing a “imminent lawless action” remains an exception to free speech rights.
Columbia University law professor Tim Wu told the Washington Post that, “Notice that Google (which posted the film on its website) has more power over this than either the Egyptian or the US government. Most free speech today has nothing to do with governments and everything to do with companies.”
Google, according to legal experts interviewed by the Post, “implicitly invoked the concept of ‘clear and present danger’ ” when it blocked access to the film in Egypt and Libya.
“Innocence of Muslims” is a perfect candidate as an exception to free speech rights since its creators deliberately focused on fermenting violence. But rather than leave it to corporations, the US government must take the initiative to prosecute future purveyors of violence.
http://www.eurasiareview.com/17092012-anti-islam-film-an-exception-to-free-speech-protection-oped/
Agha Shahi was an icon.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pimu/1240185572/
Ammar Ali Qureshi:
I had the privelge of meeting Agha Shahi at my residence few times- probably the most foreceful speaker i have seen in my life. He was in his eighies at that time, but his mind was so incisive and his memory was razor sharp- that it was difficult to believe that he was so old. Absolutley brilliant man. A pity that people like GIK became President but a man of Shahi’s stature and brilliance was ignored by the Government of Pakistan from 1982 onwards- when he resigned from Zia’s government over the issue of Zia pondering about giving bases to USA.
Doc Kazi:
Yes exactly. A man of Zia’s mediocre mindset cannot even be expected to appreciate the callibre of Mr Shahi. He belonged to another class. Sychophants and toadies like GIK suited Zia very well. You may be interested in reading this tribute for Mr Agha Shahi by ex-Defense Minister Aftab Shahban Mirani here: http://archives.dawn.com/2006/12/09/ed.htm#4
Look who is talking! –> Rushdie brands anti-Islam film as “garbage”, must be ignored. http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article3904581.ece
I found Rushdie’s remarks hypocritical because his own work is not much different from the movie. Unfortunately, in Muslim countries antisemitism, anti-americanism etc has become a lucrative industry; similarly in the west, it is the Islamophobia which is short-cut to fame and wealth – at least for some mediocre authors, cartoonists and producers.
I don’t condone violence or violent protests against Rushdie or ‘Innocence of Muslims’ movie (or against anyone). I think the best way is to ignore offending books/movies or at most register a peaceful silent protest.
There are many criticisms of Rushdie’s work – even from non-Msulims. Here is a relevant comment:
In the February, 1990 issue of Political Quarterly, Tariq Modood wrote:
In fact the anger against [Satanic Verses] had nothing to do with fundamentalism-or indeed Khomeni. Virtually every practising Muslim was offended by passages from the book and shocked that it was written by a Muslim of whom till then the Asian community were proud. Rushdie has argued that the mullahs whipped up the ordinary Muslims for their own political motives. The truth is that all the religious zealots had to do was simply quote from SV for anger, shame and hurt to be felt.
It is important to be clear that SV was not objected to as an intellectual critique of their faith (libraries are full of those); for the average Muslim the vulgar language, the explicit sexual imagery, the attribution of lustful motives — without any evidence — to the holy Prophet, in short the reduction of their religion to a selfish sexual appetite was no more a contribution to literary discourse than pissing upon the Bible is a theological argument.
I think the possibility of reform and engagement ceases when an author/director starts insulting/offending his/her audience. That’s exactly what happened with Rushdie, he has literally no influence or impact on Muslim societies or intelligentsia. He did not contribute to reflection or reform, he contributed to hatred and violence, which then led to his short-cut to fame. He got what he wanted, not unlike Pastor Terry Jones.
There are many other criticisms too. Here’s an example of criticism by a former judge in India:
—
http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=748953
Rushdie a Poor, Sub-Standard Writer: Katju
NEW DELHI | JAN 25, 2012
PRINT
More Sharing Services Share on facebook Share on pinterest_share Share on twitter Share on google_plusone
COMMENTS
Salman Rushdie is a “poor” and “sub-standard writer” who would have remained largely unknown but for his controversial book Satanic Verses, according to Markandey Katju, till recently a judge of the Supreme Court.
Katju, who is now the Chairman of Press Council of India, criticised the admirers of India-born author based in Britain, saying they suffered from “colonial inferiority complex” that a writer living abroad has to be great.
