Muslim scholar decides to double-down on Charlie Hebdo, threatens Irish media

January 10, 2015 • 1:30 pm

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:

B6wkY9UCQAAdC8A

Or like this one from Maajid Nawaz,  chairman of Quilliam, a counter-extremism think tank.

tweetmn

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.”

Image: Andy Delaney/Photocall Ireland
Image: Andy Delaney/Photocall Ireland

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.

 

 

 

Favorite books of 2014

January 10, 2015 • 12:00 pm

Sadly, I spent so much time reading theology books for The Albatross that my “fun” reading this year was severely reduced.  I thus had to think hard, when deciding for this post which books I most enjoyed in 2014. The purpose, of course, is not to parade my reading, but to get readers to give their favorites in the comments so that we can all have things to add to our reading list. I’ll divide my favorites by category, but be aware that I’ve largely ignored most of the books that came out this year; these are simply my favorites among all the books I’ve read this year:

Favorite popular nonfiction:  The Boys in the Boat: Nine Americans and their Epic Quest for Gold at the 1936 Berlin Olympics, by Daniel James Brown.  Normally I wouldn’t have considered reading this book, for after all it’s about college rowing, something that never interested me. But when I visited my editor at Viking/Penguin in October, she handed me a copy (she edited the book) and told me to read it. If you know Wendy Wolf, you know a). not to take her literary advice lightly, and b). that you should do what she tells you. I’m very glad I did, for the book is a fantastic yarn about the University of Washington rowing team in the 30s, and how, against all odds, they won the 8-man race in the infamous “Hitler Olympics.” The story is woven around Joe Rantz, one of author Brown’s neighbors, from whom Brown coaxed (or coxed) the tale. Overcoming disease, poverty, and a dysfunctional family, Rantz showed amazing persistence that eventually brought him Olympic gold. But it’s much more than a personal story, for you learn how sculls are built, how rowers train, and you meet a bunch of colorful characters whose lives intersected at the final moment of victory. Read it; you won’t regret it. It’s a page-turner, the writing is absolutely superb, and the last page brought me to tears.

I’m not alone in this judgement: here are the Amazon rankings (it’s still #24 among all books although it was published last May):

Screen Shot 2015-01-10 at 7.12.44 AM

Favorite “academic” nonfiction: I waded through a lot of ethics and theology this year, but one philosophy book stood out for its ability to provoke thought: Judith Jarvis Thomson’s Rights, Restitutions, and Risk: Essays in Moral Theory (1986). Originally drawn to this book because of its discussion of the “trolley problem,” which Thomson popularized and which involves a Gedankenexperiment of the most profound sort, I was also absorbed by her essay defending abortion. Thomson is a master at inspiring thought by using concrete examples like the runaway trolley (her abortion examples are extremely clever), and it was largely because of this book that I realized that I was an ethical consequentialist. Regardless of how you feel about abortion, you’ll benefit from reading her chapter on that topic.

Favorite fiction:  My fiction reading was especially light this year, perhaps because as I get older I find myself more interested in books that are true. But one novel stood out—a book that I read after I saw its movie adaptation. The movie, “Never Let Me Go,” about a dystopian future in which some children are raised to provide organs for ailing adults (and thus the children die after several “donations’), got mixed—though largely positive—reviews. But it moved me immensely, still haunts me, and I’ve seen it three times. Because of that, I read the book on which it was based: Kazuo Ishigiro’s eponymous novel published in 2005. It was even better than the movie. People are divided on Ishiguro and the movies made from his books, but I loved the only other work I read of his: The Remains of the Day, which was also made into a splendid movie that starred Emma Thompson and Anthony Hopkins.

Best science book.  I didn’t find one that excited me this year.

Biggest disappointment. Thinking, Fast and Slow, by Daniel Kahneman, was praised so widely, and sold so well, that I felt that I had to read it. And when I did so, I felt let down. While the book contained a lot of interesting information about how humans make judgements, how our brain works when so doing, and how we are subject to various delusions and logical inconsistencies, Kahneman’s prose was leaden, like that in an academic textbook. Reading it was like walking through quicksand. I found my attention straying as I waded through this ponderous tome, and experienced a strong sense of relief when I finished the last page. A good book should be a pleasure, not a duty. I suspect the book was a best seller because business people thought it would help them in their work (have you ever seen what’s on offer in an airport bookstore?). To me, this book seemed like the businessman’s equivalent of A Brief History of Time: a famous but largely unread book. I’m not alone in my assessment, either: a survey of which 2014 bestsellers remained unread, based on passages highlighted by Kindle readers, showed Kahneman’s book near the bottom.

