…and this is a 
In which Danio assiduously avoids all mention of consecrated wafers
Category: Religion
Posted on: August 16, 2008 11:52 AM, by PZMinion
Johann Hari had a great piece in the Independent this week (with follow-up blog posts here and here) about increasing scrutiny of religion in general, and of Islam in particular.
An author named Sherry Jones has written a book, called The Jewel of Medina, that will never see the light of day because it novelizes the life and times, with particular focus on the marital details, of the prophet Mohammed.
The Jewel of Medina was bought by Random House and primed to be a best-seller - before a University of Texas teacher saw proofs and declared it "a national security issue". Random House had visions of a re-run of the Rushdie or the Danish cartoons affairs. Sherry Jones's publisher has pulped the book. It's gone.
Hari goes on to criticize the kid gloves with which Islamic issues are dealt the world round, contrasting it to the relative ease with which people question the tenets of Christianity and other more 'docile' world religions. Although his East End perspective may not allow him to fully appreciate the rebounding resistence to criticism sought by Christians in America, his general conclusions are spot on:
It is condescending to treat Muslims like excitable children who cannot cope with the probing, mocking treatment we hand out to Christianity, Judaism and Buddhism. It is perfectly consistent to protect Muslims from bigotry while challenging the bigotries and absurdities within their holy texts.There is now a pincer movement trying to silence critical discussion of Islam. To one side, fanatics threaten to kill you; to the other, critics call you "Islamophobic". But consistent atheism is not racism. On the contrary: it treats all people as mature adults who can cope with rational questions. When we pulp books out of fear of fundamentalism, we are decapitating the most precious freedom we have.
Naturally, he is receiving a quantity of shrill concern-troll style email for daring to sing a refrain that might sound a bit familiar 'round these parts: NOTHING IS SACRED. The responses of anger and fear are as predictable as they are sad, and just as many, if not more, of the complaints are coming from the uber-tolerant left. It is frustrating how glibly the term 'bigot' is now deployed, from a seemingly untouchable ultra-politically correct position. I long as much for the freedom to call 'bullshit' when warranted as I do for the day when, through efforts of vocal rationalists and moderates, the chinks in Religion's armor have been widened enough to let the light stream in, and words and symbolic actions challenging the merits of any faith or philosophy can be spoken, read and conducted with impunity.
__________________________________________________
Just in case it's not clear from the title, this post was authored by Guest Blogger Danio.
Comments
Posted by: SC | August 16, 2008 12:35 PM
Haven't read it yet. Just want to be the first comment.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 16, 2008 12:38 PM
How dare you post a non-science entry on a science blog?!
Posted by: Richard Harris | August 16, 2008 12:42 PM
Rationalists have a duty to take the piss out of religion. We must not allow the Submissionists, (followers of the prophet Muhammad, piss be upon him), to silence us through fear. I'm appalled at the cowardly behaviour of Random House, although no doubt they'd rationalize it as commercial, or even social, responsibility.
Posted by: Danio | August 16, 2008 12:44 PM
SC WAS THE FIRST TO COMMENT!!!!! WOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOO!
SC, Hearty congratulations on your stunninig victory. Pleae e-mail me immediately to collect your valuable 'first commenter' commemorative plaque.
My PhD only works 50 hours a week. :)
Posted by: Karley | August 16, 2008 12:49 PM
catholic mode>
Yeah PZ you're more than willing to desecrate the Eucharist BUT HOW COME YOU NEVER CRITICIZE ISLAM!!!111ONE!!!! You bigoted cowardly hypocrite secret muslim you!!!!1!
/catholic mode>
Posted by: Karley | August 16, 2008 12:51 PM
And I just noticed that PZ didn't write this. Whoops. I have horrible reading comprehension when I'm in Catholic mode.
Posted by: SC | August 16, 2008 1:01 PM
SC WAS THE FIRST TO COMMENT!!!!! WOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOO!
SC, Hearty congratulations on your stunninig victory. Pleae e-mail me immediately to collect your valuable 'first commenter' commemorative plaque.
Do I detect a hint of sarcasm?
Anyway, my contentless leadoff comment is there, forever. Suck it, Glen D! :)
Posted by: chriss | August 16, 2008 1:06 PM
I can understand the concerns Random House had about publishing this book. The publishing industry has developed a yellow streak for good reason...
The real issue here is how to promote circulation of this book in the face of Muslim extortion; perhaps a form of electronic Samizdat by which Sherry Jones can be renumerated for her work and there is no clear target for Islamic wackaloons.