“Salman Rushdie dominated the Jaipur Literature Festival. I do not wish to get into the controversy whether banning him was correct or not. I am raising a much more fundamental issue,” he said in a statement here.
“I have read some of Rushdie’s works and am of the opinion that he is a poor writer, and but for Satanic Verses would have remained largely unknown. Even Midnight’s Children is hardly great literature,” Katju contended.
He went on to add that the “whole problem with the so-called educated Indians of today is that they still suffer from the colonial inferiority complex. So whoever lives in London and New York must be a great writer, while writers living in India are inferior.”
On the controversy surrounding Rushdie during the festival which ended yesterday, he said, “I am not in favour of religious obscurantism. But neither do I wish to elevate a sub-standard writer into a hero.”
Referring to the Jaipur festival, Katju said one would have expected “serious discussion on literature, particularly indigenous literature” of the likes of Kabir, Premchand, Sharat Chandra, Manto, Ghalib, Faiz, Kazi Nazrul Islam and Subramania Bharti.
“Kabir and Tulsidas are no good because they lived on the ghats of Benaras, whereas Rushdie is great because he lives on the ghats of the Thames! This is the mental level of our ‘intellectuals and ‘literati’,” the former SC judge said.
Katju maintained that the whole history of the great Indian literature, rich in its variety, from Valmiki and Vyas to modern times should have been discussed.
There could also have been a discussion on foreign writers like Dickens, Shaw, Victor Hugo, Balzac, Flaubert, Upton Sinclair, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Gorki [Maxim Gorky? – Ed] and Pablo Neruda, he said.
“Instead the total focus at Jaipur appeared to be Rushdie. Two personalities linked with films were projected as ‘the finest poets’ in India, though to my mind their work is of a very inferior order. This is the low level to which the Jaipur Festival sank,” Katju contended.
He said India is facing massive socio-economic problems today and literature should address these.
“The struggle which Kabir waged against narrow sectarianism, which Sharat Chandra waged against the caste system and women’s oppression, which Faiz waged against despotism, which Subramania Bharti waged for nationalism and women’s emancipation, which Dickens and Gorki waged against exploitation and social injustice — these are the matters which should have been discussed at Jaipur. Instead, Rushdie dominated most of the show,” he said.
FILED ON: JAN 25, 2012 16:11 IST
——
Rushdie, Tarek Fatah, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula types and Takfiri Salafists (Zawahiri, Zarqawi, Malik Ishaq etc) work in tandem. Both groups feed on hatred, both need each other, both equally vile.
The strangest part of The Express Tribune editorial, however, comes in the second paragraph which speculates that there is different treatment for anti-Islamic material in the US than there is for anti-Jew or anti-African-American material.
Surely, some provision must exist within US laws to reprimand derogatory attacks on particular religious or ethnic groups, intended to incite anger. It is difficult to imagine that such false and offensive diatribes against African-Americans, Jews or other communities would be tolerated to any degree had it occurred in the US itself.
This is a claim that has been circulating widely. Rather than research the claim, unfortunately, The Express Tribune simply repeated it without question. A simply search of YouTube’s content easily finds thousands of videos that are anti-Jewish, anti-African-American, anti-Buddhism, anti-Hindu, anti-American…anti-everything, really. Additionally, a 2008 article in The New York Times about free speech laws in the US makes the point clearly:
Under the First Amendment, newspapers and magazines can say what they like about minorities and religions — even false, provocative or hateful things — without legal consequence.
What about hate speech against Jews and minorities?
“In much of the developed world, one uses racial epithets at one’s legal peril, one displays Nazi regalia and the other trappings of ethnic hatred at significant legal risk, and one urges discrimination against religious minorities under threat of fine or imprisonment,” Frederick Schauer, a professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, wrote in a recent essay called “The Exceptional First Amendment.”
“But in the United States,” Professor Schauer continued, “all such speech remains constitutionally protected.”
What if the speech is intended to hurt the sentiments of a group?
But merely saying hateful things about minorities, even with the intent to cause their members distress and to generate contempt and loathing, is protected by the First Amendment.
In 1969, for instance, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the conviction of a leader of a Ku Klux Klan group under an Ohio statute that banned the advocacy of terrorism. The Klan leader, Clarence Brandenburg, had urged his followers at a rally to “send the Jews back to Israel,” to “bury” blacks, though he did not call them that, and to consider “revengeance” against politicians and judges who were unsympathetic to whites.
