You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Olde Tyme Religion
An inability to tolerate Islam contradicts western values
2007-09-04
By Karen Armstrong

In the 17th century, when some Iranian mullahs were trying to limit freedom of expression, Mulla Sadra, the great mystical philosopher of Isfahan, insisted that all Muslims were perfectly capable of thinking for themselves and that any religiosity based on intellectual repression and inquisitorial coercion was "polluted". Mulla Sadra exerted a profound influence on generations of Iranians, but it is ironic that his most famous disciple was probably Ayatollah Khomeini, author of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie.

This type of contradiction is becoming increasingly frequent in our polarised world, as I discovered last month, when I arrived in Kuala Lumpur to find that the Malaysian government had banned three of my books as "incompatible with peace and social harmony". This was surprising because the government had invited me to Malaysia, and sponsored two of my public lectures. Their position was absurd, because it is impossible to exert this type of censorship in the electronic age. In fact, my books seemed so popular in Malaysia that I found myself wondering if the veto was part of a Machiavellian plot to entice the public to read them.

Old habits die hard. In a pre-modern economy, insufficient resources meant freedom of speech was a luxury few governments could afford, since any project that required too much capital outlay was usually shelved. To encourage a critical habit of mind that habitually called existing institutions into question in the hope of reform could lead to a frustration that jeopardised social order. It is only 50 years since Malaysia achieved independence and, although the public and press campaign vigorously against censorship, in other circles the old caution is alive and well.

In the west, however, liberty of expression proved essential to the economy; it has become a sacred value in our secular world, regarded as so precious and crucial to our identity that it is non-negotiable. Modern society could not function without independent and innovative thought, which has come to symbolise the inviolable sanctity of the individual. But culture is always contested, and precisely because it is so central to modernity, free speech is embroiled in the bumpy process whereby groups at different stages of modernisation learn to accommodate one another.

It has also, as we have been reminded recently, become a rallying cry in the escalating tension between the Islamic world and the west. Muslim protests against Rushdie's knighthood have recalled the painful controversy of The Satanic Verses, and last week four British Muslims were sentenced to a total of 22 years in prison for inciting hatred while demonstrating against the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

It would, however, be a mistake to imagine that Muslims are irretrievably opposed to free speech. Gallup conducted a poll in 10 Muslim countries (including Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) and found that the vast majority of respondents admired western "liberty and freedom and being open-minded with each other". They were particularly enthusiastic about our unrestricted press, liberty of worship and freedom of assembly. The only western achievement that they respected more than our political liberty was our modern technology.

Then why the book burnings and fatwas? In the past Islamic governments were as prone to intellectual coercion as any pre-modern rulers, but when Muslims were powerful and felt confident they were able to take criticism in their stride. But media and literary assaults have become more problematic at a time of extreme political vulnerability in the Islamic world, and to an alienated minority they seem inseparable from Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay and the unfolding tragedy of Iraq.

On both sides, however, there are double standards and the kind of contradiction evident in Khomeini's violation of the essential principles of his mentor, Mulla Sadra. For Muslims to protest against the Danish cartoonists' depiction of the prophet as a terrorist, while carrying placards that threatened another 7/7 atrocity on London, represented a nihilistic failure of integrity.

But equally the cartoonists and their publishers, who seemed impervious to Muslim sensibilities, failed to live up to their own liberal values, since the principle of free speech implies respect for the opinions of others. Islamophobia should be as unacceptable as any other form of prejudice. When 255,000 members of the so-called "Christian community" signed a petition to prevent the building of a large mosque in Abbey Mills, east London, they sent a grim message to the Muslim world: western freedom of worship did not, apparently, apply to Islam. There were similar protests by some in the Jewish community, who, as Seth Freedman pointed out in his Commentisfree piece, should be the first to protest against discrimination.

Gallup found there was as yet no blind hatred of the west in Muslim countries; only 8% of respondents condoned the 9/11 atrocities. But this could change if the extremists persuade the young that the west is bent on the destruction of their religion. When Gallup asked what the west could do to improve relations, most Muslims replied unhesitatingly that western countries must show greater respect for Islam, placing this ahead of economic aid and non-interference in their domestic affairs. Our inability to tolerate Islam not only contradicts our western values; it could also become a major security risk.

Karen Armstrong is the author of The Battle For God: A History of Fundamentalism

Posted by:john frum

#20  The unwillingness of Saudi Arabia to allow for churches, synagogues and temples to be built in their country is a far greater contradiction of Western values.