Worst books: I waded through many books on religion and theology over the past two years, but the worst one I read in 2014 (besides everything written by Alvin Plantinga) was Reza Aslan’s No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam. It’s a whitewash of Islam, with every bug of the faith transformed by Aslan into a feature. It’s also tendentious and, I think, intellectually dishonest. It was, of course, a bestseller, but many of these “make-nice-with-religion” books turn out that way. I’m sure that if I’d read Karen Armstrong’s new book, Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence, it would have been right down there with Aslan’s tome as a masterpiece of one-sided argument.

In the “worst science book” category, I’d put Nicholas Wade’s A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History. Although Wade’s exposition on why races are “real” in a genetic sense was okay, the bulk of the book—an argument that the differences between modern human cultures rest largely on genetic differences instilled by natural selection—was tendentious and largely unsupported. It was an exercise in invidious speculation.

Your turn. You know what to do: list your own faves and disappointments in the comments. Remember, what you say will help others decide what to read at a time when there are so many books available that we must choose wisely.

 

Executive producer of Al Jazeera English blows his cover, shows distress over widespread support for Charlie Hebdo victims

January 10, 2015 • 10:17 am

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

Caturday felid trifecta: Social justice kitten calendar, autistic man builds world’s most elaborate cat-friendly home, and a cat decision tree (and a bonus)

January 10, 2015 • 8:56 am

The American Digest has the illustrations for a 2015 Social Justice Kittens Calendar. I may get in trouble for posting this, but I find the captions hilarious. Here are the first six months:

a_kittencalendar_1

 *******

From Awesome Inventions, we learn of Minnesotan Greg Krueger, who took advantage of his obsessiveness to spend 15 years transforming his house into . . . well, see for yourself in this video:

A few photos of his Moggie Paradise:

cat-house-walkway

Greg-Krueger-cat-house

cat-house

*******

Finally, many of you will recognize this cat decision tree from Bored Panda:

cat-logic-funny-25__605

And some lagniappe, provided by Matthew Cobb. This apparently old newspaper article was tw**ted by someone and sent to me by Matthew. Nobody knows the year or the newspaper, but it’s news because DECAPITATED TURTLE BITES CAT. I expect Greg to weigh in below.

B6-0GrRIcAAo_Pc

h/t: dano1843, robin

 

 

Readers’ wildlife photos

January 10, 2015 • 7:00 am

We’ve two sets of photos today, and again of birds. The first comes from regular contributor Stephen Barnard, who is now off to New Zealand for some fishing. I’ve importuned him to send us photos from his trip; the ones below were taken on his ranch in Idaho:

Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus):

RT9A1885

 Trumpeter Swans — adult and juvenile (Cygnus buccinator):

RT9A2193

House Finch (2 photos) (Haemorhous mexicanus):

RT9A2015

RT9A2061
Gadwall (Anas strepera):

RT9A2034
Tundra Swan (Cygnus columbianus):

RT9A1920
Black-capped Chickadee (Poecile atricapillus):

RT9A2171
And reader Tim Anderson sent some photos from Oz:

These little jewels are common throughout southeastern Australia: male and female Superb Fairy Wrens (Malurus cyaneus) hunting insects and spiders after rain in Tumut, NSW.

IMG_20150110_110823

IMG_20150110_110922

Saturday: Hili dialogue

January 10, 2015 • 4:35 am

Ah, it’s freezing out, but should warm up over the next few days, although it’s not going to get above the freezing point. I wish I were back in India! Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, the curmudgeonly Hili gets some fusses from my friend, the anthropology student Justyna:

Justyna: The post by Jerry Coyne “Why are animals cute?” is excellent.
Hili: That is a stupid question: it’s enough to look at me.
P1020192
In Polish:
Justyna: Świetny ten artykuł Jerrego Coyne’a “Dlaczego zwierzęta są urocze?”
Hili: Głupie pytanie, wystarczy popatrzeć na mnie.

