The National Review has published a leaked email from Al Jazeera executive producer Salah-Aldeen Khadr to his anchors and news correspondents. If you had any notion that Al Jazeera was an “objective” source of news about the world in general or the Middle East in particular, have a gander at this. I’ve bolded bits of it, but what it says is that the newsroom should play up the notion that the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists were racists and that killing them was not an attack on free speech, that the purpose of the cartoons was not to make a point about religion but just to insult Muslims, and that the paper should discourage further publication of the cartoons (thus giving terrorists the victory they wanted). It’s disgusting, but gives a rare inside look at how “moderate” Muslims try to whitewash the extremist perfidies of the faith.
Thursday, January 08, 2015
Subject: AJ coverage of events in Paris
Dear Editorial colleagues,
Please accept this note in the spirit it is intended – to make our coverage the best that it can be …. We are Al Jazeera!!!!
My suggestion is that we question and raise the following points in our coverage – studio/anchors/guests/correspondents:
This was a targeted attack, not a broad attack on the french population a la Twin towers or 7/7 style. So who was this attack against? The whole of France/EU society? Or specifically this magazine. The difference lies in how this is reported not in how terrible the act is obviously – murder is murder either way… but poses a narrower question of the “why”? attack on french society and values? Only if you consider CH’s racist caricatures to be the best of European intellectual production (total whitewash on that at the moment)
Was this really an attack on “Free speech”? Who is attacking free speech here exactly? Does an attack by 2-3 guys on a controversial magazine equate to a civilizational attack on European values..? Really?
“I am Charlie” as an alienating slogan – with us or against us type of statement – one can be anti-CH’s racism and ALSO against murdering people(!) (obvious I know but worth stating)
Also worth stating that we still don’t know much about the motivations of the attackers outside of the few words overheard on the video. Yes, clearly it was a “punishment” for the cartoons, but it didn’t take them 8/9 years to prep this attack (2006 was Danish/CH publication) – this is perhaps a response to something more immediate…French action against ISIL…? Mali? Libya? CH just the target ie focus of the attack..?
Danger in making this a free speech aka “European Values” under attack binary is that it once again constructs European identity in opposition to Islam (sacred depictions) and cements the notion of a European identity under threat from an Islamic retrograde culture of which the attackers are merely the violent tip of the iceberg (see the seeping of Far Right discourse into french normalcy with Houellebecque’s novel for example)
The key is to look at the biographies of these guys – contrary to conventional wisdom, they were radicalised by images of Abu Ghraib not by images of the Prophet Mohammed
You don’t actually stick it to the terrorists by insulting the majority of Muslims by reproducing more cartoons – you actually entrench the very animosity and divisions these guys seek to sow.
This is a clash of extremist fringes…
I suggest a re-read of the Time magazine article back from 2011 and I have selected the most poignant/important excerpt….
It’s unclear what the objectives of the caricatures were other than to offend Muslims—and provoke hysteria among extremists. [JAC: How about to raise questions about the tenets of Islam?]
Defending freedom of expression in the face of oppression is one thing; insisting on the right to be obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile. Baiting extremists isn’t bravely defiant when your manner of doing so is more significant in offending millions of moderate people as well. And within a climate where violent response—however illegitimate—is a real risk, taking a goading stand on a principle virtually no one contests is worse than pointless: it’s pointlessly all about you.
Kind regards
Salah-Aldeen Khadr
Executive Producer
Al Jazeera English
This communication is followed by a rancorous exchange of emails back and forth between Al Jazeera correspondents (all given in the National Review piece), one defending Charlie Hebdo’s right to publish the cartoons as an important statement, with most others angrily implying that the French magazine brought the horrors on itself, and echoing Khadr’s argument that the purpose of the cartoons was simply to insult Muslims. One says, in all caps, “I AM NOT CHARLIE.”
This exchange gives a rare behind the scenes look at a supposedly liberal Arab outlet, and makes me think that perhaps a lot of the condemnation of the Charlie Hebdo killings by Muslims was disingenuous: a pious mouthing of words uttered because Muslims know that if they didn’t come out against this brutality, they’d be subject to bitter condemnation.While much of the condemnation by Muslims was undoubtedly sincere, how do we know how much of it reflects real moral outrage instead than a recognition that it’s expedient to come out against terrorism? It makes a difference, for words alone aren’t important—they must translate into behavior. Given that Al Jazeera would undoubtedly condemn the killings, if it hasn’t already, the backchannel emails give us a clue that we can’t take all the contrition at face value. At any rate, the National Review concludes that:
The heated back-and-forth illustrates Al Jazeera English’s precarious balance between its Arab center of gravity and the Western correspondents it employs.
h/t: Amy Alkon
“and makes me think that perhaps a lot of the condemnation of the Charlie Hebdo killings by Muslims was disingenuous: a pious mouthing of words uttered because Muslims know that if they didn’t come out against this brutality, they’d be subject to bitter condemnation.”