Instead of speculating that “surely, some provision must exist”, why didn’t the editors at The Express Tribune spend some small amount of time to research the question? It took us only a few minutes to find examples where hate speech against both Jews and African-Americans was protected.
http://pakistanmediawatch.com/2012/09/17/express-tribune-editorial-repeats-rumours-ignores-facts/
’اسلام مخالف فلم غیرمہذب اور شرمناک ہے‘
آخری وقت اشاعت: جمعرات 20 ستمبر 2012 , 02:28 GMT 07:28 PST
Facebook
Twitter
دوست کو بھیجیں
پرنٹ کریں
آزادئ اظہار کا حق اشتعال انگیزی یا دوسروں کے عقائد کی بے حرمتی کے لیے نہیں: بان کی مون
اقوامِ متحدہ کے سیکرٹری جنرل بان کی مون نے کہا ہے کہ اسلام مخالف فلم غیرمہذب اور شرمناک ہے اور اس کے خالق نے آزادئ اظہارِ رائے کا غلط استعمال کیا ہے۔
بدھ کی رات نیویارک میں ایک نیوز کانفرنس میں بان کی مون کا کہنا تھا کہ آزادئ اظہارِ رائے کو اس وقت یقینی بنایا جانا چاہیے اور تحفظ فراہم کیا جانا چاہیے جب وہ ’عام انصاف‘ اور ’عام لوگوں کے مقاصد‘ کے لیے استعمال ہو۔
اسی بارے میں
پشاور: متنازع فلم کے خلاف مظاہرے جاری
صوبہ سندھ کے مختلف شہروں میں مظاہرے، دو افراد ہلاک
اللہ اور اس کے رسول کی عظمت
متعلقہ عنوانات
پاکستان
انہوں نے کہا کہ جب کچھ لوگ اس حق کو اشتعال انگیزی یا دوسروں کے عقائد کی بے حرمتی کے لیے استعمال کریں تو ایسے موقع پر ان کے اس حق کا تحفظ نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔
دوسری طرف پیغمبر اسلام کے بارے میں بننے والی اسی متنازع فلم کی ایک اداکارہ نے فلمساز کے خلاف امریکی عدالت میں دھوکہ دہی کا مقدمہ کر دیا ہے۔
انہوں نے کہا ہے کہ انہیں اور ان کے ساتھی اداکاروں کو یہ بتایا گیا تھا کہ وہ قدیم مصر کے بارے میں بننے والی ایک ایڈونچر فلم حصہ لے رہے ہیں۔
ان کا کہنا ہے کہ فلم میں اسلام مخالف مکالموں کی ڈبنگ بعد میں کی گئی ہے اور یہ کہ فلم کے سکرپٹ میں پیغمبر اسلام کا کوئی ذکر نہیں تھا۔
اس توہین آمیز فلم کے خلاف اسلامی ممالک میں شدید احتجاج جاری ہے اور اب تک ہونے والے مظاہروں میں ایک درجن کے قریب افراد ہلاک ہو چکے ہیں۔
پاکستان میں بھی احتجاجی مظاہرے ہوئے ہیں اور حکومتِ پاکستان نے جمعہ یعنی اکیس ستمبر کو ’یومِ عشقِ رسول‘ منانے کے لیے عام تعطیل کا اعلان کیا ہے۔
پاکستان کے دارالحکومت اسلام آباد میں بدھ کو تقریباً پانچ سو وکلاء نے پیغمبرِ اسلام کے بارے میں امریکہ میں بننے والی توہین آمیز فلم کے خلاف مظاہرہ کیا۔
مظاہرین نے ریڈ زون میں واقع ڈپلومیٹک انکلیو کی جانب مارچ کیا اور پہلے دو حفاظتی گیٹ توڑنے میں کامیاب رہے۔ تاہم وکلاء کا یہ احتجاج ڈپلومیٹک انکلیو کے دوسرے گیٹ پر رک گیا جہاں وکلاء رہنماؤں نے تقاریر کیں۔
فرانسیسی خبر رساں ایجنسی اے ایف پی کے مطابق وکلاء رہنماؤں نے حکومتِ پاکستان سے مطالبہ کیا کہ امریکی کی خوشنودگی حاصل کرنے کی پالیسی کو ترک کرے اور امریکی سفیر کو ملک چھوڑنے کا حکم دے۔
دوسری جانب لاہور میں مذہبی جماعت جمیعت علماءِ اسلام نے مظاہرے کیے۔ مظاہرین کی کوشش تھی کہ وہ لاہور میں امریکی قونصلیٹ کی جانب مارچ کریں لیکن پولیس نے قونصلیٹ کی جانب جانے والے تمام راستے کنٹینر رکھ کر بند کر دیے۔
اس کے علاوہ پنجاب حکومت نے قونصلیٹ کی سکیورٹی کے لیے اضافی پولیس تعینات کی گئی تھی۔
بدھ کو وفاقی کابینہ کے اجلاس میں وزیرِاعظم پاکستان راجہ پرویز اشرف نے پیغمبرِ اسلام کے بارے میں امریکہ میں بننے والی توہین آمیز فلم کی مذمت کی۔
انہوں نے مزید کہا کہ حکومت نے اس فلم کا نوٹس لیتے ہوئے پاکستان میں یوٹیوب پر پابندی عائد کردی ہے۔
جمیعت علماء اسلام کا احتجاج
لاہور میں جمیعت علماءِ اسلام بھی لاہور میں مظاہرے کر رہی ہے۔ مظاہرین کی کوشش ہے کہ وہ لاہور میں امریکی قونصلیٹ کی جانب مارچ کرے لیکن پولیس نے قونصلیٹ کی جانب جانے والے تمام راستے کنٹینر رکھ کر بند کردیے ہیں۔