Posted by: Bacopa | August 16, 2008 1:09 PM
It must be a pretty pell-written bok for it to have gotten as far as it did at Random House. Maybe another publisher will pick it up. It's a guaranteed success with this kind of publicity.
Posted by: Elf Eye | August 16, 2008 1:10 PM
Ooooh! This blog implies criticisms of Islam! According to the cracker defenders, the intolerant Moooslims are gonna get ya! This blog will be inundated with death threats from swarthy towel heads! The comment count will surge into the thousands!
Posted by: Elf Eye | August 16, 2008 1:11 PM
Are we there yet?
Posted by: Elf Eye | August 16, 2008 1:13 PM
Are we there yet?
Posted by: MH | August 16, 2008 1:15 PM
If people learned the definition and etymology of the word bigot they would hopefully use it less often.
Criticism ≠ Intolerance.
Posted by: KillerChihuahua | August 16, 2008 1:19 PM
Elf, we'll let you know when we're there, ok? It probably won't happen over the weekend. No crackers were mentioned, remember? For a thread to spiral into the kbytes of comments in such short order, cracker mention is the preferred methodology.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 16, 2008 1:25 PM
HOW DARE THEY NOT PUBLISH THIS!! HAVEN'T ANY OF THE CHRISTIAN HATERS SEEN THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST?!?!?!?!/11111
Posted by: Zar | August 16, 2008 1:26 PM
I do kind of see where discomfort with criticism of Islam is coming from. We have a hard time distinguishing what sort of behavior genuinely comes from Islam, and what is just people being jerks.
A major distinction, I think, is that critics of Islam (at least in the west) are often outsiders, basing a lot on cluelessness and stereotypes, whereas critics of Christianity (again, in the west) are insiders, often coming from a Christian background or just coming from a society where Christianity is everywhere.
But dammit Random House, there is a difference between Fox News anchors slinging mud at the terr'ists and towel-heads and genuine, thoughtful criticism!
Posted by: Jyotsana | August 16, 2008 1:31 PM
Can the author find a new publisher? Or can she self publish? I would think that any form of publishing is going to be better than nothing.
Posted by: speedwell | August 16, 2008 1:31 PM
I don't have a lot of money to throw around, but I'd be willing to pony up fifty dollars to a fund dedicated to publishing this gal's book, if one existed. Heck, with the number of people we can put together to swing a stupid three-year-old online poll, we could do it up grand if everyone threw in fifty cents.
Someone come up with a plan. Let's roll. (heh)
Posted by: Zeno | August 16, 2008 1:40 PM
Excuse me, but "a national security issue"? How does a novel about the founder of Islam become a security issue (except, perhaps, for the author)? Because a University of Texas prof said so?
Maybe we all need to start wearing Jesus and Mo T-shirts.
Posted by: Hessenroots | August 16, 2008 1:48 PM
RH offered to release the contract so she can shop the book around. According to her blog (which vanished from blogger.com last week) she's doing just that.
She'll find one, no doubt. If nothing else Rael Publishing (yep, the alien cultists) have made a press release stating they'd like to put it to print.
I read the prologue of the book, didn't care for it and let it go. Historical Fiction(with an inkling of romance novel subtext) isn't my thing. I'm in full support of the author from a creative standpoint but I can say I'll likely never read it.
Posted by: Calladus | August 16, 2008 1:50 PM
Does the book still exist. The way the article is written - I have to wonder.
Granted, we live in an age where digital information never goes away, but the article makes it sound like she sent her only manuscript from her IBM Selectric.
Perhaps she'll take a lesson from Scott Sigler in publishing her book. I'd happily send her $10 for a digital copy.
Posted by: mayhempix | August 16, 2008 1:53 PM
From the comments:
"Unfortunately for many of you in this world, Christ is the only way to the kingdom of God. No matter what religion you have. You will all believe this when you see him coming in the clouds to institute God's wrath. Pray, repent and accept Christ to cover your sins and you will be forgiven. Scoff if you like, I tell you this with love in my heart for all of you. Remember this when the tribulation begins, then I may not sound so crazy as the rest of the non-Christian world thinks I am. The Muslim faith WILL take over this world and everyone will be subject to its wrath. After this, God will return cleanse the earth."
Posted by Jason | 14.08.08, 15:38 GMT
The above is a perfect description of Bush's foreign policy.
