February 14, 2012
Reacting to Reactionary Muslims
Jalees Rehman in the Huffington Post:
Last week, the Saudi writer and blogger Hamza Kashgari tweeted about Prophet Muhammad and his tweets caused an unanticipated fire-storm of outrage among many Saudis. They formed an "electronic lynch mob" and responded with hate-filled tweets, Face-book posts, comments, threats and YouTube videos, calling for the arrest and punishment of Kashgari.
A prominent Saudi cleric accused Kashgari of apostasy ("Ridda"), which could be punishable by death under Saudi law. Multiple sites reported that an arrest warrant was issued by the King of Saudi-Arabia, even though Kashgari deleted his tweets and apologized for them. Realizing that his life was in danger, Kashgari escaped from Saudi-Arabia. However, at the request of the Saudi authorities, Kashgari was detained mid-journey by the Malaysian police at the Kuala Lumpur airport, so that he was unable to reach his destination New Zealand, where he had intended to ask for political asylum.
The government of Malaysia is now in the process of deciding whether or not to extradite Kashgari back to Saudi-Arabia.
It is appalling that Saudi clerics and the Saudi government would resort to such measures in response to a few tweets by a 23-year old writer, who was merely expressing his personal views on his faith and Prophet Muhammad.
More here. [Photo shows Hamza Kashgari who has now been deported back to Saudi Arabia.]
Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 09:32 AM | Permalink
Comments
In case you were wondering where the fascists in Malaysia get their eagerness to please the Saudis, part of it is definitely money, but there is a deep ideological basis as well and it seems to be getting worse: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=103103#.TzqUmpdhY8I.twitter
For some reason (it may have a little to do with Indonesia's more syncretic Javanese Muslim population and with the million Indonesian maids who have worked in Arab lands and been screwed there) Indonesia is better than the baby fascists in Malaysia, but even Indonesia is not home free. Anyway, mainstream Malay Islam is completely in awe of Arabs. Of course money plays a role, since Arab tourism is now a huge growth industry in Malaysia and Malays hope to be technology suppliers to their religious superiors. All in all, it was a terrible choice of stopover. The poor sod must have had no idea that Interpol would be issuing red warrants on behalf of the Saudis before he even got to Malaysia. Bad business.
Posted by: omar | Feb 14, 2012 12:44:48 PM
And why should anyone be surprised at the actions of Malaysia?
Posted by: David Sucher | Feb 14, 2012 12:52:46 PM
And, once again, where is the authority for the islamic religion who should step up and say what is happening is WRONG.
Posted by: Jes Lookin | Feb 14, 2012 1:42:50 PM
Jes, the authority, if it existed, may not think its wrong.
Posted by: omar | Feb 14, 2012 2:30:20 PM
Why would anyone fleeing a blasphemy prosecution pick a flight that stopped in Malaysia?
... Leaving aside the whole "you're a JOURNALIST in SAUDI ARABIA and you don't realize your country is completely nuts on anything remotely blasphemous?"
I'm not blaming him for what's happening to him - the Saudi regime is despicable and everyone should have the right to free speech. But I have to wonder what the heck he was thinking.
Posted by: Anderson | Feb 14, 2012 4:34:16 PM
Alas, dead man walking! Shoddy Arabia is beyond redemption, but Malaysia should be held accountable by other civilized nations for its craven action. As for Interpol, heads there should figuratively roll to atone for Kashgari's.
Posted by: Sam | Feb 14, 2012 11:59:42 PM
Sad. His tweets are actually wonderfully humane, in a dopey and brooding long-haired poetic young guy way:
He should be infesting coffee-shops trying to impress friends and win lovers, not fighting for his fucking life.
Posted by: prasad | Feb 15, 2012 1:07:12 AM
Prasad, the smart Islamist's answer to your comment is as follows (trust me, I have talked to smart Islamists):
"This coffee shop crowd is all fine in a society where other serious people actually run the world. We will also let these hippies talk all night in coffee shops when WE run the world. Though we may not let them infest Universities at public expense. We are not bloody Hindus who just want to be the Western world's model minority. We want them to be OUR model minority. Some of us are "serious". "
For the record, I dont buy this argument at all simply on first principles. There is no there there. Any Islamist who is suffering under the delusion that he or she has an "alternative system" to what he regards as the current "Western system" is an ass.
Posted by: omar | Feb 15, 2012 10:11:45 AM
Omar, I didn't really understand the words you put into smart Islamist's mouth. What's he saying prosaically?
Posted by: prasad | Feb 15, 2012 9:36:34 PM
The paragraph was composed from sentences spoken (or more often, written) to me by a couple of different Western educated Islamists (one with a PhD in history from U Chicago, the other an MBA from Harvard). From what I could understand (and we never reached final consensus in these arguments, so there may be arguments behend the argument that I have not grasped) this is what they mean:
1. There is a "real world" which is about power (Allama Iqbal Jihadi was quoted heavily in this context, but most of the soundbites seemed to be more directly derived from third rate Western leftie propaganda literature).