This seems to me to be a totally unwarranted, unsupported and unfair conclusion. Even if many Muslims found the cartoons offensive (and I don’t have much sympathy with them there), I don’t see any cause to doubt their denunciations of violence against the cartoonists.
Sorry, but I have a right to think that some of the contrition isn’t genuine in light of this backchannel stuff. As I said, I think most of it is real, but are you saying that ALL of it is real? That none of the condemnation is just for show? I don’t think so. We know from polls that many of the world’s Muslims actually support this kind of violence.
We know from plagiarizers and other people who issue “notapologies” that a lot of contrition is for show, not for real. That’s human nature.
You are, of course, well within your rights to assume whatever you want, but I don’t think your assumption is in any way supported by this backchannel information. If I were going to just broadly write off the denunciations of violence from many people as essentially just convenient lies, I would want to have very solid evidence before doing so. Your view may differ, I suppose.
Not lies, condemnation based on expediency rather than moral outrage. I’ve clarified this above.
Fair enough. I still don’t agree but appreciate the clarification.
I’m clearly with Jerry on this one.
When, for instance, Saudi Arabia officials say they are sorry for this attack against journalists and then immediately proceed to flog a blogger for spreading liberal ideas… you can safely assume that their lament is just for show.
Well said!
Drawing conclusions about Muslims in general from the opinions of a member of a politicised news organisation seems rather unwise.
I assure you, that’s far from the only source upon which Jerry is drawing his opinions.
For that matter, the Five Pillars themselves are sufficient for Jerry’s opinion — let alone all the other responses from Muslims throughout history ancient and modern to opposition to Islam.
b&
I agree.
Like it or not, many Muslims are offended by depictions of Mohammed, and they are not going to suddenly stop being offended by them because of this incident.
Some people, Muslim and non-Muslim, think Charlie Hebdo were unnecessarily provocative. People can reasonably disagree about that. But it doesn’t make you insincere in you condemning this attack to also be critical of how the magazine operates.
I think you can do both. I think some of the images are repugnant but I also think you can express that in non violent, civilized ways. I am often offended by what people say and how they depict atheists, but I’m not going to try to silence them by threatening to harm them.
Exactly. Resorting to murder because you are offended is never a valid response. In a free and open Western democracy, which France is, there are multiple non-violent methods of disagreement and protest. All other groups upset by the ‘Charlie Hebdo’ cartoons, and they are legion, managed not to resort to violence, let alone murder. It is a feature of the way some imams teach that their followers consider murder is the way Allah wants them to respond, and will reward them for it. The change has to come from within Islam. It has started, but the momentum is slow, often because of genuine fear of the hardliners. Even if they’re only 10%, that’s 160 million people.
Maybe the change has to come from within, but the push has to come from without.
Good question.
However, I have visited right wing, pro life christian forums, where thr posters have gone so far as to say: “we should publicly condemn the murder of George Tiller because it makes us look bad. But we are really happy that he’s dead because babies won’t be murdered now.”
It seems to me, at least, that many folks place their “strongly held” beliefs above all other things.
I disagree. Saudi Arabia has condemned the CH attacks, while at the same time torturing human rights activist Raif Badawi, for pretty much the same kind of “offence”. So they really are disingenuous and hypocritical.
If the Saudi government is hypocritical, that says nothing about their people, much less other Muslims around the world.
Saudi Arabia is reported to have recently passed laws making atheism a capital crime, too. But that doesn’t mean my Muslim friends want me dead.
No, your Muslim friends don’t. But there are many Muslims, not your friends, who would be just fine with your untimely demise. Those are the ones we’re concerned with.
Yes, but I believe that was the point: no two Muslims are necessarily in agreement over this particular issue. daveyc is right to point out that it’s unfair to lump the innocent ones in with the immoral ones who value “respect” over killing. Of course, Jerry’s right to point out that there are likely some fakers, but some precise quantification wouldn’t go amiss, and the quotation – using the emails to suggest “a lot of others” are doing the same – isn’t exactly fair on that front.
I haven’t seen anything in the comments in this subthread, or in the OP, that could be accurately characterized as “lumping the innocent ones in with the immoral ones.”
Though it is vital to understand that doing that is bad, and in general warnings against doing so are an important part of overall human discourse, it is tiresome to hear such warnings every time criticism of certain things is offered even when the criticism is from a source that has well and often demonstrated ample awareness of, and agreement that doing so is bad.
“If the Saudi government is hypocritical, that says nothing about their people”
This video says a lot about their people…
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/553596379084627968
I don’t know why there should be any question about whether some people will speak out of both sides of their mouths, or give lip service to the politically correct thing to say while silently harboring different views on the matter. Given that we have a series of internal emails from Al Jazeera illustrating exactly that point should allow us to draw the inference that if it has happened there, it has happened elsewhere all up and down the Muslim world. (And throughout the world of the illiberal left, for that matter)
Given that we have a series of internal emails from Al Jazeera illustrating exactly that point should allow us to draw the inference that if it has happened there, it has happened elsewhere all up and down the Muslim world.