اس کے علاوہ ریڈیو پاکستان کے مطابق وفاقی وزیر برائے داخلہ رحمان ملک نے میڈیا سے بات کرتے ہوئے کہا کہ پاکستان پیپلز پارٹی بھی پیغمبرِ اسلام کے بارے میں امریکہ میں بننے والی توہین آمیز فلم کے خلاف اعلان کردہ مظاہروں میں شریک ہو گی۔
انہوں نے کہا کہ جمعہ کو مذہبی تنظیموں نے اس فلم کے خلاف مظاہروں کا اعلان کیا ہوا ہے اور پی پی پی بھی ان مظاہروں میں شریک ہو گی۔
اسلام آباد میں ہمارے نامہ نگار نے بتایا کہ وفاقی کابینہ کے اجلاس کے بارے میں وفاقی وزیر برائے اطلاعات قمر زمان کائرہ نے کہا یو ٹیوب کی جانب سے متعلقہ کلپ نہ ہٹانے پر حکومت نے اس ویب سائٹ پر ملک میں پابندی لگائی ہے۔
ایک سوال پر انہوں نے کہا کہ حکومت کے پاس ایسی ٹیکنالوجی نہیں کہ صرف قابل اعتراض فلم کو روک سکے اور اس بارے میں پاکستان ٹیلی کام اتھارٹی عالمی قوانین کے مطابق اقدامات کر رہی ہے۔
انہوں نے بتایا کہ وفاقی کابینہ نے صدرِ پاکستان سے درخواست کی ہے کہ وہ اقوام متحدہ کی جنرل اسمبلی کے اجلاس میں پیغمبر اسلام کے خلاف توہین آمیز فلم کا معاملہ اٹھائیں اور اقوام عالم پر زور دیں کہ وہ ایسی قانون سازی یا اقدامات کریں کہ ایسے واقعات رونما نہ ہوسکیں۔
“یو ٹیوب کی جانب سے متعلقہ کلپ نہ ہٹانے پر حکومت نے اس ویب سائٹ پر ملک میں پابندی لگائی ہے۔ حکومت کے پاس ایسی ٹیکنالوجی نہیں کہ صرف قابل اعتراض فلم کو روک سکے اور اس بارے میں پاکستان ٹیلی کام اتھارٹی عالمی قوانین کے مطابق اقدامات کر رہی ہے۔”
قمر زمان قائرہ
ان کے بقول حکومت سوچ رہی ہے کہ اسلامی ممالک کی تنظیم کا اجلاس بلایا جائے اور اس طرح کے واقعات کے سد باب کے لیے دیرپا اقدامات تجویز کیے جائیں۔ انہوں نے پیغمبر اسلام کے متعلق بننے والی فلم کے خلاف احتجاج میں دیگر مذاہب کے لوگوں کی شرکت پر ان کا شکریہ ادا کیا۔
وزیر اطلاعات نے کہا کہ پیغمبر اسلام کی شان میں گستاخی کے خلاف حکومت کسی کو احتجاج سے نہیں روک رہی لیکن تمام جماعتوں اور عوام سے اپیل کرتی ہے کہ وہ پرامن احتجاج کریں اور کسی کی جان یا مال کو نقصان پہنچانا نامناسب عمل ہے۔
انہوں نے میڈیا سے بھی اپیل کی کہ وہ پرتشدد مظاہروں کی برارہ راست کوریج سے گریز کریں کیونکہ اس سے دیگر لوگ بھی اشتعال میں آتے ہیں یا ایسا کرنا اشتعال دلانے کے زمرے میں آتا ہے۔
http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/2012/09/120919_blasphemy_film_protests_rh.shtml
Ban Ki-moon blasts anti-Islam filmmaker
September 20, 2012 – Updated 320 PKT
From Web Edition
524 29 8 0
UNITED NATIONS: U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Wednesday the maker of an anti-Islam film that triggered violent protests across the Muslim world abused his right to freedom of expression by making the movie, which he called a “disgraceful and shameful act.”
The blasphemous film was posted on the Internet under several titles including “Innocence of Muslims”.
It sparked days of deadly anti-American violence in many Muslim countries, including an assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in Libya in which the U.S. ambassador died.
“Freedoms of expression should be and must be guaranteed and protected, when they are used for common justice, common purpose,” Ban told a news conference.
“When some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others’ values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected in such a way.”
“My position is that freedom of expression, while it is a fundamental right and privilege, should not be abused by such people, by such a disgraceful and shameful act,” he said.