2. Freedom of expression and all the hippie rants tolerated in the West are tolerated because there is a ruling class that does its real work in the WSJ and the Pentagon and rules the whole damn world. These hippies and Chomskies and artie-party leftwing liberals with disposable income and time on their hands are no threat to power and are happily tolerated for that reason. REAL threats are dealt with much more harshly.
3. Islam is the only true alternative to this evil cabal. The Chinese pagans and the Hindus and whatnot are has-been civilizations that lost the power game a long time ago. They are not an alternative.
4. We are in a state of war. Its not that we necessarily NEED to suppress idiots like Kashgari. In fact, we (the genius Islamist ideologues) are in favor of permitting real debate and would prefer to deal with fluff like Kashgari by letting them vent in their little useless echo-chambers. But we are also not fools and we know that the "Westoxicated" intellectuals who get hot and bothered about these few scattered idiots and hippies and jump up and down about freedom of expression are just automatons following a script written by the powerful West. We refuse to join this freakshow. And we refuse to give too much attention to a few idiots and secondary issues. etc etc.
The following may give you some of the flavor of the argument in a different context: I said something once about the Taliban killing 25000 Shia Hazaras. The historian wrote back "wake me up when 25 million are dead". He then pointed out that 55 million died in the second world war but that has not disqualified Western civ from holding power. The world is a nasty place.
You get the picture.
Again, I dont buy their argument at all and I didnt buy it then. Your post just triggered memories of those two people and their determined effort to "keep it real".
Posted by: omar | Feb 16, 2012 10:39:15 AM
Thanks for the fantastic exposition. I suppose this makes if anything more sense coming from Chicago and HBS than from somewhere in the middle of nowhere.
Posted by: prasad | Feb 16, 2012 11:47:39 AM
@Anderson
I agree with you that one's first response would be "What was he thinking?" However, we also have to remember that he is only 23 years old. I am happy when my 23 year old grad students show up on time to the lab meetings and seminars. Perhaps Kashgari did not realize that conservative and reactionary clerics in Saudi Arabia are monitoring Twitter.
Posted by: Jalees | Feb 16, 2012 12:36:03 PM
I think that this incident is not just about Kashgari's tweets, but has to be seen in the context of reactionary Muslims trying to hold on to their authority and scare off anybody who threatens them. My concern is that as the reactionaries feel even more threatened, they are likely to resort to even more bizarre attacks on individuals who are progressive. One thing that is remarkable about this incident is the "electronic lynch mob" approach of the reactionaries. I sometimes imagine reactionary-conservative Saudis as sitting in some secluded, old-fashioned building surrounded by sand dunes and complaining about how the modern world is corrupting us. However, the reactionaries in Saudi used Twitter and Youtube to promote the attack on Kashgari. It reminded me of how reactionary fascists in Germany and Italy also made use of modern technology (radio broadcasts, Nazi propaganda movies, etc).
Posted by: Jalees | Feb 16, 2012 1:02:09 PM
Starbucks has 71 stores in Saudi Arabia and opened its first one in India Jan 2012 (after agreeing to serve Masala Chai, Tulsi Tea and Lassi). McDonald's does not serve beef in India (where did the secularism go?) and I am not suggesting it should, just pointing out a hypocrisy.
My point is that coffee shops, food and poetry do not a freedom make. These are just symbols of trendy liberals who have the intellectual depth of Sarah Palin. I hope Kashgari's courage and sacrifice is not about coffee shops but of right to vote, opening their land to churches, temples and synagogues, if someone wants to build one and not having to go to mosques if someone doesn't want to - as it is in India.
Posted by: Raza | Feb 16, 2012 11:00:32 PM
sure there's illiberalism aplenty in India, but what exactly is the starbucks hypocrisy? don't see the problem tbh.
Posted by: prasad | Feb 17, 2012 7:31:07 AM
Raza, I dont see anyone advocating for coffee shops as an alternative or a path to freedom. As far as I can tell, Prasad brought up coffee shops to point out how harmless the poor guy is and what a travesty it is to be threatening to cut his head off. What he should be doing is sitting at some coffee shop, not worrying about losing his head.
Posted by: omar | Feb 17, 2012 11:43:51 AM
Omar, yes. At times in the past establishments like coffee houses and barber shops have had distinctive political salience, but that wasn't where I was going at all. I meant exactly that this utterly inoffensive, dreamy, adorkable lad should be allowed to live his life. He's hurting/damaging nothing except people who want to control everything.
Posted by: prasad | Feb 17, 2012 3:18:36 PM
I don't advocate for Kashgari being put to death. But he should have known that writing that he considered himself equal to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) would be offensive to many Muslims and given that he lives in Saudi Arabia he should have known that such writings could lead to charges of blasphemy. An ordinary man cannot be compared to Prophet Muhammad, who was the messenger of Allah.
Posted by: Kabir | Feb 17, 2012 5:08:01 PM
Here we have classic confrontation between the individual's assertion of his right to speak freely and the efforts of his society to protect basic beliefs from all questioning. However much the 2 sides discuss the issue they will never move from their basic positions.
However, those Saudi subjects (we can't call them citizens) who accept their rulers' right to punish those who question (in the mildest way ) any strongly held beliefs, those same subjects must also accept that they likewise can never have the right to criticize their rulers for corruption, crimes or incompetence (in the totally hypothetical case that such things might ever occur in Saudi Arabia).
Posted by: aguy109 | Feb 17, 2012 5:54:32 PM
Speaking as a non-subscriber to any religion - Islam as it manifests in parts of the world appears to have great difficulty handling dissent or "blasphemy" without massive overreaction. If the Islamic truth as represented by the Prophet is in fact immutable as Muslims claim why stone, whip, imprison or even execute a person for drawing a cartoon, engaging in sarcasm or otherwise expressing skeptical opinion. How is the opinion of a detractor going to infringe on that which is viewed by the believer as eternally true? Unless of course Islamic belief is so insecure that it is unable to handle opinion that rocks the boat. In some cases it's almost a matter of get a grip or at the very least a sense of humor and a little distance from the minor infractions that all too often are blown up into affairs that far outweigh their significance.
Posted by: j_93 | Feb 18, 2012 1:43:03 AM
J, you may be missing the point of this blasphemy exercise. It is not ncessarily about belief being insecure. There are many historical and cultural reasons reasons why it continues to be a bigger part of the Islamicate world, but some that are not frequently noticed include:
1. It works. No other major religion has managed to enforce a similar level of consensus about core beliefs. Which is why some members of other religions can be seen exhibiting distinct "Islam envy". There are regular complaints from Hindu and Christian fanatics about how people get away with being rude to their beliefs but dont do it to Islam. One gets the distinct impression that they wish they could shut blasphemers up as well. (In the case of Christians, they could and did until 200 years ago). Of course, this does mean that beliefs become fragile over time because they dont really have to be defended using logic or argument. But the fragility did not lead to blasphemy laws. Blasphemy laws allowed them to become fragile. btw, they are not as large a population in the world so they get less notice, but Sikhs have a blasphemy meme that is almost as powerful as the Islamic one. And while Hindus in general are nowhere close to Islamic levels, there have been some prominent blasphemy bullying cases in India (like the cases against MF Hussain) that were led by Hindus, not Muslims.
2. Bullying. Bullying has a definite attraction for many people. In more civilized surrounding, there are cultural mechanisms to suppress it or restrict it to particular settings. In cultures in transition where law and order and other means of enforcing civilized behavior have become weak, many groups find it useful to bully weaker groups using blasphemy as a means. The fact that you can force someone else to follow YOUR rules is a powerful signal that you are the stronger party. This sort of thing is not restricted to Islam, but having a poweful blasphemy meme in place means bullies can use it whenever they feel like it. Think back to the Jim Crow South. It wasnt called blasphemy, but the fact that any semi-retarded White person could be rude to a much more capable Black person and the black person would have to swallow his pride and move on...that was not uncommon. Bullying is a big part of blasphemy prosecutions in a place like Pakistan, where it keeps Christians and Ahmedis in their place very effectively.
3. The Western notion of freedom of speech (and especially the more robust American version) is the outlier in the world even today. Most cultures did not permit everyone to say whatever they want. I personally think this Western innovation is an improvement and will spread with time, but its current form is relatively new in the world. Before the multiculti crowd jumps on me, I am well aware of the variety of opinions and arguments that were present in Islamicate as well as other cultures many centuries ago. But I would insist that this variety and relative tolerance (much of it facilitated by lack of the CAPACITY to enforce uniformity) was not really the same thing as modern notions of tolerating almost any and all blasphemies in print and other media, not just in practice but in principle. This is relatively new.
Posted by: omar | Feb 18, 2012 3:56:27 PM
Omar, I have to say that your comments are amazing and frequently much more profound than the posts you comment upon.
One example of what you call "bullying" that comes to mind is the law in Israel against the public display or sale of bread during the Passover holiday (when Jews are supposed to eat unleavened matzos instead). This leads to the paradoxical situation where even non-kosher restaurants stop serving bread with their pork or shrimp dishes. But the law is widely supported, even by the non-religious, because Passover and the eating of mazzos are seen as symbols of national consciousness and release from slavery, rather than purely religious rules. Likewise, Muslims largely approve anti blasphemy laws, as expressing a basic level of concensus.
In the US, burning the flag is technically not a crime, although most Americans see it as an wrongful act.
Posted by: aguy109 | Feb 19, 2012 4:50:08 AM
Post a comment