Happy M-Day--Drawing Muhammad

Today, May 20th, has "officially" been declared Everybody Draw Muhammad day. The idea has been sparked because of the recent flare-up over the censorship at Comedy Central when the popular show South Park wanted to depict the prophet of Islam or at least joke about the censorship of any depiction of him. After a website posted a sort of death threat if the creators of the show actually revealed Muhammad, Comedy Central went crazy on censorship, bleeping out the very name of Muhammad... er, I mean *********, and bleeping out the monologue that gives the show a sense of morality, at least more so than, say, Two and a Half Men.

This is of course also in response to what had happened after the Danish cartoon incident a few years ago. Even now those cartoonists have to worry about their very lives and have been attacked on multiple occasions. So Comedy Central, after seeing what had happened before did not allow Trey and Matt to do what they wanted.

Then again, South Park had already done this. Back in 2001, ******** was featured in an episode. As far as I know, no one was killed or attacked because of this. Oh, and now Comedy Central has blocked that episode from being viewed on its associated websites.

All of this goes against an almost sacred doctrine in the West, that of Freedom of Speech. By declaring "blasphemy" all of the sudden Islam and its founder are off limits. Well, it's more than shouting. It was in part because of riots, murders, and further threats of violence, all in the name of the religion of peace. It's hypocritical if networks such as Comedy Central allow depictions of Jesus and Buddha, especially in a mocking fashion, but not Muhammad...oh, sorry, but not *********. And yet in the very episode that was censored Jesus watches porn and Buddha does lines of coke. If you didn't get the point of why they did these things, then you didn't really watch the episode. Even with the censorship, the purpose is all too clear.

So, to make up for the self-castration by censorship that major networks have done, it is up to regular folks to proudly depict a major religious figure. Today we draw MUHAMMAD.

Why do this? Simply to insult?

Perhaps for some, this will be the case. The recent videos of Thunderf00t on YouTube suggest that. However, I see a very important reason that is beyond petty blasphemies or mockeries. If thousands stand up and do the thing that so many mobs complain about, the power of the mod will be undone. If threats are made idol and anger begets more or what is undesired, the vehicle of violence will be ripped of its fuel and die on the side of the road. Not all can be attacked, and with so many targets it will overwhelm those that decry free expression all that will happen is tails will go between legs and the stupidly proud mobsters will cower away.

Already the effect is felt. Pakistan has banned access to Facebook because of a group promoting the depiction of the prophet. An entire nation is supposed to be afraid of cartoons now? They have to block one of the largest peer-2-peer networking sights in the world? Well, perhaps once they find out that you can Google images of the prophet they will have to ban the Internet. Yeah, I'm sure abandoning modern technology is the way to go forward and become a first-world nation. With nukes. (Crap.)
(UPDATE: Now YouTube has been blocked in Pakistan!)

Shall I draw Muhammad and potential put my livelihood at risk? No. Not because of fear of violence. Rather, I just suck at art.

Instead, how about letting real artists show us the prophet. In fact, how about Muslims drawing Muhammad?

This is from a 15th century leaflet, depicting the prophet being called upon by the angel Gabriel to speak of the word of Allah.

How could a Muslim possibly depict the prophet? Isn't that against the faith? Is this kosher?

(Note: the Wikipedia page on the subject is very good, especially concerning the response on the editors of the site to those that wished to remove images of Muhammad on the "Depictions of Muhammad" page.)

If you turn to the Qur'an, there is nothing about not being allowed to draw a picture of the prophet. It does not allow idolatry (Sura 21:52-4), similar to that found in Judaism and Christianity. Yet in these religions there are plenty of depictions of Jesus, Moses, etc. Occasionally there are puritans, such as, well, the Puritans that not only forbade the celebration of Christmas and birthdays, but even stain-glass windows in churches.

Now, even non-believers can appreciate the glories of medieval architecture in cathedrals. The minsters of England, Notre Dame of Paris, and so on are beautiful in their own right, even if the religion itself has an ugly side. Similarly, a mosque is marvelous when well-built, and the above piece of art is also masterful.