But to suggest that it’s occurring in a lot of other avenues is bringing in innocents and groundlessly claiming they’re guilty by default. It seems to me less awkward to take it on a case-by-case basis rather than tarring with broad strokes.
I appreciate if Jerry meant it in an “I wonder if…” hypothetical sense, but I don’t like the idea of blaming too many people too quickly.
403 – Forbidden: Access is denied.
You do not have permission to view this directory or page using the credentials that you supplied.
Looks like I couldn’t access the Time Magazine excerpt. Disappointing.
What was curious is that the three killers were British from Morocco though at least one of them had gone to Yemen to be trained by al Quaida.
I have found that using the last 30+ years of US depredations over there in the Middle East is looked upon as some kind of excuse for them. Which it is not. There is non excuse for that, however understanding where it came from should not be ignored either.
I admit I would not have attacked them or the Catholic Church or the Protestant churches beyond their actions. Like child molestation to mutilation, torture etc. But not for simple ridicule. However the response was way out of line to the affrontery.
sub
submit
His comments, while deeply disturbing, are really not different than a fair number of liberals.
That may be, but it is quite possible that a similar precarious balance may exist between, say, Chris Hayes and his subordinates (or superiors) at MSNBC. The National Review is likely to be more monolithic – and, sadly, I am closer to them on this issue, but it isn’t a bad thing that management and correspondents at Al Jazeera have differences. The fact that the correspondents are “Western” isn’t really relevant, though the National Review may think it is.
I doubt that any people at MSNBC would say what some of those journalists at Al Jazeera did. Read the whole sequence of emails and tell me if you think that all of them could just as easily have come from MSNBC.
I haven’t read them – I will.
I agree. Doesn’t it make you squirm that you agree with Ross Douthat? It definitely leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but I do.
Not really; I’m trying to teach myself that we should condemn and favor ideas and not people, and so I no longer get queasy when I have to agree with what the National Review says, or what someone like Ross Doubthat says. After all, as the saying goes, even a blind pig can find an acorn.
I’ve also learned that people who say, “But you agreed with Doubthat!” can’t be trusted to judge ideas fairly.
Agreed. I visit a number of thinking conservative sites and find that on some issues they are more grounded in reality than many la -la- liberals.
I must say that I was positively surprised recently by the attitude exhibited by one FOX News presenter during his interview with a London imam, in the wake of recent terrorist attacks. Though a Christian himself, he held the free speech flag high!
Radical imam Anjem Choudary on Charlie Hebdo attack
http://video.foxnews.com/v/3976707999001/radical-imam-anjem-choudary-on-charlie-hebdo-attack/?#sp=show-clips
Likewise, Brit NeoCon Douglas Murray has been eloquently spot on with his analysis of the significance and meaning of the Charlie Hebdo attack.
I couldn’t agree more!
Good thing to practice. Tribalism is such a strong human foible that it’s worth resisting. Much of what passes for opinion, analysis, and thought, is mere team cheerleading.
I as a very liberal person socially, but economically more centrist, have been reading NR since the 1980s. Even while often disagreeing strongly with it, I appreciate the quality of the writing (tho that’s gone down in recent years) and found myself confronted w/the occasional uncomfortable fact. As someone who writes about information literacy, I think it important not to dismiss an entire publication, but to properly assess the data and claims in it.
I have great reverence for irreverence.
“Everybody knows there is no fineness or accuracy of suppression; if you hold down one thing, you hold down the adjoining.” — Saul Bellow
#JournalismIsNotACrimeUnlessItOffendsUs
Way too long for a hash tag. How about #GodIsGreat ?
But it doesn’t build on Al Jazeera’s #JournalismIsNotACrime.
Another example of how religion makes people easily offendable.
Insecurity will continue to grow in the Islamic world especially as science and secularism continue to grow. Unfortunately, Islam is centuries behind Christianity. We will continue to see much more of this (CH and it’s repercussions) before it begins to wane.
Good point. How long will it take, I wonder, for Islam to make up centuries of lost time. In principle, it should be a relatively short transition since the path has already been blazed and there are at least a hand full of Muslims who lead in that direction. Unfortunately there are vastly more who exacerbate the situation.
> Unfortunately there are vastly more who exacerbate the situation.
I doubt that. It would be impossible, of course, to get reliable numbers; but I suspect the vast majority of Muslims would love to end the violence. It is the violent ones who get all the attention, and we naturally tend to think they are the majority.
I don’t have the reference, but there was a young Lebanese Christian woman who escaped to the United States with her family a few years ago. She had been repeatedly threatened with death for her religion. Her assessment was that maybe 10% to 15% of Muslims worldwide had such violent tendencies. This would obviously mean 80% to 85% do not.
Her experience probably does not make her an expert, but I am strongly inclined to agree with her. Most Muslims are not free to express their opinions, because they live in places that don’t permit freedom of expression.