A California man convicted of bank fraud was taken in for questioning on Saturday by U.S. authorities investigating possible probation violations stemming from the making of the video. He has denied involvement in the film and has now gone into hiding. (Reuters)
http://www.thenews.com.pk/article-68411-UN-chief-says-anti-Islam-filmmaker-abused-freedom-of-expression
UNITED NATIONS – United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told reporters in New York today that “free speech” has limits, especially when religious beliefs are involved.
“All of this freedom of expression should not be abused by individuals. … Some people abuse this freedom. This effort to provoke, to humiliate others by using (religious) beliefs cannot be protected in such a way.”
Ban, speaking in advance of the 2012 General Assembly, answered reporters’ questions on the impact of the controversial YouTube video about the Islamic prophet Muhammad which allegedly sparked attacks on U.S. diplomatic posts in Libya and Egypt last week.
The attacks left four dead, including U.S.-Libya Ambassador Christopher Stevens.
It was the first time in more than 30 years that a U.S. ambassador was killed in the field.
While Ban was quick to criticize U.S. policy on free speech, he pointedly refused to address other governments that restrict freedom of expression.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has flaunted his government’s official policy of aiming to “eradicate” the state of Israel and Jews in general and who will attend the General Assembly next week, escaped any Ban criticism during his meeting with reporters.
Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, who issued a muted response to the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and who also will visit the General Assembly, received a pass from the U.N. chief.
While insisting that free speech was an “inalienable” human right, Ban added that such “absolute” rights do have limits.
“All human beings have inalienable rights, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, but at the same time, freedom of expression should not be abused by individuals.”
On the controversial YouTube video, Ban broke with Washington’s insistence that such speech is legally permissible and not actionable under U.S. law.
“My position is that freedom of expression, which is a fundamental right should not be abused by such disgraceful, such shameful acts.”
The U.S. mission to the U.N. declined to provide any comment on behalf of Ambassador Susan Rice.
Richard Grenell, a senior U.N. diplomat during the Bush administration, was quick to weigh in.
“The secretary-general is wrong; there are no exceptions to freedom of speech,” he said. “There is no U.N. approval process on it. You can certainly disagree with what someone says, but no one has the right to silence another’s voice.”
http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/u-n-chief-free-speech-has-limits/
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Wednesday the maker of an anti-Islam film that triggered violent protests across the Muslim world abused his right to freedom of expression by making the movie, which he called a “disgraceful and shameful act.”
