Sunday, March 1, 2015

Tagged under: ,

Islam and the "Culture of Offence": Missing the Point

Maryam Namazie challenges the Culture of Offence. Maryam Namazie is a political activist, campaigner and blogger. She is the Spokesperson for Fitnah - Movement for Women's Liberation, Equal Rights Now, One Law for All Campaign against Sharia Law in Britain and the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain. She works closely with Iran Solidarity, which she founded, and the International Committee against Stoning.

In the age of ISIS, dissent and criticism of religion is a life and death necessity. It has been - and remains - key for human progress.


Dissent and criticism of religion has always been a crucial aspect of free expression. Historically, it has been intrinsically linked with anti-clericalism and the dismantling of that which is deemed taboo, sacred and untouchable by the gatekeepers of power.

Such criticism has been key for human progress and is still needed. In the age of ISIS, this criticism is a life and death necessity for those living under Islamism’s boot.

So yes, I am Charlie – no ifs and buts. 

Those who condemn the massacre in Paris but blame Charlie for “offending Muslim sensibilities” (implying that they somehow got what they deserved) have bought into the Islamist narrative that “Muslims” are more offended by cartoons than mass murder. 

This is validated by multiculturalism as a social policy and cultural relativism, which sees Muslim “communities” and “societies” as homogeneous and one and the same with the religious-Right. 

So even though there is a rich historical and artistic tradition of depicting Mohammad, Islam’s prophet, over many centuries, it’s deemed offensive today. 

And despite many Muslims or those labelled as such have sided with Charlie, it is the terrorists/fascists who are deemed to be the “authentic” Muslims. 

The homogenised “culture of offence” discounts the many believing secularists, feminists, freethinkers, and atheists and socialists amongst those deemed “Muslim”. 

It ignores the widespread dissent and resistance, which can also be seen in response to Charlie.

An Algerian copy editor Mustapha Ourad was gunned down in Charlie’s hallway. 

Many “Muslims” joined rallies and held up “Je Suis Charlie” signs or pens. 

A French Muslim cafe owner was threatened for putting up a “Je Suis Charlie” sign in his East London cafe. 

Lassana Bathily, the Malian-born Muslim employee hid customers at the Paris kosher supermarket saving lives.

Even in Iran – a theocracy where blasphemy, heresy, apostasy, enmity against god, and another 130 offences are punishable by death – Nasrin Sotoudeh, a human rights lawyer showed her solidarity whilst journalists trying to rally in support of Charlie were attacked and prevented from protesting by security agents wielding clubs and chains.

An Iranian newspaper was shut down for publishing a photo showing solidarity with Charlie. In Turkey, two columnists from a daily are facing an investigation for ‘religious defamation’ after featuring the Charlie cover. 

Cartoonists across the Arab world – from Egypt to Lebanon to Qatar and Jordan took a stand with Charlie and against the terrorists. 

And still we are told that Charlie offended “Muslims” and must be held to account! 

Clearly not all Muslims were offended, and even those who were did not go on to kill for it.

What is packaged as the “culture of offence” is really Islamism’s imposition of blasphemy laws and theocracy under the pretext of respect for “Muslim sensibilities”.  

Only in Europe of course does this far-Right fascist movement use “offence” to silence and censor.

In countries where they have state power, there is no need for such niceties.

In Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Iraq and Syria, the “offenders” are called what they are - apostates and blasphemers - and legally murdered in broad daylight in the same way Charlie Hebdo’s journalists were “executed”. 

Terrorism and indiscriminate violence, including via Sharia laws, have been pillars of Islamist rule for decades, aiding in creating a climate of fear and as a warning to those who refuse to submit. 

The “culture of offence” absurdly implies that civility and manners are all that are needed to stop abductions and the slaughter of generations from Nigeria, Iran to Algeria. 

But the “culture of offence” is a smokescreen. It serves to legitimise Islamist terror and blame the victims. 

It misses the point. 

Islamism is an international far-right movement that has murdered innumerable Charlie Hebdos over several decades across the Middle East, North Africa, Asia, including many “Muslims”, who have dared to speak or mock or just live 21 century lives prohibited by the Islamists. 