You might be, but the pollsters aren’t. Support for Sharia is overwhelming in the polls, and clear majorities in many Muslim countries support death and dismemberment as punishment for true trivialities, including apostasy. Scenes of Muslim mobs celebrating terror attacks by handing out candy are practically cliche in their banality.
Jerry’s posted the poll results here repeatedly, if you want to look them up.
b&
Jerry’s posted the poll results here repeatedly, if you want to look them up.
I’ll spare the bother of the awkward search option (it took me a while to find the relevant posts) and put links to them here to save others’ time:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/fundamentalism-ii-islam/
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/pew-report-on-muslim-world-paints-a-distressing-picture/
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/islam-and-evolution-cowed-muslim-scientist-cancels-lecture-on-evolution/
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/creationism-in-muslim-countries/
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/the-times-calls-it-like-it-is-on-islam-theres-no-true-version/
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/10/17/heather-hastie-continues-her-critique-of-reza-aslan/
Agreed. I doubt a sixth/seventh of the world’s population are somehow that radically different from the rest of us.
There are plenty of complicating factors involved behind people’s actions, operating to various degrees and conditions, even in Islamic countries with official state religions or the equivalent (think Northern Africa, the Middle East, and Eastern Asia). But even when we should know better, there’s still that unhelpful temptation to group people into stereotypes, especially when a conspicuous minority of violent nutters come (or seem to come) from one camp.
At no point would I go as far as the liars who claim such violence has “nothing to do with Islam”, but any explanations for such murderous attacks must also account for the non-violent majority of Muslims as well.
What on Earth could possibly give you such a silly idea?
A mere generation ago, nearly half of Europe was united in the effort to bring about a Final Solution to the Jewish “problem.”
An hundred and fifty years ago, nearly half of the American population was absolutely convinced that dark-skinned people were soulless automatons useful as nothing more than machinery needing minimal supervision.
A few millennia ago, the Greek notion that the people should consult each other to collectively determine their own fate was radical and unheard-of.
Superficially, those people are not unlike you and me. Ten fingers, ten toes, twenty-six chromosomes, none of which significantly differs.
But, ideologically? You’d be hard pressed to find more extreme dichotomies.
And Islam is a perfect example of such an ancient and discredited ideology. The very name, “Islam,” comes from the verb, “to submit” — in this case, to the will of Allah. The first of the Five Pillars is the declaration that Allah is the only god and Muhammad his official spokesman — and that means, by very short extension, that Muhammad’s authorized biography, the Q’ran, is perfect and unquestionable. In other words, mainstream Islam is fundamentalist in the exact same way that Biblical literalists in the West are fundamentalists.
The absolutist mindset that Muslims display over and over really is radically different from the secular mindset of Westerners. In the West, we’ve outgrown the hubris to think that we’re the only ones privileged with the Capital-T-Truth; we’re willing to admit the possibility of error, even if we don’t see it. But what room is there for admission of error when you’re reading the very words of the Perfect Prophet of Perfect Allah?
And, yes. Western thinking has rubbed off to some extent on many Muslims in the West. How could it not? But look at the various polls, and you’ll see that the fundamentalist mindset really does reign supreme in the Islamic world.
No, it doesn’t have to. Islam could still have its own Enlightenment. Better still, they could just cut to the chase and abandon superstition entirely.
But that’s not what Islam is today. Not by a long shot.
b&
OK, fair enough. I didn’t appreciate the cultural differences enough, as your examples show. I made an argument from personal incredulity too soon.
And, yes. Western thinking has rubbed off to some extent on many Muslims in the West. How could it not? But look at the various polls, and you’ll see that the fundamentalist mindset really does reign supreme in the Islamic world.
I don’t think it does reign supreme, though it does have sway over a disturbingly large majority and correlates with some other issues such as favouring the death penalty and punishing apostasy. I also think the “Western” world and “Islamic” world distinction is tending a bit towards a black-and-white way of describing the issue rather than a more accurate complicated picture that takes into account other cultural, social, political, environmental, and individual differences.
Although I get your general point, I think talking about Islam and the Western World treats them as two homogeneous and simplified lumps on a map, though there are strong trends. Just compare the US and Australia with somewhere like Sweden and Spain, and I hope you appreciate that the “Western World” is a pretty diverse bloc that ropes in some very different countries. And the outcome of treating Islam or Muslims as one mass or thing is to impugn innocent parties who don’t agree with their fellows. The apologist who wrote the email Jerry posted is not the same person as one of dearmore’s friends.
“How does a “large majority” coupled with official governmental control not equate to supreme reign?”
Supreme reign implies absolute control, or so I thought when you made your comment. For one thing, not all the North African, Middle Eastern, and East Asian countries with Muslim majorities have an official state religion. The picture’s a fair bit messier than that.
“I’ve been very careful to make clear that these are trends, not absolutes, even when trends are overwhelming.”