Posted by: MYOB | August 16, 2008 1:54 PM
Perhaps PZ, when he gets the time, can address the spelling/grammar checker he has in place for entering comments?
I like the idea but when I originally attempted to write the word muslim the word was automatically flagged as a mistake. When I right-clicked on it the recommendation was that I capitalize the word muslim.
Sometimes it did this, sometimes it did not.
Now is it just me or is this something that contradicts the very foundations of what we are trying to discuss here on this website?
Posted by: Ian H Spedding FCD | August 16, 2008 1:58 PM
I can understand why Random House acted as they did but there is no way round the fact that such capitulations hand a bloodless victory to Islamic militants. We have all lost - including those Muslims lucky enough to share in it - when we allow our hard-won freedoms of speech, thought and belief to be curbed by the threat of violence from a small group of murderers.
I haven't read Rushdie's book. There are many others I prefer to read first. I probably would not have read Sherry Jones's book. But that isn't the point. In a free society, they should be available to anyone who does want to read them. I understand that Muslims find such books offensive and believe they are forbidden by their faith. But being offended is not - and should not be - a licence to practice censorship. If they don't like the books, they don't have to read them.
I have no objection to people following whatever faith they choose providing they don't try to impose those beliefs on others against their will. I won't try to convert Muslims - or any other believers - to agnosticism or atheism. I don't want Muslims or Christians or cephalopodiatrists telling me what I can and cannot read.
Posted by: Julian | August 16, 2008 2:02 PM
UT actually has pretty stellar cultural, political, history, and foreign policy departments. It may be a state school, but its high up there quality wise (too bad it has so many stupid frat rats :/).
Even having said that though, I agree that its a peculiar statement to make; maybe this is an example of the Telephone Game in real life? We actually have a fairly significant and active Near Eastern population at the Austin campus, but it's really more dedicated to political issues, like Palestine, or Turkey and the EU than to religious questions. Beyond that, it gets along just fine with Hillel(sp?), so I doubt this could be some religious over-reaction on the professor's part.
I'd say this likely is simply a case of the professor being overly sensitive to Near Eastern views. Given the political situation in Mesopotamia atm, and the dismal level our reputation is at over there right now, perhaps she (or he) thought that this book could upset some of the delicate processes we're trying to rehabilitate by offending the Islamic restriction against depictions of Muhammad, that, having done this, radical imams would seize on to the book to argue how vile and deep the Christian hatred of Islam is, or how apostate U.S. Muslims are, and from there, argue against dealing with us. If that's the case though, I'd disagree. Imam's may get attention with their pronouncements but, contrary to what people think, they do not run Muslim society. If the secular authorities see U.S. actions as being in their interests, then religious pronouncements will slide off their backs like water off a duck.
Posted by: raven | August 16, 2008 2:04 PM
Jason the fundie isn't crazy. He is just a modern day cargo cultist praying for death and destruction to come out of the sky. At least the Pacific islander cargo cultists wanted something tangible and useful, canned food, shovels, fishing tackle and so on.
Posted by: Richard Harris | August 16, 2008 2:05 PM
Elf Eye @ # 10, ...death threats from swarthy towel heads!
For your information, they don't wear towels on their heads, they're little sheets. They are, therefore, little sheet heads.
Posted by: becca | August 16, 2008 2:06 PM
The blog SmartBitchesTrashyBooks.com has three entries about this book. at one, http://tinyurl.com/63djpk, you can read a .pdf of the prolog. There's further discussion of why the book was killed at http://tinyurl.com/25nw2s.
Posted by: Jared | August 16, 2008 2:07 PM
Something which would really impress me would be for the author to make the book available for download for a few dollars (just print it yourself). If, of course, no other publisher picks it up. The prologue is already available here:
http://www.smartbitchestrashybooks.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the-jewel-of-medina-the-prologue/
Posted by: Louis | August 16, 2008 2:09 PM
You always pick on christians, you don't have the balls to pick on anyone who might blow you up like the muslimists....
.......waaaaaaaaaaaaait a minute!
;-)
Louis
Posted by: pcarini | August 16, 2008 2:14 PM
@MYOB (#23): I think the spelling/grammar checker is part of your browser, not scienceblogs. Here's a simple test: find another site with a big text box for entering in comments, and see if it behaves in the same way.
On topic, I was going to recommend wikileaks for Sherry Jones, before I read that RH let her out of the contract.
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 16, 2008 2:28 PM
Um, no. Not at all.
PS: Downe weeth ourthugrafic phashismn!
PPS: Scienceblogs does no spelling check. That's a firefox feature. You don't like it, right-click, and uncheck "Check spelling".
Posted by: mayhempix | August 16, 2008 2:30 PM
A big problem is that certain uninformed fundamentalist members of the left (and I am an unapologetic leftist) equate criticism of Islam as support of the "Islamofascism" fear-mongering tactics used by Bush and the right to promote the war in Iraq and the possible invasion of Iran. I have even heard some claim that Iran is a virtual paradise compared to the US. One leftist "brother" told me it was none of our business when I pointed out that Iran had executed by crane hanging with metal cables, two minors for engaging in homosexual acts. My response was that human rights is everyone's business be it clitoral castration in Africa or beating gays to death in the US.
Did anyone else ever read "The Jesus Incident"? It was a fictionalized novel about the life and conspiracy of Jebus' resurrection with plenty of "seed spilling". Far more sexy, radical and "blasphemous" than Last Temptation, I was disappointed that the movie was never greenlighted.
Posted by: secularguy | August 16, 2008 2:35 PM
Religionists and their problem with understanding the concept of fiction ...
Posted by: Rob | August 16, 2008 2:54 PM
I would like to point out that during PZ's absence, there's been a conspicuous lack of poll crashing.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10103521/
Does "In God We Trust" belong on our currency?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 16, 2008 2:54 PM
It is permissible at Pharyngula to draw Mohammed cartoons on crackers, but only from sundown on Friday until sundown on Saturday.
Posted by: inkadu | August 16, 2008 2:57 PM
Nobody seems to have explicitly mentioned this yet: but the book doesn't seem to be critical of Islam. At least, that's not the problem Danio mentioned. The problem is it treats Mohammed as a human being, likely with human foibles.
The word for this is not criticism, it's blasphemy. Let Random House say it won't print blasphemies -- then their idiocy will be (more) obvious.
Posted by: Danio | August 16, 2008 3:02 PM
Rob @35:
I can't speak for the other Minions, but I have purposely avoided posting a link to this particular poll. It's an old poll, attached to a story that originated in November 2005. While it is indeed impressive that the links to the poll provide in numerous recent comments have managed to swing the 'yes' votes from 9% to around 40%, posting it at the top of the page would, for me, feel like a cheap bid for attention. YMMV. Carry on.
Posted by: Escuerd | August 16, 2008 3:05 PM
"I long as much for the freedom to call 'bullshit' when warranted as I do for the day when, through efforts of vocal rationalists and moderates, the chinks..."
The what? Not racist, eh? Your true colors have just shown through, Danio.
First you support the publication of slander of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), and next thing you know, you're flinging racial slurs left and right.
[This post was satire, just for the record. Damn you, Poe's Law!]
Posted by: Escuerd | August 16, 2008 3:10 PM
@ Danio @ #38:
Speaking of cheap bids for attention,
PZ is still number two with a meager 24% of the vote in this poll:
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=10220
And despite my earlier attempt at crashing, evolution only leads by a paltry 51% here:
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/paris-tx/TD054PUM4CROE27P6
Yes, I'm being a bit of a whore. No, I have no shame.
Posted by: Sastra | August 16, 2008 3:11 PM
Excellent post, Danio. I'm glad you commented on this -- Ophelia Benson has been waxing wroth over it on Butterflies and Wheels. The common tendency to treat religious belief itself with deference and respect -- regardless of its content or its truth -- is often kicked into high gear when the believer is somehow seen to be an oppressed minority or from another culture. Suddenly, those people shouldn't be treated like rational human individuals who share a common ground, but as "The Other" -- delicate flowers of sensitivity defined by their culture, with its own ways of knowing and doing. What masquerades as "respect" is really a sort of romanticized essentialism, dividing humanity off into air-tight compartments in the name of diversity.
(OT: I leave for camping with my mom today, and will be offline till next Friday. Give my regards to PZ, and to all and sundry -- thanks for the fish!) :)
Posted by: Briar | August 16, 2008 3:17 PM
What Hari ignores is that, in this country, Islam is a minority faith held in the main by groups which are marginalised and vulnerable to discrimation due to the ignorant racism they evoke. That's why we have to think carefully before adding fuel to the racist fire. When we criticise Christianity and Judaism (Judeo-Christian culture, that vile invention) we challenge those with power, those using power to impose injustice on the weak and excluded (as in Palestine). Helping Judeo-Christian persecution of those it deems enemies is an act unworthy of liberals of any kind, including atheists.
Posted by: Danio | August 16, 2008 3:18 PM
Inkadu,
You are right that the concern seems to be about the depiction of Mohammed in the book. Apparently it was deemed to be just as likely to cause outrage as the now infamous Danish cartoons, and I guess unabashedly producing something blasphemous = criticism in some circles. I would argue that the reaction itself constitutes a criticism, which I think is what Hari is getting at. Pulling the book presupposes that the followers of the Islamic faith would be incapable of dealing with its release on their own.
Here's another take on the matter, with more info about the reaction of the UT Prof who condemned the book.
Posted by: Ruth Dickson | August 16, 2008 3:19 PM
The Firefox spellchecker is an equal opportunity theist/atheist. Although it will automatically capitalize the names of religions, it will also point to the word "bible" as an advertisement. If you use their AdBlocker plug-in, it will offer to 'block this item' whenever it appears.
Posted by: Olorin | August 16, 2008 3:22 PM
Huh. Nice feigned occupatio in the title, Danio
Posted by: inkadu | August 16, 2008 3:25 PM
Oppressed minorities don't have books cancelled on their behalf.
Posted by: mac | August 16, 2008 3:26 PM
I posted on this cop out by Random House and found their spineless safe-than-sorry position inexcusable.
Geert Wilder's video Fitna is a lot more offensive - it targets the Qur'an directly and Muslims in a graphic, documentary fashion. There were plenty of threats of blood and mayhem if it was released - virtually no violence ensued.
Islam, unlike other religions, has a tendency to project its control mechanisms onto non-believers ... onto society at large. This is completely unacceptable and it has to be resisted. I'm not referring exclusively to Islam, but to Christianity also.
These religions have no mandate over non-believers, nor do they have sacred copyright over their scripture. The days when they could burn infidels at the stake haven't yet returned.They can't be allowed to dictate the rules.
Posted by: scooter | August 16, 2008 3:31 PM
As far as the East Ender perspective, consult Pat Condell over on You Tube as far as caving into Islam out of fear, liberalism or both.
He seems like a Michael Savage styled bigot from a US perspective, but the situation is different.
I see the problem in GB a result of a state religion, which makes it difficult to argue from a legal secular position.
London has had problems with neo fascist groups and skinheads targeting ethnic minorities so they instituted an anti-blasphemy law protecting Jews and Sikhs, prohibiting criticism of their fairy tales.
During the cartoon frenzy, Muslim interest groups managed to push a bill into Parliament with identical protections. It was backed by 'Tony the Christian'.
I covered this a couple of years ago, if you're interested Rowan Atkinson Beans Blair
The title is due to the irony of Rowan Atkinson leading the charge against this bill, giving a speech to Parliament, and handing 'Tony the Christian's' reign of servility it's first legislative defeat.
Unfortunately I had to read the speech because there was no recording of it.
I'm not sure if the original anti-blasphemy law has been repealed in the interim.
Posted by: BobC | August 16, 2008 3:33 PM
Part of being a successful person is not getting killed, and the managers of Random House might not much care for the idea of getting murdered by Muslim extremists.
I don't know what the solution is. It's horrible to censor a book that might offend idiots just because the idiots are dangerous.
Off-topic: Rob in #35 talked about the MSNBC poll that asks does "In God We Trust" belong on our currency? It's looks like the Christian theocrats are going to win it, no matter how many readers of this blog try to defend the Establishment Clause.
Posted by: inkadu | August 16, 2008 3:38 PM
Briar - Frankly, I find your view offensive to minority atheism. How dare you impugn liberal atheists are in cahoots with Islamaphobic genocidal Christianists? You are just giving ammunition to the majority to oppress us further. I think it would just be better if you didn't say anything about anyone anymore ever; you'll be sure to be giving implicit support to some horrid cause or another; and I don't think that's worthy of a liberal.
Danio - The strange thing I think the liberal fear of upsetting the Muslim is the flip side of the conservative fear of Islamafascism. They both stem from the idea that Muslims are irrational hot heads. Conservatives would like to exterminate them (or convert them), and liberals would like to put them all in day care and teach them the Way of Peace. Both views are equally insulting.
Posted by: negentropyeater | August 16, 2008 3:41 PM
Danio,
And in all fairness, here's the reply of that UT Prof, