Mouse’s Tank

Reciprocity not in the Islamic dictionary?

Another one of those "Internet romance" stories has come along: a 16-year old girl from Michigan met 20-year-old Abdullah Jinzawi of the West Bank on MySpace.com; they decided to get married; and she slipped out of her parents' house and onto a plane for the Middle East. True love lost another round, though, as the old fuddy-duddies in the State Dept. caught up with her in Jordan, seized her passport, and sent her home.

Why do I mention it, and why under the title above? The parents of the young man knew all about the tryst, in fact the mother went to the airport to pick up her new daughter-in-law to be, and according to the news report, the family says they "had no idea she acted without her parents' consent."

Would any such arrangement between Muslims have gotten far, without the parents of both parties contacting each other? A thousand times no. That is, if the youthful initiative developed at all--orthodox Muslim views would condemn the young woman as a hussy of the first order, to be chatting with young men on the net and discussing love. Evidently Mr Jinazawi's parents had no scruples about encouraging the child of Western parents to deceive her parents, come to another country to marry, and change her religion, all without their knowledge.

But then, the news report, goes on, "Sana Jinzawi [mother of the young man] said five other Jericho residents had brought American girls to Jericho in recent years and that all of them now live with their wives in the U.S." So maybe the gleam in the would-be groom's eye wasn't really true love. Young Mr Jinazawi had told the 16-year-old that he was a "wealthy businessman," but the reality is that he works in his father's business delivering goods to mini-markets. There might have been buyer's remorse on both sides, though, since the young woman might well have thought better of her promise to "convert to Islam and wear the head covering and live with us and adopt our culture" once she learned more about how much her teenaged life would have been changed.

Euthanasia, more fuel for conservatives' fire

Here's a headline bound to attract attention: Call for no-consent euthanasia: Doctors should be able to end lives humanely, says professor [appearing on the UK Guardian's main headline page, June 7, 2006, about 6pm PST US]. I can almost hear Ann Coulter dipping her pen in a particularly caustic vat of that trademark vitriol of hers (her latest book Godless: The Church of Liberalismdescribes Democratic political tenets as a religion, complete with a sacrament--abortion--which, she says, is the Democrats' version of virgin sacrifice; words fail me, just now, to describe this person and her utterances).

But follow on to the article, and you find that, after a somewhat misleading first paragraph, the recommendation is a very limited one.

One of the country's leading experts on medical ethics today calls for doctors to be able to end the lives of some terminally ill patients "swiftly, humanely and without guilt" - even if they have not given consent.

Len Doyal, emeritus professor of medical ethics at Queen Mary, University of London, takes the euthanasia debate into new and highly contentious territory. He says doctors should recognise that they are already killing patients when they remove feeding tubes from those whose lives are judged to be no longer worth living. Some will suffer a "slow and distressing death" as a result.

That is, when all the reviews by doctors, relatives, maybe courts, have taken place and a feeding tube is removed from a person in a persistent vegetative state, the doctor is saying that it wold be more humane to hasten the death that is inevitable, rather than allowing it to occur via starvation. And during the starvation, the patient continues to experience whatever conditions may have entered into the decision in the first place: intractable pain, paralysis.

I live in the only one of the United States that has legalized "assisted suicide." This began as an initiative on the Oregon ballot in 1994 which was approved; critics sent it back to the ballot in 1997, and it was approved by a larger majority than in the first election. Beginning promptly in 2001 the Bush Justice Dept. tried to get the law overturned, failing miserably--before a federal judge in 2002 and finally before the US Supreme Court in 2005. The Supreme Court did indeed agree to review the law, and agreed 6-3 that Oregon doctors could not be prosecuted under a Federal drug law, for prescriptions requested by patients for the purpose of suicide.

The requirements are sensible but not oppressive:

The patient must meet certain criteria to be able to request to participate in physician-assisted suicide. Then, the following steps must be fulfilled:

1) the patient must make two oral requests to the attending physician, separated by at least 15 days;

2) the patient must provide a written request to the attending physician, signed in the presence of two witnesses, at least one of whom is not related to the patient;

3) the attending physician and a consulting physician must confirm the patient's diagnosis and prognosis;

4) the attending physician and a consulting physician must determine whether the patient is capable of making and communicating health care decisions for him/herself;

5) if either physician believes the patient's judgment is impaired by a psychiatric or psychological disorder (such as depression), the patient must be referred for a psychological examination;

6) the attending physician must inform the patient of feasible alternatives to assisted suicide including comfort care, hospice care, and pain control;

7) the attending physician must request, but may not require, the patient to notify their next-of-kin of the prescription request.

A patient can rescind a request at any time and in any manner.

The attending physician will also offer the patient an opportunity to rescind his/her request at the end of the 15-day waiting period following the initial request to participate.

People like Coulter predicted all kinds of extreme consequences of this law: hundreds of unbalanced people, including out-of-staters, would seek to end their lives; people would do so as a result of pressure from their inheritance-hungry heirs or lazy doctors, and so on.

On average, about 30 individuals take their lives each year under this law; a greater number go through the procedure to receive the necessary drugs, but do not use them. I think this last fact speaks clearly to what is involved, what human need is being met: the need for some sense of control when facing a potentially long and agonizing death. And it speaks to people using this control with deliberation. Having the option, pills in the cabinet, the individual then makes his or her own decision as each day goes by; if their personal threshold of unbearable-ness is not reached, the pills stay where they are. With so few cases each year,the state can review them, and has found no instances of undue pressure, unprofessional behavior, or the other lurid scenarios predicted.

The example of the Netherlands is always brought up in discussions of this subject. There, use of euthanasia has gone further: according to a British Medical Journal report in 2000, "one in five cases of euthanasia occurred without the patient's explicit request" (Perhaps patients brain-dead or otherwise incapable of cognition or communication), and another study found (1997) that of a "sample of 31 [Dutch] neonatologists, 14 (45%) reported having at least once administered drugs with the explicit intention of ending life", to newborns with untreatable and terminal conditions involving severe pain. What discussion there was between the physicians and the parents, we do not know, and many would see that as irrelevant, regarding assisted suicide and euthanasia as wrong in any foreseeable situation. When those remarks are made, I think of someone who spoke up during the second time the Oregon measure was voted on. This person said, with great feeling, that the opponents of the bill would change their minds if they had ever had to listen to a loved one in pain unresponsive to drugs, facing inevitable death, but living on for day after day of torture.

On the subject of pain, it is said that the Oregon Assisted Suicide Act has had the effect of improving the pain relief offered to those with chronic and terminal conditions. It is certainly high time for that--and we have still far to go. The War on Drugs mentality has stood between hundreds of thousands of suffering individuals and effective pain relief, because doctors fear to attract legal attention, or agree with the puritanical demand that even the dying cannot be given a drug otherwise considered illegal. In this way, perhaps, the puritans among us feel that we sinners can get a preview of the torments of hell, and thus come to Jesus before we expire.

As far as the Netherlands/"slippery slope" argument, it seems to me that the "slope" is in this case composed of the attitudes of the populace. Netherlanders support euthanasia as provided for in their laws, though when doctors begin to act on their own beyond the law that is something for their courts, and their legislators, to review and decide upon. Again, those decisions will probably reflect public attitudes. The Dutch populace is relatively small, with a long history of independent thinking. The US has a much larger population, one also given to independence and testing new ideas, but possessing some strong base principles. I can't see ideologue legislators, or even the "activist courts" so beloved of the Conservatives, imposing on Americans some nightmare of euthanasia totally foreign to our wishes, to our culture. If anything of this nature happens in our country, it will be courtesy of the HMOs, seeking to cut their expenses. After all, according to a couple of my doctors, it's the HMOs who demand that physicians spend time on the phone trying to justify, to clerks, their patients' need for particular medical procedures. This is where principle gives way in our country--not when challenged by opposing principle, but when challenged by money.

Iranian court punishes defense attorneys

In an appalling misuse of the legal system, an Iranian court this week first sentenced the defendants (52 Sufi dervishes) to jail, then handed down sentences to the two defense lawyers: five years jail, a 1,000 euro fine, 74 lashes and a five-year ban from exercising their profession.

This is not the first such event: the International Commission of Jurists reported on 24th January 2003 that three lawyers had been "imprisoned for defending persons with divergent views." Attorneys in Iran are not protected by an adequate professional organization, the ICJ said on another occasion, and in 2001 ICJ reported that

The judiciary in Iran is not free from government or religious influence. The judiciary and law enforcement agencies continue to serve as the main tools of oppression in Iran. Although the Constitution of Iran endorses some fair trial rights they are not respected in practice. In the Revolutionary Court the magistrate functions both as prosecutor and judge in the same case. The trials in these courts are therefore not fair and impartial. [Emphasis mine]

Some Background...

The Islamist government arrested a thousand Sufis in mid-February,in the sacred city of Qom, Iran. There were unconfirmed reports of abuse and torture of some arrestees. The Sufi house of worship was demolished by bulldozer following the arrests.

Qom, a city of almost a million people, is an important religious center, with the country's largest religious college (madressa). It is also a place of pilgrimage, with the tombs of 10 kings and 400 Islamic saints, and a golden-domed tomb belonging to Fatima, sister of the Eighth Imam. With the intermingling of politics and religion so characteristic of Islam, it was at Qom, in 1979, that the Islamic revolutionary militia accepted the surrender of the shah's army, ending the rule of the shah; and subsequently the Ayatollah Khomeini came to Qom and made it his center of operations when he returned to Iran from his exile in Paris.

The Sufis, members of mystic Islamic sects, had gathered at their house of worship in Qom for a "peaceful protest," the subject of which doesn't seem to be known. Hundreds of Sufis (of the Nematollahi sect), including women and children, arrived, and the group refused to vacate the building when security forces surrounded it. Official sources claim the mystics were armed with knives, and were working for foreign countries such as Britain. 200 people were treated for wounds. The Sufis reportedly held up pictures of relatives killed in war for the country, or portraits of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, as tokens of their loyalty to the state.

Sufism is an old tradition in Islam, generally accepted. It is "based on the pursuit of mystical truth and Sufis believe that mystical practices involving dance, music, and the recitation of Allah's divine names can give them direct perception of God. Although Sufi Muslims strictly observe Islamic practices and beliefs, some conservative Muslim clerics see it as a danger to Islam. Some even argue that Sufism is a deviation of Islam. In Iran, there have been always some tensions between Sufism and more orthodox traditions of Islam. However, observers say these tensions have worsened since the establishment of an Islamic republic, some 27 years ago, and state tolerance for Sufi groups has diminished.

In every organized religion there seems to be tension between the central authorities and those who practice a mystic approach to the religion. How can "authorities" maintain their power when ordinary individuals are having direct unsupervised contact with the Almighty? The far-gazers often begin to regard the authorities as irrelevant, and they may even come back from God with messages that subvert the structure or dogma of the organization.

However, the crackdown on Sufism--which has included the publication (with government approval) of anti-Sufi books and attack articles in major newspapers, speeches by clerics calling for restrictions on the sects, and charges from the mayor of Qom that the Sufis were working for foreign powers--may have less to do with anything the Sufis have done, and more to do with the current high level of popular dissatisfaction with the harsh and repressive Iranian government. According to Seyed Mostafa Azmayesh, a Paris-based scholar who specializes in Sufism, the government is targeting the Sufis because of their "more open interpretation of Islam" and because "as mosques empty, [Sufi houses of worship] are expanding and being filled." He believes that many Iranians choose Sufism as a refuge from the highly restrictive government. "More than before, people are running away from a totalitarian interpretation of the religion, they are having doubts, and they have lost faith in the work of those who consider themselves custodians of religion," he maintains. "By contrast, they feel very close to the Sufi teachings and its customs, which are based on love."

Photo from Encyclopedia of the Orient .

OBL Speaks: Human Rights and Islam

What? not those cartoons again! Osama Bin Laden's latest tape, in which he dealt with the high-level subject of a general jihad against "Crusaders," included a pronouncement on the cartoons of Mohammed. To Westerners the cartoons were such a trivial matter we may have thought that it was a tempest in a teapot, and one that had blown over by now.

Not so. Osama begins the tape by calling for the deaths of the Danish cartoonists. He issued a fatwa, in effect, though he is not formally qualified to do so because he lacks the religious status. But he cited as his authority "the Umma" [ an Arabic word meaning the community of the believers, which = the whole Islamic world] which "has reached a consensus that he who offends or degrades the messenger [Muhammed] would be killed" ). Based on this "decision" against the cartoonists Osama Bin Laden calls for their death. Well, actually, for their murder.

Bin Laden didn't utter the word "cartoon" according to al-Jazeera's apparently hasty translation. Perhaps it seemed too trivial to justify his words. He said:

...I am directing this speech to all the Islamic Umma, to continue talking and urging them to support our prophet Muhammed, and to punish the perpetrators of the horrible crime committed by some Crusader-journalists and apostates against the master of the predecessors and successors, our prophet Muhammed.

The holy verse of the Quran and the holy prophetic teachings have all clarified the need for according love, respect and obedience to our prophet. Allah, the Almighty, has made it a taboo to offend him, saying in the Quran those who harm Allah and his messenger would be damned and severely punished.

...Therefore, the Umma has reached a consensus that he who offends or degrades the messenger would be killed. Such offense is regarded as kufr (infidelity).

...we vow to Allah to avenge for those whose blood have [sic] been spilled. [Presumably referring to people killed in the riots protesting the cartoons.]

He goes on to denounce the West as being "incapable of recognizing the rights of others" and as categorizing "human beings into white masters and colored slaves." Rulers of Muslim countries side with Europe,he says, and perceive "the jihad groups that fight against the Crusaders in Iraq and Afghanistan as terrorist groups" just as the West does. Muslims face a choice of only two courses of action because of the West's intransigent determination: Muslims may choose jihad or slavery (to the West). Then he goes on to review jihads of the past, present and future jihad, from Bosnia to Somalia.