Bowerbird cam!

January 9, 2015 • 4:26 pm

If you’re aware of the time difference between your country and Australia, and watch at the right time, you can see some really nice courtship behavior of the satin bowerbird (Ptilonorhynchus violaceus). Yes, they’ve set up a bowerbird cam at this site (or click on the screenshot below, thoughtfully provided by reader Diane G., who called all this to my attention):

Bowerbird

You can see that the glossy blue-black male has built a nice bower (not a nest) to attract females, and has festooned it with blue objects, many purloined from human habitations. When the drabber female comes by, he often brandishes a nice blue object, and goes nuts running around and making funny noises. It’s a really great way to see sexual selection in action.

If you want to see when it’s daytime in Australia, go to this site, which tells you instantly whether the livecam will show you anything. It so happens that it’s daytime in Oz right now, and the male and some females are hanging around. Be patient if you don’t see anything, for the male rarely strays far from his lair of seduction.

To read more about bowerbirds and their “extended phenotypes” that attract females, Felicity Muth has a nice article on her “Not Bad Science” website.

 

The Guardian joins the roll of cowardly papers

January 9, 2015 • 3:09 pm

Is it surprising that the Guardian joins the growing list of those newspapers who refuse to reprint the Charlie Hebdo cartoons? But that’s what I would have expected given that rag’s repeated failure to condemn the religious nature of Islamic terrorism. And, in an unsigned editorial in yesterday’s Comment is Free, the paper gives an unconvincing explanation for its decision not to show those cartoons. The reason: because those reprints would chance the “voice” of the Guardian and “alter their editorial values.”  Cry me a river!  Here are the paper’s weasel words:

In social media, the call has been loud – and aimed at several British newspapers, including this one – to take a stand by publishing the very images that made Charlie Hebdo a target. For the most vociferous, republishing a sample of the magazine’s usual fare, which the Guardian has already done, is not enough: they insist that true defenders of free speech would reprint Charlie Hebdo’s depictions of the prophet Muhammad, especially the crudest, most scatological examples.

That case is straightforward. Since these are the images the gunmen wanted to stop, the surviving free press is obliged to deny the killers that victory. No other gesture can show that we refuse to be cowed by their crime. By repeating Charlie Hebdo’s action, we would demonstrate our resistance to the edict the terrorists sought to enforce on pain of death. We show that Charlie Hebdo was not alone.

There is an appealing simplicity to that stance, but it rests on faulty logic. The key point is this: support for a magazine’s inalienable right to make its own editorial judgments does not commit you to echo or amplify those judgments. Put another way, defending the right of someone to say whatever they like does not oblige you to repeat their words.

Each and every publication has a different purpose and ethos. Charlie Hebdo is not the Guardian or the New York Times, nor is it the Daily Mail or Private Eye. The animating intention behind its work was to satirise and provoke in a distinctive voice, one that would not sit easily in other publications. Other publications can defend – and defend absolutely – the necessary diversity of press voices along with an editor’s right to offend. But the best response is not to be forced to speak in a different voice.

You can’t get more disingenuous than that. Really—”forced to speak in a different voice”? How about this: those cartoons were news, for they are what sparked the terrorist attacks. Readers want and need to see them, if only to see what kind of relatively innocent stuff sets off these murderous Muslims. Without them, one can only guess what the terrorists considered offensive. Reprinting them is not endorsing their content; reprinting them is an act of news. The only reason you wouldn’t do that, as a newspaper, is if you’re afraid of the consequences.

And that—as well as their long-standing sympathy for Islam—is really why the Guardian has taken this stand. (To be fair, they’re donating 10,000 pounds to Charlie Hebdo.) Like the Telegraph and the BBC, the Guardian is simply afraid of the consequences of showing the cartoons. They don’t want to be attacked by enraged Muslim thugs.

It goes without saying that this decision is exactly what the terrorists want: to stop criticism of Islam.  The Guardian will give ten thousand pounds to another magazine that satirizes Islam, but it doesn’t have the guts to show even one cartoon that brought on the carnage at Charlie Hebdo. The Guardian is reprehensible, and their “explanation” convinces no one.

Apropos of that, here’s today’s Bad Reporter strip by Don Asmussen; no comment needed:

bad150109

h/t: jsp, Natalie