Being a woman, a freethinker, being gay, being unveiled, improperly veiled, an atheist, going to school, driving a car, having sex, falling in love, laughing out loud, dancing ... “offends” them.

Calling for civility, censorship, silence or “respect” for the “offended” is merely heeding the Islamist demand for submission at the expense of dissenters.

But as Rosa Luxemburg said: “Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters”.

So yes, I am Charlie but I am also the many Muslims, ex-Muslims and none who dissent day in and day out often at great risk to themselves. 

I am freethinker Raif Badawi, sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1000 lashes for a website promoting public discussion of religion and politics which has been deemed “insulting of to Islam” by the Saudi regime. 

I am 30 year old blogger Soheil Arabi, sentenced to execution in Iran for “insulting the prophet” on Facebook. 

I am poet Fatma Naoot, on trial for “insulting Islam” in Egypt due to her criticism of Islamic animal slaughter.

I am 28 year old Mauritanian journalist and anti-slavery activist Mohamed Cheikh Ould Mkhaitir who has been sentenced to death in December 2014 for “insulting the prophet”.

I am 32 year old Egyptian journalist Bishoy Boulous Armia who has been given a five-year prison sentence for causing “sectarian strife” and “insulting Islam” because he reported on the persecution of Christians in Egypt. 

I am the artists and writers in the Gaza Strip who face a campaign calling for their murder for “insulting Islam”. 

I am Jakarta Post editor-in-chief, Meidyatama Suryodiningrat , accused of blasphemy for a caricature on ISIS, which according to an Islamist group filing a complaint, has “insulted Islam”. 

I am Algerian novelist Kamel Daoud who has had calls for his execution because of “insults [to] Allah”. 

I am bloggers Tan Jye Yee, 26, and Vivian Lee, 25, charged in Malaysia under the Sedition Act for insulting Islam and Ramadan in Facebook.

I am women’s rights campaigner Souad al-Shammary who has been imprisoned since 28 October 2014 on accusations she has “insulted Islam” and the prophet in Saudi Arabia for demanding an end to male guardianship rules for women. 

I am 47 year old British-Iranian Roya Nobakht was sentenced to 20 years in prison in Iran for “insulting Islam” when she said on Facebook that the Iranian regime was “too Islamic”. 

I am 49 year old mother of five Asia Bibi has been in prison for five year awaiting execution for blasphemy in Pakistan. 

I am 27 year old Mohsen Amir-Aslani hanged in September 2014 in Iran for insulting prophet Jonah and making ‘innovations in religion’ through interpretations of Qur’an.

And I am Muhammad Shakil Auj, Dean of the faculty of Islamic Studies at the University of Karachi, was shot dead by gunmen in September 2014 two years after being accused of blasphemy.

And the list goes on. 
 
So yes, I am Charlie, Raif and Roya – no ifs and buts. 
 
I am, we are, all of them.
 
Read more articles on 50.50's platform Frontline Voices Against Muslim Fundamentalism

7 comments :

Colm McGinn said...

Even though every example (of abuse) you give is a legitimate criticism, yet you are the one missing the point.

AM said...

Colm,

and the point she is missing is? Can't leave the matter hanging in mid air.

Wolfsbane said...

I agree - criminalising 'offence' against ideologies/religions and their leaders is an attack on liberty. The offender may be guilty of misrepresentation or downright abuse, but if they are not inciting harm to those who hold to the ideology/religion, they must be free to speak.

Gulags and execution stakes are the tools of dictatorships - and suppressing free speech is a big step down that road.

Charlie Hebdo publishes blasphemy and very crude imagery in its ridicule of religion. So what? - if the God they offend is real, He is quite capable of dealing with the matter Himself.

AM said...

Wolfsbane,

you got that in one.

AM said...

Wolfsbane,

you got that in one.

Henry JoY said...

Hey Wolfie

I commend the logic of your faith.

Yet as a man of no faith I sometimes in my darker musings about Islamic fundamentalists associate them in my thoughts to turbo-charged versions of Loyalist murder gangs!

Wolfsbane said...

Henry Joy, in my experience almost all of the loyalist murder gangs were very irreligious people.

One or two individuals may have had some distorted notion of doing God's will, but they lived immoral lives - showing the unreality of their 'faith'. I dare say that was true for most of the Republican murder gangs too.