I’m not just talking about you here. It is difficult at times when users talk terms like “Western World” and “Islamic World” are used, as they don’t exactly signal an appreciation for subtleties. It’s like saying “Men are better at sports than women”.
“But to treat the exceptions as the rule, or to discount the rule because of the exceptions, or to object to the discussion of the rule because of the exceptions”
We agree that a lot of Islamic-majority countries also hold higher than normal views on the death penalty, and so on. I’m not even disagreeing with the polls when they show such trends. The trends are there; bring them to the fore as evidence. But it is way too easy to start lumping people into categories, and when people talk about Islam as they have done here, I legitimately can’t tell if they’re just taking it as read that this statistical evidence is to be assumed, nuances and all, or if they’re lumping moderates in with the death-to-apostates crowd. When Christian nutjobs shoot up abortion clinics, what if we start lumping them in with Christians whose worst faults are harmless but nutty beliefs?
Another thing is I’m wondering if all the polls control for potential other factors such as poverty, social control, etc.
“When discussing fundamentalist Christian opposition to abortion or marriage equality or similar issues, do you feel a compulsion to object that there exists a small minority of fundamentalist Christians who think the government should stay out of bedrooms even on matters where they have such personal conviction?”
I don’t see why not. It would at least be accurate, and I don’t like the idea of compromising honesty and accuracy for the sake of a simpler narrative, even if the large trend is acknowledged either way. It seems too much like discrimination.
For instance, suppose a study came out that crime rates in white neighbourhoods was one hundredth the rate in black neighbourhoods. I see two dangers with this report: the first is treating some black people who don’t commit crime as though they were criminals based on presumption; the second is failing to ask why this is the case, and distinguishing correlation and causation. These run over scientific niceties and lean closer to polemic than reasoned position.
Maybe I’m just being over-sensitive, but I have been reading a bunch of books about cognitive biases recently and in the past, and I don’t believe atheists and critics of Islam and religion are immune from them.
10% to 15% of Muslims worldwide…
It doesn’t sound like much, does it.
But, that is 160 to 240 million people who think violent response to such offenses is just fine.
Don’t you think this is a problem?
To put that in perspective…the largest military in the world is North Korea’s, at a mere 7.7 million. All the armies in the world muster all of about 66 million personnel.
b&
Well yes, but 10% to 15% bad eggs still leaves 90% to 85% relatively decent eggs, or 1440 to 1360 million. That would not qualify as “a hand full of Muslims” against which there are “vastly more who exacerbate the situation”.
Did you not read the very pages you linked to earlier?
It’s not just 10% – 15% of Muslims who’re bad eggs.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/pew-report-on-muslim-world-paints-a-distressing-picture/
Overwhelming majorities — as high as 99% in the case of Afghanistan, and solidly in the 70% – 90% range in the Middle East and North Africa — want Sharia to be the law of the land. Over 80% of Egyptians and Palestinians think adulterers should be killed by mobs armed with rocks. Similar overwhelming majorities favor death for those who abandon Islam
Indeed, you’ve got your figures basically flipped.
It’s not 10% – 15% of Muslims who’re bad eggs.
It’s 10% – 15% of Muslims who aren’t quite completely rotten to the core.
Again again, not discounting the fact that the Muslims one is likely to encounter in the West are more likely (but far from guaranteed) to be civilized, either wholly or at least grudgingly. But, pick a Muslim at random from the global population — as the pollsters do — and it’s nearly guaranteed that superstition has rotted that person’s sense of morality to the point of despair.
b&
Sorry, I was speaking hypothetically. And I hadn’t read them thoroughly: one or two I’d only recently stumbled upon, and the rest I haven’t looked at in ages. I think I will give them a look over now, though.
Just finished reading the posts. There were one or two surprises and causes for hope, but darn if it isn’t worse than I’d thought. You have a point.
Glad you took the time to do so — and I’m sure you can now understand my confusion as to why you were arguing the opposite point even after citing them.
No, the Islamic world isn’t hopeless — far from it. But it’s in really shitty shape, and there are serious, fundamental problems with it that desperately need to be rectified, and that can only be rectified by the abandonment of Islam, in large part if not in whole.
…and one of the most effective ways to slap the religious across the face with the wet fish of reality? Ridicule, especially of the variety offered by Charlie Hebdo.
No, it won’t make them feel happy. Boo fucking hoo. But it’s still time for them to grow up, painful as that may be.
And that means it’s also time for us to stop coddling their poor widdle hurt fweewings. They can damned well grow a pair and learn how to deal with offense like grown-ups.
Grown-ups? Shit! Even prepubescent kids in civilized countries do better. “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.” Fucking Islamic cowards wouldn’t last five minutes in a Western schoolyard before either bursting into tears or blowing something up.
Cheers,
b&
I contemplate the correlation of religious zealotry with shooting guns into the air.