In any case, Islam is the only religion whose adherents are exhorted to murder. We have no responsibility to cooperate in the slitting of our collective throats by tolerating it.

Case closed.
Posted by: Grumenk Philalzabod0723   2007-09-04 18:57  

#19  "But equally the cartoonists and their publishers, who seemed impervious to Muslim sensibilities, failed to live up to their own liberal values, since the principle of free speech implies respect for the opinions of others."

Karen Armstrong is either profoundly confused by the concept of "freedom", or she is profoundly dishonest. She seems to think that having "respect" for the opinions of others means I should let them have their say, then refrain from commenting if I disagree or disapprove.

Two words, Karen: up yours.

"Gallup found there was as yet no blind hatred of the west in Muslim countries; only 8% of respondents condoned the 9/11 atrocities."

Jeez, what a relief: "only" 8%? That means that there are only about 100,000,000 million Muslims in the world who are our sworn enemies unto death. Terrific.

"But this could change if the extremists persuade the young that the west is bent on the destruction of their religion."

Bite me.

"When Gallup asked what the west could do to improve relations, most Muslims replied unhesitatingly that western countries must show greater respect for Islam..."

Bite me on the other side.

One of the sobering revelations I've had as a result of all that has come to pass since 9/11 is that Islam deserves FAR less respect than I had been giving it before; and that didn't amount to much, at least not since November 4th, 1979.

Posted by: Dave D.   2007-09-04 18:12  

#18  The West's inability to tolerate racists contradicts Western Values.
The West's inability to tolerate facists contradicts Western Values. Nope, doesn't work. The West has no requirement to tolerate the intolerant. Strawman. Strawman.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2007-09-04 17:26  

#17  The Koran negates equality. Muhammed concocted it so that he could take power, colored with fake religiosity. Only the supposedly pious may rule a Muslim, but the criterion of piety is always set by the current ruler. Some Muslims are more equal than others.
Posted by: Albert Snurt4028   2007-09-04 15:47  

#16  Two quotes:
"The Constitution is not a suicide pact."
"A foolish consistency is the hob-goblin of small minds."

I'm neither required nor likely to stretch my neck out for the sword.
Posted by: mojo   2007-09-04 13:36  

#15  Can we agree there are some things that cannot be tolerated in a just society?

If not, then you are an idiot. If so, then you've just found one of those intolerable things.

Liberals have deemed being discriminatory and intolerant as the greatest of sins, to the point of discarding good and evil in favor of their ideals of pacifistic inactivity in the face of horrors that Islamists would impose.

I am a conservative: right and wrong do exist. Good and evil do exist. Evil must not be tolerated, it must be opposed, for failing to do so allows it to succeed.

Indeed demanding right and opposing evil is a virtue, even if it offends, even if you discriminate against the evil doers (which you inevitably must if you mean to fight them). It is evil's nature to take offense at anything and everything without cause.

Deeds, not words.

To paraphrase Barry Goldwater:

Intolerance of the intolerable is no vice.
Posted by: OldSpook   2007-09-04 13:16  

#14  Armstrong is sexually religiously confused.
Posted by: ed   2007-09-04 12:55  

#13  I'll take the glass half-full approach:

For Karen Armstrong, this is a pretty harsh criticism against Islam.
Posted by: mrp   2007-09-04 12:28  

#12  Where do we begin. Karen is a former nun. Her previous writings are concerned with religious fundamentalism, which this article shows clearly that she doesn't grasp. The is more multiculti horse$hit. Hers will be one of the first throats to be slit when Muslims take over.

Karen Armstrong

Islam contains within itself the seeds of violence and extremism. Even the Turks state there is no moderste Islam. But the West is slowly being convinced that Islam is the violent, intolerant, supremacist cult that we see, not the Religion of Peace that they want us to believe it is. Taqqiya: "Go back to sleep. Everything will be fine."
Posted by: SR-71   2007-09-04 12:09  

#11  ...author of three television documentaries and took part in Bill MoyersÂ’s television series Genesis...
Basicly, an epeleptic atheist ex-Catholic who compares Mo as the Ghandi of his time.
Posted by: Phinater Thraviger   2007-09-04 11:59  

#10  Islam basically contradicts -

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

You can have one or the other. Pick.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2007-09-04 11:42  

#9  You guy's shot down most of her hollow assertions. This lady's basically an idiot....prolly a tenured professor at some lib leaning U.
Posted by: Broadhead6   2007-09-04 11:20  

#8  It must tick her off to have her books banned in Malaysia.

Not only does it reduce book sales (to zero) but Malaysia is supposed to be a shining example of muslim tolerance.
Posted by: mhw   2007-09-04 08:44  

#7  > since the principle of free speech implies respect for the opinions of others.

Where does it do that? It doesn't. What a load of poo.
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2007-09-04 03:22  

#6  Boy howdy, whatta goldmine!

Modern society could not function without independent and innovative thought, which has come to symbolise the inviolable sanctity of the individual. But culture is always contested, and precisely because it is so central to modernity, free speech is embroiled in the bumpy process whereby groups at different stages of modernisation learn to accommodate one another.

There are certain things that Western free people do not “accommodate”. Among them are counted terrorism, theocracy, unequal civil rights, Abject Gender Apartheid, Female Genital Mutilation, public beheading and amputation plus a host of other barbaric practices common to almost all Muslim majority countries. Any desire by Islam to retain even a single one of these specifically noted practices disqualifies it from participation on the worldly stage. There is no “accommodation” to be had with such savagery.

None of this makes note of how the author promotes Islam, even though she admits that: "Modern society could not function without independent and innovative thought". This is moral and intellectual bankruptcy.

Muslim protests against Rushdie's knighthood have recalled the painful controversy of The Satanic Verses

Painful only if you have and your collective creed have an eggshell ego.

four British Muslims were sentenced to a total of 22 years in prison for inciting hatred while demonstrating against the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

Not just “demonstrating” but calling for the murder of anyone who blasphemes Islam. Like this chap:

It would, however, be a mistake to imagine that Muslims are irretrievably opposed to free speech.

No it would not. It would be the prudent and logical assumption to make from all evidence to date.

"liberty and freedom and being open-minded with each other"

This amounts to a one lane one-way street in IslamÂ’s favor and no other.

a time of extreme political vulnerability in the Islamic world

Islam’s—completely self-inflicted—“political vulnerability” is a strict byproduct of its amoral and corrupt nature.

to an alienated minority they seem inseparable from Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay and the unfolding tragedy of Iraq

Again, all self-inflicted. If Muslims could just keep their snotty noses out of our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness they might not die so often.

For Muslims to protest against the Danish cartoonists' depiction of the prophet as a terrorist, while carrying placards that threatened another 7/7 atrocity on London, represented a nihilistic failure of integrity.

Noticed that did you? What do you propose to do about it?

only 8% of respondents condoned the 9/11 atrocities. But this could change if the extremists persuade the young that the west is bent on the destruction of their religion

There we go with the usual veiled threat. Indicating an inclination to increased violence is a direct and open threat to society. It is precisely this inclination to especially senseless violence that drives public opinion to favor the destruction of Islam. You’d better execute those “extremists” damn quick before they get all of you killed, because they will.

And now for the whopper:

Muslims replied unhesitatingly that western countries must show greater respect for Islam, placing this ahead of economic aid and non-interference in their domestic affairs.

There is no “greater respect” shown for terrorism, theocracy, unequal civil rights, Abject Gender Apartheid, Female Genital Mutilation or public beheadings and amputations. Strike this from your list now because you’ll not get it from any free people.

Our inability to tolerate Islam not only contradicts our western values; it could also become a major security risk.

Toleration of Islam in any form is what represents a “major security risk”. There is absolutely no contradiction of “western values” in making war upon terrorism, genocide, crimes against humanity and the massive violation of human rights in general known as Islam.
Posted by: Zenster   2007-09-04 02:17  

#5  Armstrong is a low grade panderer. Her books are listed on Muslim reading lists. She makes money off dhimmi service. Her screed about Muslim tolerance and mutual respect is deceitful to the highest degree.
Posted by: McZoid   2007-09-04 01:32  

#4  Try contradicting Karen, PBMcL, and see what happens.
Posted by: gromgoru   2007-09-04 01:16  

#3  An inability to tolerate Islam contradicts western values

'Tolerance' is a two-way street, Karen. Only an 'intellectual' such as yourself could twist that into a 'contradiction.'

...the principle of free speech implies respect for the opinions of others.

Only in your universe, Karen. In mine, it implies that if I disagree with this cartload of dung, I can say so loudly & freely, and with utmost disrespect.
Posted by: PBMcL   2007-09-04 01:06  

#2  Why. SF? What did you expect?

K.A. has always been N.M.E.
Posted by: twobyfour   2007-09-04 00:59  

#1  Words fail.
Posted by: Seafarious   2007-09-04 00:17  

00:00