by Grania Spingies
After the tragic horror in Paris this week, it has meant a great deal to a many people to see statements like this from the Imam Chalgoumi in the media:
Or like this one from Maajid Nawaz, chairman of Quilliam, a counter-extremism think tank.
It’s the reaction you expect to hear from civilised and humane people, whatever they believe in and whichever end of the political spectrum they occupy. Yesterday morning, on my way to work, the radio was on and the moderator was letting some bigot hold forth on what he really thought of gay people. The taxi driver grunted in disbelief (there is pretty strong support for same-sex marriage and all that goes with it in Ireland), and I thought for a moment that I had been listening to an ultra-conservative Christian. After all, we have a few of those here, and they’ve been trying very hard to scare everybody away from the notion that two people in a consensual adult relationship is a perfectly normal thing. However, I was disabused of that notion fairly quickly when the Man of God then launched into a polite but seething tirade at what the West likes to let its women do, and how everyone would be better off turning to Allah. I hadn’t even had my coffee yet so I stopped listening.
Anyway, at lunchtime I came across this article in Journal.ie detailing the contents of the discussion between the radio show host and the Muslim scholar and head of the Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland. I have no idea why the radio station 4FM decided to give Dr Ali Selim any airtime at all, but perhaps they were hoping to hear something similar to what Imam Chalgoumi had to say, or what Maajid Nawaz devotes a great deal of his time and energy to: denouncing violence, promoting free thought and declaring that no idea and no religion is above criticism.
What the interviewer got, though, was something rather different. Dr Selim took upon himself to threaten any journalist in the Irish media if they retweeted or published a Charlie Hebdo cartoon.
He said, in a sentence that would do the Godfather proud:
“Not your life would be in danger but definitely we will check the Irish law and if there is any legal channel against you, we will take it.”
Perhaps Selim is referring to Ireland’s misbegotten and misguided Blasphemy Law. Of course, bullies like the sound of threats, even ones they can’t make good on. As idiotic and potentially dangerous as the law is, Selim doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of having that law actually work in his favour, for the law explicitly protects things that have “genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value”. But if nothing else, it’s useful to know that Selim aligns himself with intolerant bullies and thuggery. He doesn’t want respect, he wants fear to dictate the actions people take.
I hope the Ireland’s journalists and media show they are made of better stuff than to quail in the face of intolerant bigots. The nation’s state public service broadcaster RTE, alas, has previously shown itself to make no attempt to stand up to bullies. Some months ago, they folded at the mere mention by conservative Christian types that they were feeling defamed and litigious because of what drag queen and gay rights activist Rory O’Neill had said about homophobia on television, and the state-funded station paid out taxpayers’ money to those claiming hurt before they were even sued.
Nevertheless, despite his ominous insinuations, Selim hasn’t a legal leg to stand on in. I hope that people in Ireland take note of that and treat his threats with the contempt they deserve. This sort of posturing does not foster understanding and respect between two communities who need to integrate. It alienates and causes just the sort of fear and distrust that we all want to avoid.
Do the cowards not recognize the pathetic nature of their open admission of defeat?
Were these “offensive” cartoons and what-not as obviously deranged as they’d have us believe, they’d be their own objects of derision. People would look at them and laugh at the idiots who drew them for being so stupid.
But that the cowards are convinced that the only way to counter the cartoons is with death and destruction only demonstrates that they know full well that that’s their only remaining option, that the cartoons really are powerful condemnations of that which they mock.
Indeed, they’re so powerful that the mere sight of them represents an existential threat to Islam. And if Islam is so pathetically weak that a mere cartoon can topple it, why the fuck are they wasting their time trying to prop it up?
b&
“But that the cowards are convinced that the only way to counter the cartoons is with death and destruction only demonstrates that they know full well that that’s their only remaining option, that the cartoons really are powerful condemnations of that which they mock.”
Not really. I doubt they react violently to ridicule because, deep down, they somehow know their religion is nonsense. I imagine they retaliate because they think open disrespect of a revered figure is somewhere between nasty-minded jerkassery and a sign that one is monstrously evil and needs to be put down. In short, it’s the same major factors behind many atrocities – the revenge impulse, moralistic sadism, and confusing criticism with slanderous abuse. You don’t need Freudian repression to describe the psychology behind it: it’s in roughly the same category as the people who wish there was a special hell for child-abusing priests and the like.
I would disagree with you on that, but no matter. It might not be the message they intend to convey, but it’s certainly the message they’re shouting from the rooftops. Inadvertently or otherwise.
b&
“Deep down they somehow know that their religions is nonsense?” That’s just the flipside of “atheists hate god”. Never underestimate the power of cognitive dissonance.
Well spoken, Grania!
My nomination for the single most dispiriting phrase I’ve heard over the past few days:
“I’m in favour of free-speech but…”
It’s funny actually, but the same people who say it are the people you’re most like to catch giving it the old “I’m an atheist but…”.
My mother used to say, “If there’s a ‘but’ in the middle, ignore everything before the ‘but’.”
I was told something similar – if you hear “I’m in favour of such and such but…” you stick a ‘not’ between “I’m” and “in”, then change the “but” into an ‘and’.
I would flag up a particularly interesting debate on the B.B.C.’s The Big Questions, with Douglas Murray and Maajid Nawaz, and a horrible, horrible guy representing Muslim Public Affairs or something who trotted out some of the most gutless, specious, ignorant arguments I’ve heard put forward by a supposedly official spokesperson.
Also notable for Douglas Murray’s furious response, although, as ever, he was contained and cool. I’m not a fan of everything Murray says but he’s generally spot-on in this area. Worth watching if you can get to iPlayer.
Simply, Bravo!
As nauseating as it is to hear liberals condemn the cartoonists for their “disrespect” and overall “lack of prudence”, I’ve been giving this topic a lot of thought, and I think that, by tweaking the one single aspect of the premise, the case could be made for encouraging caution among journalists.
If we agree that Muslim terrorists aren’t rational agents, as I think a lot of us must be prepared to admit at this point, then insulting the prophet Muhammad, is no wiser than taunting a tiger and then complain after it bites your face off. In other words, yes we may have the right to say whatever the hell we want, but is it wise given our state of affairs?
The downside of this argument if that now I’ve basically equated muslim terrorists to wild beasts, but, really, who’s gonna stand up and defend them?
This is also why I don’t think any rational course of action like the ‘spread the risk’ strategy will ultimately work. They may not be able to kill everyone who posts a picture of the prophet, but they’ll kill as many as they can. They’ll take what they can get.
The only viable option, by my lights, is that of finding them wherever they are and neutralize them on the spot. In the meantime, we can definitely try and work with the rest of non-violent Muslims who are actually capable of having a rational conversation.
This may sound very radical and somewhat hawkish, but it is indeed a very radical situation we’re in.
Terrorists are as human as you are. They are people who think they can solve problems with violence.
It’s not about whether they’re human; of course they are. It’s about whether they’re rational.
If, by, “neutralize,” you mean that distasteful euphemism for, “kill,” then you propose a cure far worse than the disease — a veritable return of the Reign of Terror. Are you now or have you aver been a radicalized Muslim?
If, on the other hand, you propose garden-variety police investigation with a special eye towards infiltration of and similar preventative actions agains criminal organizations with a known proclivity towards violence, that’s entirely reasonable.
b&
“If, on the other hand, you propose garden-variety police investigation with a special eye towards infiltration of and similar preventative actions agains criminal organizations with a known proclivity towards violence, that’s entirely reasonable.”
Well isn’t that exactly what we’ve been doing? At least by most reliable accounts, and terrorist attacks have not ceased or even decreased.
And no, killing murderers who are themselves willing and able to kill as many innocent people as possible is not going back “to a reign of terror”. Rather, it’s simply a variation of the argument for killing in self-defense.
You desperately need to read Pinker’s Better Angels book to correct that serious and dangerous misconception.
You also need to read Mein Kampf and similar justifications for other reigns of terror. They were also themselves sold as defensive and preemptive strikes against terrorists.
The way of civilization is clear: violence must ever be minimized, even — nay, especially — when emotional demands for vengeance run high.
If the Irish can lay the Troubles to rest after generations of violence and overlapping justifications of vengeance, we, too, can find a non-violent long-term solution to the Islamic problem. Even if in the short term we have no less evil option than to send armed police to stop armed assailants.
b&
The Irish “Troubles” are not an appropriate comparison to the jihadist epidemic we’re currently facing. The Northern Ireland conflict was a localised, parochial squabble over the political sovereignty of a tiny scrap of territory. Apart from occasional spillover into mainland UK it had no wider significance or impact. The IRA were not trying to overthrow the social and political system of the UK and the rest of the western world, and did not believe themselves to be carrying out the will of almighty god. The jihadists do, and they tell us so in plain language.
And have you ever read Mein Kampf? I have. It doesn’t in any way claim to be a proposal for a “defensive and preemptive strike against terrorists”. Rather, it’s an unapologetic manifesto for the creation of a totalitarian state which will go to on build an empire by aggressive conquest, i.e. much the same programme embraced by today’s Islamic extremists, and currently being put into practice by ISIS.
I take a similar view to Isaac. The jihadists cannot be appeased or negotiated with, and they will not coexist peacefully with us, no matter how many concessions we might make. The solution is to kill them, using whatever means are most effective and expedient, and to go on killing them either until they’re all dead, or until the remaining ones are so traumatised by the horror being inflicted on them that they give up and surrender. That’s the way we dealt with the Nazis and the Japanese imperialists, and it’s what we will eventually have to do with ISIS, Boko Haram, the Taliban and all the other tumours that constitute this particular form of cancer.
You must have a different edition from mine, for the one I read was all about how the Jewish terrorists were waging socioeconomic war against the pureblooded Christian peoples.
Then you are every bit as contemptible as the jihadists themselves — for your solution is theirs, and it is their final solution, and yours, that civilized people object to far more than any silly religious twaddle.
b&
“Then you are every bit as contemptible as the jihadists themselves — for your solution is theirs, and it is their final solution, and yours, that civilized people object to far more than any silly religious twaddle.”
You really believe that killing fanatical murderers is equal to killing innocent people, or was that just a figure of speech?
I’m starting to wonder if you’re a Gandhian pacifist. Do you believe that killing anyone is ever justified? What about self-defense? And is is killing murderous jihadists who are bent on killing you if the get a chance not killing in self-defense?
The way you’re endorsing it, the only possible result can be the killing of innocents.
The US already does far more than enough of that, what with all the flying death robots and what-not.
“Justified”? Not a metric I’d use. The least known evil, sometimes, yes. But, even then, it virtually always represents a most profound failure to have prevented the tragedy long in advance.
The French police who killed the Islamist cowards, for example, likely didn’t have any less violent option before them. But I have no doubt but that hindsight will reveal all sorts of options where something might have been done to prevent the attack on Charlie Hebdo in the first place. And, even if nobody can think of any, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive to figure it out for next time.
After all, if we don’t even bother to try, if all we do is take proactive vengeance…well, I do believe that pacifist you’re displaying so much contempt for had a relevant quote on the vision of such a society.
b&
Well said, Ben. I agree with every word you say here. Advocating the ‘neutralisation’ of people in case they might do something nasty – well, you can see how that Cheney-esque approach is going to improve everyone’s moral standing all round and contribute to the triumph of civilised values.Perhaps Dave and Isaac want to live in Cheney-world. I don’t.
It might also be remarked, pace the charmingly ruthless and posturing Dave, that at the time of the Second World War, the Japanese weren’t the only imperialists about…
Blasphemy laws (as particularly in Pakistan), the Indonesian constitutional requirement that every citizen must belong to a constitutionally recognised religion, Brunei’s introduction of sharia law – bad laws, introduced in most cases in a pitifully short-sighted way without any consideration of their likely results, positively invite abuse (and I include Japan’s new secrecy law in this).
“And no, killing murderers who are themselves willing and able to kill as many innocent people as possible is not going back “to a reign of terror”. Rather, it’s simply a variation of the argument for killing in self-defense.”
Pre-emptive self-defence, no doubt?
The problem is, how do you identify which people are going to be murderers or terrorists before they’ve done it? One of the fundamental principles of the rule of law is that people are only punished for what they do, not what they might do. If you’re going to kill people on suspicion then you’re as bad as they are.
I’d have no objection to killing the Charlie Hebdo terrorists, and preferably before they managed to kill anyone else, though admittedly that could be difficult to achieve. But (at least in a free society) you can’t go around killing any person who may just be a loudmouth or a political agitator, or you end up with a police state (in which, ironically, the staff of Charlie Hebdo would be early victims). It just is not that easy or simple.
I agree.
To defend yourself or to protect the lives of defenseless people, that’s fine with me.
But I’m always a bit worried how easy people are willing to promote violence, to go to war and are willing to break international law.
The only real weapons we have against terror are freedom of speech/expression and the relative attractiveness of our societies to live our lives without too many unnecessary restrictions.
But exactly these thing’s are under pressure when confronted with terror.
So far, open liberal societies have no good answer to terrorism.
🐾
[TROLL PROMOTING OWN WEBSITE REDACTED and REMOVED–Mgmt.]
Erm…what relevance, exactly, does the Fermi Paradox have to Irish Muslim reactions to the Charlie Hebdo massacre? Or is this just blogspam from you…?
b&
[ READER SMILING AT DA ROOLZ BEING ENFORCED ]
Masochist! 😉
I will begin to believe when Islamic nations revoke laws (death penalties!) for apostasy and atheism. Until then, may Saudi Arabia’s nude king dance with his nude prophet.
Sub
I’ve begun to take a dislike to the lecturer from trinity Dr Ali Selim.
He has made some interesting comments regarding the London bombings, Salman Rushdie, Bin Laden and other subjects. He has been the go to guy for a few Irish media outlets including RTE both radio and TV. In other words he’s the muslim David Quinn (although I am being unfair to Quinn) in that he is the self appointed mouth piece for muslims and claims to speak for all when he in fact probably only speaks for himself. Although saying that I know some people who’ve become more devout in their faith while attending the clonskeagh mosque.
RTE didn’t have a choice as Irish law would benefit the iona “institute”. What was really disturbing is the BAI rulings on any discussion of gay issues not having a bigot in the corner to reply. That was truly worrying as they were applying referendum standard to broadcast before a referendum had even been called.
Personally I think that the anti-gay brigade cannot be given too much air-time; because every time they open their horrible mouths to explain why what other adults do is any of their concern they manage to further alienate the average person and cement their own defeat.
Indeed. Looking very much forward to America’s quadrennial spectacle of “some dude” Republicans trying to out-Taliban one another on the road to not-winning the White House*. The fun starts in less than a year – time to start laying in the popcorn!
* – Followed of course by extensive public hand-wringing about the loser not having been “conservative” enough.
My current concern is the date of the referendum, Students Union of Ireland registered 20,000 students give or take and then they decide to run it May when most third level students start exams.
The last free referendum, especially the Children’s referendum started with a large majority supporting but by voting day it was close run.
You’re right about letting them speak, Susan Philips needs to be on as much as possible and someone really should ask her if she has changed her mind on the de-crimalisation of homosexuality in 1993.
*few referendums not free….
🐘
Also, glasses raised to the Imam Chalgoumi and Maajid Nawaz for telling it like it is. May they continue to inspire many others by their example.
The difficulties inside this post as usual are religious. Things like what you allow your women to do or jumping up and down about same sex marriage, it is always due to religion and someone else attempting to put their religious ideas on others.
In the U.S. it is the same, this never ending need to put my religious ideas on you. This is why we are atheist and should be proud of it. We all look forward to the day when any religious idea from any group or person is not allowed to go further than a thought from the one who has it. The law will be – keep it to yourself.
” . . . what you allow your women to do . . . .”
Yup, not being in sufficient control of ones chattel.
Sub
Well, setting Ireland’s blasphemy law aside (rarely enforced and a product of England’s “Orange Card” and a political/religious marriage of convenience), if you wanted to raise the hairs on the historic backs of the Irish necks; I could think of no better way than stating, “Not your life would be in danger but definitely we will check the Irish law and if there is any legal channel against you, we will take it.”
I’ll be watching closely to see how that turns out.
Dr Selim is unfortunately an adjunct assistant professor in Arabic at Trinity College. I am , as a Fellow of Trinity College, very embarrassed by this fact. He may have the necessary technical language skills for the job, but he has no concept of the long and indeed fine tradition that Trinity has with regard to freedom of speech and the rational discussion of ideas .
Arson attack on German newspaper that printed Charlie Hebdo cartoons
After spending the last few days in vigorous discussion with family and friends on various sides of the CH argument, I came to the realisation that, if the journalists at CH were representing anybody, they were in fact representing almost all the muslims in the world. How you may ask? Simple, like almost all religious people, the vast majority are only that religion through a combination of dint of birth and the subsequent indoctrination that they received as children. Having been thus indoctrinated they forsook their ability to question and, hence, ridicule the drivel they were fed. The journalists at CH were thus doing what the 1.5 billion believers would/should have done had they not been brainwashed from birth. If they could only stand back and see the reality of the situation.