Here’s a sample from a sunni western conference where starting at 2:30 of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6q45FlNhz8 the speaker polls the audience about their approval of death for apostasy, stoning of homosexuals, etc. They’re all quite happily professing to be moderate muslims freely expressing their opinions……
I could parse this by saying the obligatory “not all muslims” “not my islam” but thinking people defending this notion of islamophobia should cast their nets a little wider for information, I think.
I would say that if this opinion is this prevalent in western islam, how much more is it in the theocratic nations?
The video and commentary apparently come from Sam Harris’ site:
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/islam-or-islamophobia2
That is a striking video.
The video is totally unsurprising, though. I wonder if there are people who are surprised by it? I would like to hear more reactions to it.
Watching the video makes me feel nauseaus. Not because of the threat of violence or terrorism, but because it reminds me so much of the Christian fundamentalism I grew up with: smug arrogance wedded to abject ignorance, the duplicity, the ability to shout about love while being about something entirely less pleasant, the unreal and unmoored view of the world, how it works, how it should work. It is a kind of insane asylum, and I personally find the suffocating mental prison of it all farm more dreadful than the physical danger posed by terrorists.
Correction: Far more dreadful. Although the image of planting and cultivating dreadful is a good one.
” . . . the Christian fundamentalism I grew up with: smug arrogance wedded to abject ignorance, the duplicity, the ability to shout about love while being about something entirely less pleasant . . . .”
I empathize.
Well said.
Well said gluonspring. Well said.
Thank you for that video! Wow. Pretty much decides the question, doesn’t it?
It’s not an absolute truth, certainly. I would call it a good indicator 🙂
Thank you Jerry for publishing this. The French Society itself (to me) is split into catholics/multiculturalists and the rest. So probably today is not the day when the people would realize they have laws against fascisms they can already use.
I completely agree with the argument that the attacks should become a watershed moment where the various apologists for the atrocities in the name of Islam will be made to feel more isolated. However, I have also been concerned that the attacks can also become a watershed moment among those Muslims who feel very strongly that ‘someone’ should stand up and kill cartoonists for insulting their prophet. I worry that by crossing the line the attackers have also opened a door. It does not take much reading between the lines in this message to see that such sympathies are not far behind.
Bill Maher has this right…
“When there’s this many bad apples, there’s something wrong with the orchard.”
Yes…
The important point here is that a “news” agency would be in the business of coaching or slanting their coverage or employees in this way. Again….either you are journalists or you are simply a position. This is not the news firm that they pretend to be. It is pathetic.
Far as determining which Muslims are disingenuous in this matter, I don’t really care. What if this whole terrorist event in France was done primarily to create bigger problems within the Muslim and non Muslim community and improve recruitment for al-Qaeda. It does not mean the killing of the cartoonists is any less terrible but it is truly something that France should be aware of.
FYI, the last paragraph in the e-mail (“Defending freedom of expression…”) is a direct quotation from the end of that disgusting TIME article: http://world.time.com/2011/11/02/firebombed-french-paper-a-victim-of-islamistsor-its-own-obnoxious-islamophobia
What disturbs me most about that TIME quotation the executive producer thinks so highly of is the last part Jerry emboldened: “insisting on the right to be obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile.” Note that it doesn’t say “insisting on BEING obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile.” The (imaginary) latter would be a matter of taste that reasonable people could get behind; the (real) former might be the most blatant stance against free expression I’ve ever encountered in modern mainstream Western media.
I actually missed the implications of that wording when I read the OP initially, but now you’ve pointed out the implications with a different wording, this makes it worse. Al Jazeera seem to be saying “Free speech is good unless you offend someone; then it’s your own stupid fault if they attack you.”
‘ insisting on the right to be obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile.’
‘Infantile’, eh? So children should be killed?
If you are going to be childish, then expect Muslims to want to kill you?
And the irony there is that reacting in a violent manner, as children are wont to do, is even more infantile.
Am reminded of U.S. Representative John Shimkus’s reaction to and treatment of Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius during her congressional committee testimony.
I think it is expected.
Sheer madness. This should be front page news. Any TV staff with an ounce of moral bearing should resign or protest. Never has an attack been so morally cystal clear. For one to be confused or on the fence about this incident only exposes one’s sick moral relativism that is becoming all too common and was typical when we faced the nazis and other unquestionable monsters.
Am closely looking to see if NY Times reports this. It does not seem to be news unfit to print.
Are they trying to explain what happened, or are they trying to excuse the atrocities? They seem to be trying to dispel some myths and set the record straight, but surely they must at least appreciate (assuming honest intentions) how this lopsided focus on showing what’s wrong with the “European” response looks to others? Just take the first highlighted bit:
“but poses a narrower question of the “why”? attack on french society and values? Only if you consider CH’s racist caricatures to be the best of European intellectual production (total whitewash on that at the moment)”
Er, no. They could be crap, racist, and extremely offensive examples of European intellectual production, but they operate under the framework that (at least in theory) grants them the right to do so without fear of retribution. Therefore, retribution is an attack on (more specifically, a violation of) that value, especially when it takes the form of retaliatory mass murder.
Now, if they’re just saying the nutters were enraged by the offensive and (at least apparently) racist imagery in the cartoons, that would be one thing. But in that case, what “whitewashing” are we talking about? The one that says being offensive and racist is a virtue? Who says that? Or is it the one that says being offensive and racist is a death-worthy sentence? Without distinguishing the difference, Al Jazeera come across as trivializing, even justifying, the murders.
Put it this way: the only way to make the staff behind Charlie Hebdo responsible for their own deaths is to confuse bad (or, if you want to be more diplomatic, “questionable”) taste in cartooning with a moral vice. It’s so lopsided a comparison that it’s like watching someone blame a rape victim for “dressing provocatively”.
Now, if that’s the excuse the murderers put forwards, then report their speech with qualifications. Al Jazeera strike me as being unable to tell the difference between explaining what happened and excusing it, and constantly saying they don’t condone murder does as much to convince me as hearing a racist announce they’re not racist, but…
Lastly, if Al Jazeera want to point out whatever iniquities were committed by the French against ISIL, Mali, Libya, or whatever, then what’s wrong with just doing so? Why make such a bizarre digression by roping in the murder of a scatologically inclined caricaturist?
The angle that Khadr should have gone for is something along the lines of, “Okay, yes, we all find those cartoons terribly offensive and we really don’t like the people of Charlie Hebdo and we’re not going to shed any tears at their passing. But, we also publish things that others find terribly offensive, and the only way for society to function at all is if we protect their right to offend us and they protect our right to offend them. So let’s run with that: we don’t like them, sure, but they’re the enemy of our enemy and so we stand with them today. We are Charlie.”
He’s not all that far away…but such little distance in this case makes for a world of difference.
b&
Agreed. I’ve seen some of the pictures from one of the previous posts (there was a link in the comments), and I can’t say it’s tasteful viewing. But Guestus Aurelius above points out there’s a world of difference between the offensiveness and the right to be offensive, and I can’t fully accept that Al Jazeera are honest in condemning the killings if they try to suggest offensiveness is in the same moral league.
I believe in free speech and freedom to practice religion but I feel a moral duty to disrespect and blashpheme any religion whenever I get the chance. Being free to practice mystical nonsense does not exempt you from ridicule and satore. In 2014, Religionist should be considered freaks and mentally ill to a lesser or greater degree.
Al Jazeera America is my default cable news channel because it actually covers world news and does a pretty good job, but also because, well, look at the choices. They’ve attracted some fairly well-known correspondents who were probably sick of CNN’s beat-the-top-story-to-death coverage: John Seigenthaler Jr., Ali Velshi, Joie Chen, Ray Suarez.
It’s a different crew than AJ English, so I don’t know if the coverage is very different, but I haven’t seen any hint of what that email is proposing, either on TV or their website. There probably is some cultural tension between management and newsroom, but the former certainly must understand that if they have any hope of commercial success in the U.S., they’ll have to be completely neutral on polarizing issues. They have a major branding problem as it is.
I watched some of their breaking coverage yesterday and it was a bit rough, but they stuck to verified facts, a lesson that all news outlets learned from CNN’s profoundly unprofessional coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing.
The one editorial stance of theirs that I think is warranted is for the release of detained journalists around the world, including their own in Egypt. That’s a story that I wish would get more traction.
I think you are right regarding the differences between AJ-America, AJ-English, and AJ-ArabVersionWhateverItIsCalled.
I have not detected this kind of apologetics on AJ-America and they offer far better coverage of world events (and domestic, too, for that matter) than the “regular” American networks.
The last email is pretty ridiculous. No, bad journalism is not a crime.
The only way that AJA gets off the hook in this Email deal is to fire the guy who wrote it and condemn what he did. Not likely.
Technical point: it isn’t “AJA” here, it is “AJE”.
Interesting. You can click between the Al Jazeera English site and Al Jazeera America site. I’m sure it all goes back to Qatar.
On Direct TV they use the AJAM to mark the channel. That’s nice because ajam kind of means – one who is illiterate in language.
“you had any notion that Al Jazeera was an “objective” source of news about the world in general or the Middle East in particular, have a gander at this. ”
Thank you; the world makes sense again. Never understood how Al Jazeera was gaining such a good reputation.
“This exchange gives a rare behind the scenes look at a supposedly liberal Arab outlet,”
But isn’t the email consistent with Western liberals who want to avoiding pinning the blame on Islam itself?
I’m not sure what you’re suggesting with that. Khadr makes plain that he finds the cartoons an infantile and offensive attack on Muslims. That’s the “he drew first” argument, and an open admission that Islam is, indeed, to blame — even if he’d try to spin it differently.
b&
“That’s the “he drew first” argument, ”
No, it isn’t. The email did not justify violence; in fact it said “murder is murder either way”, but many in the west have also derided the cartoons as silly and pointless. Overall, I don’t find the email as very different from much liberal opinion in the Western news.
Justify, perhaps not. But excuse, certainly:
Oh — and that’s a classic example of victim-blaming, by the way. Stupid slut should have known better to have worn that low-cut dress if she didn’t want to get raped. And don’t we generally understand such victim-blaming as a form of justification of the crimes in question?
b&
“Oh — and that’s a classic example of victim-blaming, by the way. ”
No, I don’t agree. What they’re saying is no different from what many in the west are saying: the cartoons had no serious purpose in mind.
Not saying I agree with that, only that this email isn’t striking a different tone from a great deal of liberal opinion in the West; in other words, it doesn’t reveal the “Al Jazeera” to be any more sympathetic to Islam than other liberal media. Now, they may be, but I don’t think this email is evidence of it.
Right. And that dress she was wearing? No serious purpose either, other than to advertise that she was an whore. No self-respecting woman would ever expose her ankles and wrists like that.
Charlie Hebdo was deadly serious. In Charb’s own words, “I am not afraid of reprisals, I have no children, no wife, no car, no debt. It might sound a bit pompous, but I’d prefer to die on my feet than to live on my knees.” Those can only be the words of a person who takes his work most seriously, even if he does it with biting satire and humor.
b&
He sounds like he is in the long tradition of “serious jokes” – ones told for some didactic purpose. The Inuit are fond of these, and they seem to exist the world over.
Blaming the victim is very Islamic.
Women must wear coverings because if they don’t, men will become so sexually inflamed that they will not be able to control themselves.
They are just so sensitive, poor dears. If the rest of us don’t accommodate their sensitivities, well, we will just have to endure being murdered. L
PS: Whenever a Muslim offers sympathy to non-Muslim victims, always remember that they subscribe to the doctrine of taqiyya. Nothing a Muslim says to a gentile is trustworthy.
I prefer to give Moslems who are condemning the Charlie Hebdo killings the benefit of the doubt until I have hard evidence that it is insincere. And even in cases where the denunciations are hollow, the net effect is preferable to the implied approval from the silence we’ve observed from clerics and the laity in the wake of previous atrocities associated with Islamic fundamentalists.
Indeed: if there’s a shift from nothing to an insincere apology, that’s an *improvement*, albeit a slight one.
(It is like how most countries on earth feel they have to have elections, even if they are a total farce.)
🐾
So by murdering cartoonists, they’ve brought the States to their knees…
Help me here…just where again is that violent response likely to stem from?
And the best way to defend free speech is to avoid it?
Where I am, I can only get CNN International for what I am willing to pay. World news broadcast by the 5 major Brazilian television networks mostly follow the US-Europe party-line, although several did show uncensored Charlie Hebdo cartoons. CNN, however, did not have any of the offending drawings, and after the initial shock of the crime, shifted its rhetoric away from the fanatical religious ire directed against the CH cartoons to 1) fear-mongering about terrorist sleeper cells, 2) concerns of Anti-Semitic inspired terrorism, 3) terrorist training by Al Qaeda in Yemen, 4) a female non-suspect fleeing to Syria, and, most recently, 5) recordings of cries and screams of shoppers caught in the supermarket: in short, anything to divert attention from the fact that Islamic fanatics had ambushed and murdered the staff of a small magazine dedicated to ridiculing religious excess.
But why should CNN pussyfoot around the topic? The answer may be that CNN International is highly dependent on Muslim sponsors. Among these are businesses owned by the ruling families of Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and others. CNN International operates a regional headquarters on the Persian Gulf in Abu Dhabi. Access to the rooms of power in the region, not to mention sponsorships, probably requires a pro-Muslim editorial policy and, who knows, news spin. CNN is apparently not above presenting paid content as if it were news and has been warned at least once by the British ‘FCC’ (Ofcom) in 2010 for broadcasting a 7 minute ‘news’ segment featuring Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele criticizing Barack Obama, sponsored by Skype!
I fear that Arab oil wealth is transforming CNN into something unpleasant, unworthy of being called journalism.
Should have posted this at the end, sorry. My comment is NOT a reply.
Four exclamation marks?
This is why I would not want to be a journalist. Every major media outlet has chiefs who push it towards certain ideological, religious or social positions.
Reblogged this on The Brain Science Critic and commented:
Leaked Al Jazeera English email! So, concerted propaganda after all. How surprising.
The sad truth is that if CH represents anybody, it represents the victims of religious indoctrination more than anyone else. Let’s face it, were it not for sheer bad luck (being born to a religious community) and the subsequent obligatory childhood indoctrination, most – if not all – of these religious apologists would probably be as skeptical as me, thee and the journalists from CH. I’d like to think that before I die most would acknowledge this, but sadly I have my doubts.
Even if they appear to show contrition, there is always Taqqiyah to consider
“Defending freedom of expression in the face of oppression is one thing; insisting on the right to be obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile.”
While I do agree with this sentiment, I do not agree that this is what CH has done. Either way, doing something infantile is far from deserving of death.