Yet some Muslims would rather put this page to the torch. In fact, many old Persian pieces of art showing Muhammad were destroyed in the middle of the last millennium. As far as I am concerned, drawing Muhammad is not anti-religious; rather, it is both pro-free speech and pro-art. Why not fill the world with the beautiful? Why destroy that which was made with devotion, especially when it is devotion to your more glorified figures?

It may be the case that South Park's Muhammad is not as masterful as others, but it is not revolting either.

A prophet that can shoot fire from his hands? And has nice threads? I'll sign up!

Oh, but no, this is too much for some. What possible basis can there be for this apparent displeasure with any drawn image of Muhammad?

Since the problem in this case does not stem from the holy book, instead you must look to the traditional literature, the Hadith. These are works that claim a basis in tradition going back to the early days of Islam. And they are about a dime a dozen. Not all hadiths are considered canonical, and historians doubt a better number of their contents. Nonetheless, some of these are held in high regard by Muslim scholars, much like the Talmud in Judaism or the apostolic fathers in Catholicism.

In one of these traditions, it is inappropriate to draw any living creature. Some go so far to ban the painting of anything (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 648; Sahih Muslim, 24, 5272)! No art at all? Well, that is much like the Taliban's policies, which include the complete removal of music from life. But why on earth remove art from life? From what I can tell, the theological idea is that it is boastful for the human to depict the world that Allah created and call what you had done your own creation. In the first of the cited hadiths, Allah calls the artist unjust and challenges them to create the smallest of things. And so, in the Hanafi school of law, a part of Sunni Islamic world, forbids all depictions of animals and humans.

What could be more anti-human than the walling off of humanities creativity in rendering the world around us. These fundamentalist imams and their like which to starve us off of all the created world in order to focus on their deity and rituals. This is the most strident stand against humanist values, deploring what abilities we have in order to shut out the very thing so worth exploring. It is the death of the soul for the sake of "saving" it. One may cut off a limb to avoid a more serious sickness, but this is a lobotomy as deep into the psyche as possible.

But then why are the Muslims only crying about images of Muhammad when even pictures of people or animals is so terrible? There is one reason that I can see, and that is when these complaints are made Westerners back down and cower to these demands. That weakness has allowed the tyrannical misanthropy of cowards who could not possibly persuade by reason to cripple some of the most important rights in the democratic world. Also, the prevention of depictions of Muhammad stave off criticisms of the religion he represents; if you fear to as much as draw him, do you really have the courage to spit at his beliefs or chide his philosophy?

This is about power, and I for one shall not yield to such barbaric hatred of the human condition. Not only shall I put up pictures of people and places, cattle and the cosmos, I shall put up the image of the prophet Muhammad and the various prophets sacred to the major religions of the world. Not to insult, not to harass, but to empower the human spirit, to let it soar no matter what weights some philistine wants to place on its wings.

The religion of Islam has done much that is vile, but I shall oppose it with the beautiful and of its own creation. Let these fools who prefer medieval thinking to return to caves with their head in the desert sand. Let them hide from the wonders of the universe and the minds that inhabit it, the free minds that will not be shackled by superstition and fear. Let their timidity be writ large as their own symbols of religion destroy them.

LET THEM SEE MUHAMMAD

The UN and Religion

Apparently, yesterday the United Nations passed a resolution in the General Assembly that included an amendment to combat the "defamation of religion". Such a title already seems more broad than should be desired by any nation with freedom of speech. When it comes to discrimination of people because of religion, this should easily be called unjust, and the UN already passed such a resolution some time ago.

Okay, first to put this in perspective. The UN has no real teeth. Money and troops come under UN control if other nations are willing to give such things. Much of the money comes from the United States and troops are many from the US and Europe, but hardly exclusively (perhaps not even in the majority?). This resolution was also passed in the General Assembly, not the Security Council which producing much more binding statements. The GA can only produce "symbolic" statements for other nations to take heart, but such resolutions certainly cannot change member-state constitutions. The US can ignore this resolution as it can most things the UN throws out, or as did Iraq according to the run-up statements before the war began in 2003. However, the existence of such a resolution passed by the majority of nations in the United Nations does send out a diplomatic shield to those it would protect. The question is, does the resolution protect those unfairly maligned by the prejudices of kooks and bigots, or does this give cover to nations and organizations with religious zealotry which do harm to citizens of the world?

So, what does the statement even say? Is it going to hinder free speech? I thought that perhaps some had over-hyped the nature of this resolution, making seem worse than it is. I first learned of it through sources such as Christopher Hitchens, a well known opponent of religion, an "anti-theist" by his own admission, so perhaps he was biased in his report for Slate.com. But is he right? Does the resolution want to limit free speech and criticism of religion? Well, yes.

For example, Paragraph 100, Section 5 says that states should

take serious steps to address the contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and in this context to take firm action against negative stereotyping of religions and defamation of religious personalities, holy books, scriptures and symbols.

So, I'm not supposed to defame religious personalities, holy books, and so on. Of course, I can defame politicians all I want. Why can't I say bad things about the Pope or certain Ayatollahs? Does this mean biblical criticism is off now? Bye-bye Documentary Hypothesis.

The resolution also points the blame at right-wingers against Islam who try to use xenophobia to rack up political points. That ignores liberals that attack this religion, such as Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, etc. (I would probably add myself, since I'm no right-winger, but I'm not a hippy as well.) The Dutch MP Geert Wilders seems to be in view of the UN resolution, whose documentary "Fitna" created a large stir on the Internet. I agree with critics of the film that it is more anti-immigrant than a proper critic of Islam, but we don't need to look far to find a Dutch MP producing a documentary critical of Islam.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali created a documentary years ago with a decendent of Van Goeth, and the director was killed! Ali has been under protection of years from a similar fate in the US. Ali is also part of a liberal party in the Netherlands, the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD); Geert used to be a member of this same part, but changed in 2006 to a right-wing group called the "Party of Freedom". Geert left the VVD because it was favorable to Turkey's inclusion into the EU, so he was much more against Islamic nations than the VVD in general. Ali can also give more valid criticism of Islam having been Muslim for much of her life and even chanted death threats to Salmon Rushdie.

Apparently now, if Ali, who was abused under Islam, dares criticize, she can be called a xenophobe because of this resolution. How different from the case of the murdering and raping monster in Austria. Should he be given protections if he declared that his actions were part of his religious tradition? Would criticism of his actions be "backward" and "elitist"? If not, then why not the forced circumsizion of women, the stoning of rape victims, the beheading of homosexuals, the death of apostates? Why does religion get a pass?

Obviously, this resolution is truly backward from what any sensible enlightened institution should produce. Imagine if this was passed in the days of Hume; his discourses on natural religion and human reason would have to be outlawed according to this nonsense. Bertrand Russel would have been sent to jail. The intellectual tradition of Western thought would be against the law, the tradition of free inquiry and the ability of all ideas coming to the free market to see what wins out. Apparently, religion has to be protected. Perhaps because it cannot stand up?

Fortunately, I live in the USA, and my country voted against this resolution, along with Canada, France, Germany, the UK, and even Israel, along with many other European nations. It's odd that nations such as Japan did not vote, and Russia voted in favor. I'm betting any nation I end up living in will most likely be against this piece of tripe. Well, as a citizen of the Red, White, and Blue, I must say, God bless . . . er, good goin', the USA.

Moderate Muslims

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the former Dutch parliament member and Muslim apostate, has written an amazing op-ed for the New York Times the other day. This woman, who at one time condemned to death Salman Rushdie, who left the Islamic faith on her own will, seems to make the excellent and knock-down point about the nature of the Islamic religion and justice system. The question that I beg to have answered: Where are the moderate Muslims that do not agree with the fanatics and fundamentalists? When some Christian fundamentalist, such as Jerry Falwell, makes insane statements many moderate or liberal Christians are more than willing to distance themselves from such people and even demand apologies. A majority of Christians are not in favor of killing abortion doctors even if they are totally opposed to the practice.

Then where, pray tell, are those in the Islamic world condemning or distancing from those that inspire hate? Because of the recent cases of unreasonable "justice," such as the arrest of a woman that allowed a teddy bear to be named Muhammad, another woman sentences to a severe beating for being raped after being with another man who was not a relative of hers, and so on, one would hope that there would be some faction of Islam that would make clear that this is not representative of the faith (be that true or not). Instead . . .

. . . silence.

Nothing.

Does not such passivity mean that the majority, the moderates, are just hunky-dory with these decisions? Worse, the only protests that are heard are of those that demand even harsher treatments. Apparently, the only problem that people have is the majority of the Islamic world is that their system is not barbaric enough.

It would appear to me that "moderate" has a different meaning that it does here. After all, moderates seem to be in the middle of positions; if the positions are all skewed in one direction, then so is the middle. Hence, the middle in the Islamic world would appear to be far away from anything those in the West would call just or fair or reasonable. Some may of course jump to the cultural relativism bandwagon, but as far as I care to think about it relativism is self-defeating and inherently self-contradicting--the outs of the philosophy seem like nothing but sophistry to me. If the words such as "justice" are supposed to be meaningful then they must be applied to all cultures and all parts of the world.

What has been happening is obviously silly at best, cruel in other cases, and disgusting at worst. (Actually, it may still be worse.) Mind you, also, that these are just recent examples. In the late 1980s, there was the call for the death of Salman Rushdie; a few years ago a similar call was for Danish cartoonists. There are the many years of terrorist attacks all around the world, including the Middle East and Israel, Africa, Asia, and lest we every forget, America. There was also the killing of a film-maker in the Netherlands because one faithful Muslim didn't care for its contents, which has kept Ali on the run and under protection since. I must agree with Sam Harris that this all cannot be related so simply to Western policy but must be something to do with the greater mindset of those that have accepted this religion.

Of course, other belief structures can be equally dangerous. Christianity cannot rid itself of its deeds of the Crusades, the Inquisition, the eradication of Native Americans (especially apparent with the Inca), the numerous within-Christian wars and conflicts. Yet, such things have become extremely rare. Sure, Ireland has issues today, but that it rather modest compared to the 12th century. But it seems that there still exists much of this issue in nations that profess Allah and Muhammad as his profit/prophet (Freudian slip?). Why?

The most obvious answer would seem to be that Enlightenment values have to come to fruition in the Islamic world. Why this is the case, I don't know. One suspicion of mine is that because there had not existed a great, single authority on the religion, such as the Pope and Catholic Church for Christianity, there was no such body to revolt against and attempt to have an independent way of looking at the same body of work or belief structure. Now, I would not say that Protestantism is responsible for the Enlightenment, at least not directly, but that sort of spirit of searching for answers outside of single authoritative figures and instead by one's own reasoning, a step away from submission, helped propel Europe into the philosophical powerhouse it is today with a history thinkers like Descartes, Spinoza, Bacon, Hume, Hobbes, Kant, Locke, and so many others that opened the way to freer thoughts.

The trail away from submission to authority, especially authority that is only supported by the shear fact that it says it is the authority, is a good one. I don't know if the Islamic faith can follow the trail. This is because of the word "Islam" itself. Many say it means peace. But peace by what? Submission! Sure, things will be okay in the future because no one will dare raise a finger against the despot--just look at how wonderful North Korea is!

But it should at least be possible to convince the faithful en masse to embrace Enlightenment values. After all, I have met those of such a faith and they in fact can accept the philosophies of equality and reason over dogma. And even when there are Christians in the U.S. today that seem to forget these things in pushing for a "Christian Nation," they still don't seem to go out of their way to kill homosexuals, and neither do orthodox rabbis in Israel. Obviously better sense makes such actions difficult, even if that simply be obedience/fear to/of the law. Sure, it seems that cognitive dissonance would be required to keep both mindsets in the same head, but humans seem to be very good at that. I prefer clear thinking, but progress is progress.

Please read Ali's essay. It is more than just "Islamophobia."