But, going back to the matter of the cartoons. Osama Bin Laden judged them important enough to begin his speech, and to justify calling for the murders of several Danish cartoonists. This seems like a disproportionate penalty to Westerners and others, and also like a wildly wrong way of responding when someone has insulted your religion---or, as Muslims view it, violated your rights. To understand this response we must realize that Islam has a different definition of "rights" than we do.

There is no better illustration of this than the official document, the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in Paris in 1981. It's much longer than the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and its table of contents lists 23 points, including  Right to Life, Rights of Minorities, Right and Obligation to Participate in the Conduct and Management of Public Affairs, Right to Fair Trial, Right to Freedom of Religion, and Rights of Married Women. Seems quite proper and complete.

At the very end, however, something catches your eye:

Explanatory Notes

1 In the above formulation of Human Rights, unless the context provides otherwise: ...

b) the term 'Law' denotes the Shari'ah, i.e. the totality of ordinances derived from the Qur'an and the Sunnah and any other laws that are deduced from these two sources by methods considered valid in Islamic jurisprudence.

All of the rights exist in a legal and cultural environment completely defined by Islamic religious law. It is Sharia, Islamic law, not any noble Declaration, which sets the limits of the rights of individuals. When we look at what punishments and prohibitions have been ordered under Sharia judges in various countries, it's clear that Sharia is reality, rights are illusion. Women are stoned to death for adultery ["Punishment shall be awarded in accordance with the Law, in proportion to the seriousness of the offence", Article 5 of the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights;a Koranic discussion of stoning as punishment for adultery may be read here]; someone who converts from Islam to Christianity faces the death penalty ["Every person has the right to freedom of conscience and worship in accordance with his religious beliefs", Article 13 ibid.]; Christian missionaries are prohibited from talking of their religion, and importation of Bibles is forbidden ["There shall be no bar on the dissemination of information provided it does not endanger the security of the society or the state and is confined within the limits imposed by the Law", Article 12]; women are denied the right to vote or hold office in many countries ["Subject to the Law, every individual in the community (Ummah) is entitled to assume public office" Article 11 -- Since the Law is Sharia, which sets forth different standards for men and women as regards behavior, dress, participation in the workplace, rights of marriage and divorce, etc., the first clause of this "right" negates the rest of the sentence, the "entitled to" part.] When you look back to the beginning of the document, just after the list of 23 detailed protections, there is the Foreword, which reads:

Islam gave to mankind an ideal code of human rights fourteen centuries ago. These rights aim at conferring honour and dignity on mankind and eliminating exploitation, oppression and injustice.

Human rights in Islam are firmly rooted in the belief that God, and God alone, is the Law Giver and the Source of all human rights. Due to their Divine origin, no ruler, government, assembly or authority can curtail or violate in any way the human rights conferred by God, nor can they be surrendered.

Human rights in Islam are an integral part of the overall Islamic order and it is obligatory on all Muslim governments and organs of society to implement them in letter and in spirit within the framework of that order.

... The Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights is based on the Qur'an and the Sunnah and has been compiled by eminent Muslim scholars, jurists and representatives of Islamic movements and thought. May God reward them all for their efforts and guide us along the right path.

And the Preamble to the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights states, in part,

WHEREAS Allah (God) has given mankind through His revelations in the Holy Qur'an and the Sunnah of His Blessed Prophet Muhammad an abiding legal and moral framework within which to establish and regulate human institutions and relationships;

Therefore we, as Muslims, who believe

a) in God, the Beneficent and Merciful, the Creator, the Sustainer, the Sovereign, the sole Guide of mankind and the Source of all Law;

b) in the Vicegerency (Khilafah) of man who has been created to fulfill the Will of God on earth;

... d) that rationality by itself without the light of revelation from God can neither be a sure guide in the affairs of mankind nor provide spiritual nourishment to the human soul, and, knowing that the teachings of Islam represent the quintessence of Divine guidance in its final and perfect form, feel duty-bound to remind man of the high status and dignity bestowed on him by God...

Do hereby, as servants of Allah and as members of the Universal Brotherhood of Islam, at the beginning of the Fifteenth Century of the Islamic Era, affirm our commitment to uphold the following inviolable and inalienable human rights that we consider are enjoined by Islam.

In contrast, the corresponding part of the UN Declaration of Human Rights:

Preamble

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, therefore, The General Assembly, Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations...

The rights of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights are asserted for all human beings, not limited by being governed by any religious or secular law or definition. No religion, god, or culture is given primacy or supreme power; the document speaks to and for all human beings.

There is no table of contents, but among the rights which the document seeks to guarantee are

Article 4 No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5 No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6 Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7 All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 12 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13 Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14 Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 18 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19 Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

I would like to discuss Shariah law at length another time. For now, it is enough to realize that for the Muslims the foundation of all law, including human rights law, is Shariah law, based on the Koran and hundreds of years of decisions by Islamic jurists--very scholarly men, but not working in any system that produces consistency, or has a highest authority whose decisions become precedent for all "lower courts" (as, for instance, where there is a Supreme Court ruling over a country's laws).

Inconsistency is one problem. The very content of the laws is another: Shariah brought us the recent prosecution of the Christian convert in Afghanistan, who faced the death penalty, and any number of horrendous incidents regarding women being sentenced by Shariah courts to be stoned to death, or to be raped by all the village councillors.

And yet, it is the West, according to Osama Bin laden, which is "incapable of recognizing the rights of others."

Can't we all just live together and be nice?

Can't we all just live together and be nice?

Since the cartoon riots began we have heard this from both Westerners and Muslims. In fact, this innocuous-sounding statement really means that they want to limit freedom of expression to that which doesn't offend anyone. For “anyone,” read “Muslims,” because that is the truth of the matter. I can't see Europeans and Americans accepting “hate speech” laws or pronouncements such that cartoonists, writers, and comic performers couldn't make fun of blondes, lawyers, Poles, priests and rabbis, drunks, guys carrying “End of the World” signs, politicians, celebrities, the British Royal Family, and anyone else who appears in the newspapers—so if we cave on this issue, believe me, it'll just be Muslims protected.

Britain tried last year, for the second time, to pass a law protecting religions from overly critical speech. The effort failed, as it did in 1991; this time it was opposed vociferously--there were gospel-singers protesting outside the buildings of Parliament--by an extraordinary alliance: clerics from all sorts of Christian denominations, a multitude of ordinary citizens fearful that their ability to practice their religion freely would be affected, as well as members of non-Christian religions, and atheists and agnostics. The former Archbishop of Canterbury, that is the former head of the Church of England under the nominal head, the Queen, said: he wanted to live in a society where people were sensitive to the feelings of others. "But in being sensitive, what we mustn't do is create a society in which certain stories are not told," Lord Carey told a news conference. The former archbishop said that, following the publication of Salman Rushdie's book Satanic Verses, Muslim groups came to him asking him to support their campaign against the novel. "They were very offended by Satanic Verses but I said you are living in a country and civilization where we are quite used to this," he said. "They say: 'Why as a Christian don't you condemn the Life of Brian?' I said: 'I love the film and I think it is good for religion to be knocked, to be criticized, to be challenged because we have done a lot of damage in the past'. We know religion is a force for good but I don't want to control a writer not to criticise me, because I may need that criticism."

My own observation is that Muslims are really the only ones objecting to freedom of speech about religion. The rest of us are used to priest-rabbi-pastor jokes, and have learned that even nastier stuff does not hurt our faith or our relationship with God. In the last couple of decades artists have really pushed the issue, with the always-cited example being a 1989 painting of a crucifix suspended in a jar of urine (though the only way you knew this was from the title). Christians hated this, some demonstrated (peacefully, as far as I know), a picture of the painting was torn up on the floor of the Senate, the artist’s government funding was questioned, the Museum in Victoria, British Columbia even closed an exhibition that included the work. There were no arsons, no death threats, nobody tarred and feathered the artist (a traditional North American way of showing someone that he’s persona non grata, but one that has not been used for quite a while). And by 2001 the work was being exhibited at the Cathedral Church of St. John the Divine in Manhattan, which is described as being the largest cathedral in the world. And there was no public outcry at all.

Maybe this just seems like an example of how our mores have declined. The Islamists would say that.

But consider previous causes of public outrage: women demanding the vote, chaining themselves to gates and going on hunger strikes in prison (and being brutally force-fed); the anti-slavery and anti-war movements; the 1914 display, also in the Cathedral Church of St. John the Divine, of angels sculpted by Gutzon Borglum, the visionary who carved Mt. Rushmore. It was the first time female angels were depicted in church art, and it became a headline-making scandal, according to a cathedral spokesman.

Women voting, the abolition of slavery, the depiction of female angels—at one time all of these were anathema to the Establishment (political, religious, or both). Yet, due to the design of our European and American political systems, individuals were able to go on expressing these ideas. Though their advocacy was sometimes at great harm to themselves, they persisted and changed the minds of the majority. This is one purpose of freedom of expression: that society may correct its errors, and even grow over time.

If historical examples are sufficiently distant, we regard them with an "Of course!" attitude. Of course it is wrong to burn "witches," torture in order to extract testimony (oops, my country has backslid on that one a bit lately!), own the bodies of other human beings, flog women and children with rods for disobeying their male "owner" (husband or father), force animals to fight for our amusement, drink from the river right next to the sewage outflow, poison and crucify unpopular philosophers, force women to remain married to brutal syphilitic husbands, allow the children of the poor to be sold into prostitution. Of course.

Yet when these practices were common, they were defended violently by governments and persons absolutely convinced that they were right. Books were burned, the mouths of authors and speakers were stopped with death. After many centuries of this, after societies became more diversified as a result of travel, trade, and learning, after countless small incremental increases in the definition of human rights, we learned that one man’s faith is another man’s heresy. And they may both be good human beings. We learned that faiths could co-exist; my knowledge that you’re singing the hymns your way on the holy day doesn’t cause my faith to evaporate or even be weakened at all. Perhaps we came to believe, with a certain Archbishop, that “The greatest heresy in the world is a wicked life.” [Archbishop John Tillotson, c. 1690]

Tolerance doesn’t mean ignoring harmful actions. But it does mean that we have agreed to define those actions through secular law, so that harming someone's body or property is a crime, but criticizing their religion, their politics, their art, is not a crime. Speech which deliberately seeks to arouse people to violence, such as forming up a lynch mob, is generally a crime, as is speech which does material damage to a person. Asserting that John Smith is an embezzler, or a dishonest businessman, or an adulterous husband, these things do damage a person and redress may be sought in civil or criminal law. But if John Smith has been formally accused or convicted of embezzlement, then the newspaper reports it and anyone may repeat it.

On the other hand, if I say that Joe Smith’s religion is nonsense—whether I mean my neighbor Joe, or Joe Smith the Mormon founder—I speak of matters no one can prove, matters we all hold different opinions about, and Joe and his friends will simply have to ignore me, or perhaps insult my religion in turn. Or they might “turn the other cheek,” refusing to be drawn into the fray, and continue to live such exemplary and admirable lives that even I may eventually conclude that their religion has some good points.

Do we of the West really want to surrender our standards and have forced upon us the repressive standards we abandoned long ago? Since religion touches daily life everywhere, what may not be banned?

What about the ability to discuss the violation of human rights in the name of religion?

The Roman Catholic Church caused immense human suffering by permitting priests accused of molestation to continue working in parishes where they had contact with children, and by keeping allegations secret. Should this have been ignored by parents, citizens, the legal system? Should it have gone on being handled by secret agreements between prosecutors and church officials in order to spare the feelings of Catholics, and avoid criticizing the high-ranking clergy who enabled the priests? The issue has been made public in the US, but probably exists in other countries too, where there will be considerable resistance to public discussion and investigation. Should investigators, and the victims, be silenced because "feelings will be hurt"?

Female circumcision, or female genital mutilation, is said by some to be a cultural, not an Islamic law issue, yet the eminent Muslim scholar, Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi , consulted 3/5/06 , states:

"Actually, this is a controversial issue among jurists and even among doctors. It has sparked off fierce debate in Egypt whereby scholars and doctors are split into proponents and opponents. However, the most moderate opinion and the most likely one to be correct is in favor of practicing circumcision in the moderate Islamic way indicated in some of the Prophet's hadiths – even though such hadiths are not confirmed to be authentic. It is reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to a midwife: "Reduce the size of the clitoris but do not exceed the limit, for that is better for her health and is preferred by husbands". The hadith indicates that circumcision is better for a woman's health and it enhances her conjugal relation with her husband. It’s noteworthy that the Prophet's saying "do not exceed the limit" means do not totally remove the clitoris."

Many women, Muslim and not, Western and Eastern, regard this practice as unjustifiable mutilation; frequently the cutting removes an extensive amount of tissue, sometimes the labia are sewn shut to “preserve chastity”. Female circumcision is very common: “The procedures are nearly universal among women in Egypt, Eritrea, Mali and northern Sudan. In these countries, about nine out of 10 women have had at least some part of their external genitalia removed...Nearly 30 million women have undergone some form of cutting in the countries surveyed. An additional 21 million girls under the age of 15 are estimated to have undergone cutting already or be likely to undergo cutting in the near future...the operations are performed under poor hygienic conditions and many infections result quite aside from complications during childbirth.“ [Inter-African Committee conference on harmful traditional practices, 2001 ] In Egypt, 75% of the young women are circumcised before the age of 11.

Shall discussion, education, efforts to change this practice, all be suppressed to avoid causing distress to religious people? As shown above, the practice is supported by some (not all) Islamic scholars, and is also widely supported by men in the areas where it occurs. They prefer to marry circumcised women and refer derogatorily to women who have not had the operation. Change will meet much resistance.

It should be clear that I am speaking specifically of discussion here, freedom of expression in speech and in print, not of foreigners forcing the government of, say, Egypt to change its laws regarding female circumcision. Such efforts do take place—the US receives a good deal of foreign pressure regarding its failure to abandon the death penalty for the most severe crimes. Some countries won’t return an accused murderer to the US, if the state in which he would be tried has the death penalty. Similarly, the US may give refugee status to women fleeing female circumcision in their native countries. But my discussion is solely about freedom of expression.

More on Islamic law and cartoons

There is no jury system in Islamic law, no requirement for a defense attorney; the sentence—even a death sentence or a flogging—may be carried out by any person the judge (legal expert) designates, or even by the judge himself. A judge may utter a death sentence, then pick up a revolver and carry it out (as in a case described in The Mantle of the Prophet: religion and politics in Iran by Roy Mottadeh, professor of medieval Middle Eastern history at Harvard; not a negative treatment or attack but a sympathetic account.) The legal experts or “jurisconsults” are religiously trained men who have specialized in legal aspects of Islam; they achieve their positions through recognition from other jurisconsults. People bring them law cases to rule upon; they also write explications of the law, expanding it into new areas or providing justification, through scripture and logic, for different interpretations.

I hope I am not forcing a connexion to the Danish cartoons, when I say that this system has an immediacy, a lack of delay and appeal and red tape, which may contribute to the hair-trigger responses to the cartoons.

Although, on that subject, it came out last week that the infamous cartoons were evidently published in Egypt last October, without a single riot reported. Perhaps the beginning of the riots had more to do with the actions of the Danish clerics; they took the cartoons on tour in Islamic countries, having first added on three others, ugly but completely unrelated to Mohammed or Denmark, as far as anyone can tell.

Arab Cartoons: Some can dish it out, but....

Tom Gross has a selection of Arab newspaper cartoons that are recommended viewing for anyone interested in the current hullaballoo over the Danish cartoons of Mohammed. One shows Ariel Sharon “watching as an Israeli plane crashes into New York’s World Trade Center. This cartoon restates the widely held myth in the Arab world that Israel and the Jews were responsible for the 9/11 attacks which were in fact carried out by al-Qaeda.” In another, Ariel Sharon uses a swastika-shaped axe to chop up Palestinian children. Others refer to the ancient canard that Jews kill non-Jewish children for their blood.

Admittedly, none of these caricatures the Hebrew prophet Moses, but they definitely outdo the Danish cartoons in rancor and vitriol. I think that’s because the Danish cartoonists were not motivated by those emotions, however it may seem to Muslims.

Supporting Denmark

You can write to the Danish Embassy at the address below, with support or otherwise.

Embassy of Denmark 
3200 Whitehaven St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20008

Why riot over cartoons?

[In the interests of brevity, I’m not going to recapitulate the details of this situation. Here are links if you need them: see the cartoons here or here ; summary of violence and the death toll, which is 29 as I post this; on the fake cartoons added by clerics .

By not answering the question of “Why?” we allow people to assume that Muslims are just crazy lawless riotous folk. Or, if you haven’t seen the cartoons, you may conclude that they were so vile, so disgusting, that violence was natural—that the cartoons were what US law calls “fighting words” : when uttered in certain situations they can be considered a deliberate provocation of a fight, and the fight may be considered justified.

Since 9/11 I have been reading about Islam. That does not make me any kind of an expert, but I have learned a good deal. What I’ve learned leads me to believe that we cannot understand the cartoon response without taking a look at Islamic law.

We in the West are accustomed to the fact that different countries have different legal systems. Don’t think of Islamic law in that way. It is not a variation on a common theme, like the legal systems of most Western countries; indeed, it could hardly be more dissimilar. Here are some crucial differences, all of them relevant to the cartoon protests and riots:

• Islamic law is God’s law, based on the Koran and the other sayings of Mohammed as well as on his actions and life. Thousands of specialized scholars have amplified, interpreted, and applied these in the years since the Prophet died in 632.
• All areas of law are included: criminal, civil, commercial, family, even international. Perhaps the most seriously regarded offenses are religious offenses such as blasphemy (lack of reverence to sacred matters or objects) or apostasy (leaving the faith of Islam). The penalty for either of these is usually death.
• Human legislation is either suspect or forbidden, since it represents a usurpation of God’s role; at best it’s considered as inferior to religious law.
• Because it is a “higher law”, Islamic law is often viewed as superseding national laws regardless of the country. Fundamentalists wish to extend Islamic law, often called “shariah” to all countries.
• Many Islamic countries acquired Westernized legal codes and government courts during colonial days, and when nations were established after colonial rule. But these generally incorporate religious law. For example, Section 295C of Pakistan's Penal Code provides the death penalty for "Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of The Holy Prophet (Peace be Upon Him)". In Malaysia, it’s illegal to drink alcohol or to promote drinking, with penalties of jail for up to two years and/or a fine of as much as RM3,000 (for drinking) and up to three years and/or up to RM5,000 fine for making/selling/displaying/distributing alcohol.

Now, consider the cartoons or drawings of Mohammed in the light of the preceding points. Most of Islam considers any depiction of the Prophet Mohammed as blasphemy, deserving of the death penalty; all would consider it blasphemous to depict him in a manner lacking in reverence. The cartoons that were published in the Jyllands-Posten certainly lacked reverence.

One shows a turbaned figure standing on the cloud familiar to all of us Christians, from the many “St. Peter at the Pearly Gates” cartoons we’ve seen, and addressing an approaching line of men who are clad in smoking rags and remnants of bomb vests. The turbaned figure, presumably Mohammed, is saying to them “Stop, stop! We ran out of virgins!”

Another shows a turbaned older man, scimitar in hand, flanked by two women in black all-encompassing garments. A rectangular opening shows the women’s eyes, open very wide (fearful?), with all other parts of them covered by the black fabric. The man is making a menacing gesture with the scimitar and he is blind: his eyes are covered by a black rectangle of the same size and shape as the rectangular openings in the women’s garments.

In another, just Mohammed’s head is shown; his turban is shaped like a bomb and it has a lit fuse. An embroidered patch on the turban bears some message in flowing Arabic calligraphy, perhaps the traditional statement of faith that there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet.
In another, a rather royally-dressed Mohammed looks over a sheet of paper and says to two enraged scimitar-wielding men in livery, “Relax folks, it is just a sketch made by a Dane from the south-west Denmark [sic].”

Another shows the artist bent protectively over his drawing board, working in the dark with just one light and hiding with one arm his drawing of a turbanned head; the artist is sweating and nervous.
As this last one indicates, the cartoonists who drew these did not do so blithely. The newspaper’s editor issued the call for drawings of Mohammed in order to promote discussion of how Muslim influence was having a “chilling effect” on Danish artists and writers: the author of a biography of Mohammed had been unable to find anyone willing to illustrate it because artists were fearful of the Muslim reaction.

So, back to Islamic law. Drawings or cartoons of Mohammed are published; they are irreverent, and therefore blasphemous. Islamic law is universal, it is The Law for all human beings, as applicable in Denmark as in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. And Muslims everywhere feel that the Danes have deliberately and personally insulted them and their religion; I believe few Muslims not resident in the West can truly realize how we Westerners could publish drawings like these in somewhat the same way that we would publish an opinion piece in the newspaper: something to say, forcefully, “Pay attention to this issue, we must discuss it”. Moreover, there is no free press in Islamic countries; when something unwelcome is published, government and religious groups take decisive action such as burning the publisher’s office, imprisoning the editor, and so on. So it is natural for Muslims to assume that material published in a foreign country has the approval of the foreign government, since that’s how it is in their countries.

Thus the Muslim reaction: these blasphemous drawings, deserving of the death penalty for artist and editor, have been drawn and printed with the intent to offend: a deliberate slap in the face, as it were. Since religious law trumps secular law, and secular law in the West won’t act quickly and forcefully to ban the drawings and punish the criminal perpetrators, the Muslims act for themselves, to make Denmark regret its slap in the face to Islam.

Of course it’s also true that additional factors contribute to the violent reactions: there’s an immense amount of frustration and anger stored up among many Muslims, attached to a variety of things—Israel, the Iraq War, the economic & technological superiority of Western nations, the intrusive & very threatening Western pop culture of music, scantily-clad women, materialism.

And some religious groups and clerics (in every country) use controversy to mobilize their followers and magnify their own personal and political power. In this case, the Danish clerics who took the original 12 cartoons on the road to the Mid-East added three more, carefully chosen to be exquisitely offensive: a man in traditional dress on his knees being mounted by a dog, for example.

None of these had any connexion to Denmark or to the original drawings. In fact, they seem to have been “re-purposed,” as our British cousins might say; the one of a man with a pig-snout mask was adapted from the photo of a fellow at a pig-calling contest which emphatically did not take place in any Islamic nation, nor did it have any religious overtones at all. That photo was “photoshopped” to make it look hazier and more like a drawing. I wouldn’t be surprised if the one of the man and the dog had been produced for the clerics—staged, or faked using two photos.

The clerics used the “they may not be real but they do represent the real spirit of the thing” defense. For men formed by the rigorous training in logic that forms part of traditional Islamic religious higher education, this is, shall we say, disingenuous.