The film, posted on the Internet under several titles including “Innocence of Muslims,” mocked the Prophet Mohammad and portrayed him as a womanizer and a fool.
It sparked days of deadly anti-American violence in many Muslim countries, including an assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in Libya in which the U.S. ambassador died.
“Freedoms of expression should be and must be guaranteed and protected, when they are used for common justice, common purpose,” Ban told a news conference.
“When some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others’ values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected in such a way.”
“My position is that freedom of expression, while it is a fundamental right and privilege, should not be abused by such people, by such a disgraceful and shameful act,” he said.
http://news.terra.com/un-chief-says-anti-islam-filmmaker-abused-freedom-of-expression,5e9ccb87ac0e9310VgnVCM3000009acceb0aRCRD.html
all muslims of world should be united immediately
SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
SHARE ON FACEBOOK SHARE ON TWITTER SHARE ON GOOGLE MORE SHARING SERVICES
127
Ignorance on Parade
Islamophobia, Left and Right
by JEFF SPARROW
‘Koran discovered with coffee cup stain on the front cover, US marines deployed to all Starbucks franchises.’
The quip, retweeted by celebrity atheist Richard Dawkins, exemplifies the belligerent incomprehension with which so many, including self-proclaimed liberals, have responded to protests against the film The Innocence of Muslims.
Rioting over a YouTube clip that offends the Muslim sky fairy? How tremendously foolish! How childish; how superstitious; how very, very silly!
Well, we’ve certainly seen ignorance paraded over the last few days but it’s as much by smug progressives as anyone else.
Consider a historical analogy.
In 1857, Bengali soldiers (known as ‘sepoys’) shot their British officers and marched upon Delhi. The Great Indian Rebellion became very violent, very quickly. The rebels massacred prisoners, including women and children; the British put down the revolt with a slaughter of unprecedented proportions.
Now, that rebellion began when the troops learned that their cartridges, designed to be torn open with their teeth, would be greased with beef and pork fat, an offence to the religious sensibilities of Hindus and Muslims alike. Had Twitter been an invention of the Victorian era, London sophisticates would, no doubt, have LOLed to each other (#sepoyrage!) about the credulity of dusky savages so worked up about a little beef tallow. Certainly, that was how the mouthpieces of the East India Company spun events: in impeccably Dawkinesque terms, they blamed ‘Hindoo prejudice’ for the descent of otherwise perfectly contented natives into rapine and slaughter.
But no serious historian today takes such apologetics seriously. Only the most determined ignoramus would discuss 1857 in isolation from the broader context of British occupation. In form, the struggle might have been religious; in content, it embodied a long-simmering opposition to colonial rule.
That’s why those who pretend the protests against The Innocence of Muslims came from nowhere merely reveal their own foolishness.
‘Today, many Americans are asking — indeed, I asked myself — how could this happen?’ said Hillary Clinton after the riots in Libya. ‘How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction? This question reflects just how complicated and, at times, how confounding the world can be.’
The echoes of George Bush’s infamous query ‘Why do they hate us when we’re so good?’ suggests nothing whatsoever has been learnt from the last decade and the hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere.
For this is, of course, the same Hillary Clinton who, as recently as 2009, proclaimed Mubarak, Egypt’s torturer-in-chief, and his wife, ‘friends of my family’, acknowledging a relationship that exemplified the pally connections between the US elite and every dictator and despot in the region. Mubarak might have been crossed off the Clinton Christmaas list but President Obama forges ever closer relations with the tyrants of Saudi Arabia, delivering the biggest ever arms deal in US history to fortify a reactionary and criminal government against its populace.
No, Hillary Clinton might not recall such matters. But the people of the Muslimworld are considerably better informed – and that’s the context for their anger.
But what about the movie itself? Why should such a shoddy piece of amateur filmmaking become such a flashpoint?
Again, shift to a more familiar referent and the outrage becomes at once markedly less strange. The Protocols of Zion were, of course, also a bodged-up job, a childish forgery thrown together by racist cranks from the Tsarist secret service. But no-one’s surprised when Jews (and their anti-racist allies) mobilise against some fresh incarnation of that notorious document, since we all, quite correctly, recognise any new publication of the Protocols as a conscious and deliberate attempt to promote hatred.
The Innocence of Muslims should be understood in the same fashion. This is a film produced at a time in which, across Europe and the United States, the far right has developed an Islamophobic doctrine that replicates, almost exactly, the key tropes of traditional anti-Semitism.
Jews will not integrate. Jews are more fertile than Christians and are outbreeding them. Europe is becoming a province, a colony, of a Judaic entity. Europe will either be Judaicised or there will be a civil war. Most likely, Jews will resort to terrorism as part of their takeover. They are already spoiling for violence.
All of that sounds like the rantings of an old-school fascist. But replace ‘Jew’ with ‘Muslim’, and you’re left with a workaday opinion piece from any mainstream conservative paper.
The structural homology here is not accidental. Mattias Gardell notes how:
The tradition of Islamophobia is, like anti-Semitism, rooted in the medieval Christian hostility to the ‘enemies of God’, with these perceptions disseminated, expanded upon, restructured, rearticulated and reactivated in various social and political contexts, from the Turk scare in early modernity, via the colonial expansion, to the War on Terror.
Many stories told about Jews in medieval and early modern Europe were also spun around what were then termed Moors, Saracens or Red Jews: Muslims were devil-worshipping, sexually deviant, man-eating monsters; Muslims ritually defamed the cross and consumed the blood of ceremonially slaughtered Christian children in blasphemous communions. Church art portrayed Mohammed as the Antichrist, and Muslims as horned devils, Christ-killers, dogs or a hybrid race of dog-men. Lars Vilks – the Swedish artist who depicted Mohammed as a dog – may claim originality, but the dog motif goes back hundreds of years and is as old as the Judensau (the medieval depiction of Jews in obscene contact with a sow).
Elsewhere, the journalist Colm Ó Broin has produced a neat demonstration of the relationship between the old hate and the new hate, with a close comparison of the writings of the notorious Islamophobe Robert Spencer on Muslims alongside the propaganda of Julius Streicher, the editor of, Der Stuermer. Streicher, you’ll recall, went to the gallows at Nuremberg – but Spencer holds forth regularly on FOX News.
The labour leader August Bebel famously dubbed anti-Semitism the ‘socialism of fools’, since some supposed radicals subscribed to crackpot theories about Jewish finance. In a similar fashion, Islamophobia today often gets served up as an addlepated secularism by vulgar atheists, indifferent to how often their conversationsabout Muslim theology slide neatly intoanguish about Muslim birthrates (an obvious giveaway of the racialised imagination and its biological concerns).
Should Muslims be worried about rising Islamophobia? Of course they should! As the recent report by the Institute of Race Relations, Pedlars of Hate, makes clear, anti-Islam bigotry is becoming a key element of the revival of the far Right – a Right that doesn’t merely slander Muslims but also takes action against them.
The Innocence of Muslims was, quite obviously, intended as a provocation, and many Muslims have argued that the minority of shrilljihadis who raised their sectarian and violent slogans at protests around the wold fell entirely into the intended trap.
Then, again, this too is familiar. Twentieth century race-baiters knew all about goadingtheir victims into a certain response, and then using that response to justify a fresh pogrom. Not unexpectedly, German far-right extremists (who have some historical experience with this strategy) are now planning fresh screenings of the film.
Those who call themselves progressive might note that a certain Karl Marx followed the Great Indian Rebellion closely. While he acknowledged and decried the excesses of the rebels, he declared these were ‘only the reflex, in a concentrated form, of England’s own conduct in India.’
In other words, Marx, one of history’s more famous atheists, stood firmly with the ‘ignorant’ sepoys against their ‘enlightened’ opponents.
‘John Bull,’ he wrote, ‘is to be steeped in cries for revenge up to his very ears, to make him forget that his Government is responsible for the mischief hatched and the colossal dimensions it has been allowed toassume.’
Add ‘Uncle Sam’ to that sentence, and you have a remarkably apt assessment of what’s taking place today.
Jeff Sparrow is the editor of Overland magazine and the author of “Money Shot: A Journey into Porn and Censorship.“
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/09/18/islamophobia-left-and-right/
Great, thanks for sharing this post.Really looking forward to read more. Keep writing.
Major thankies for the article post.Really looking forward to read more. Really Great.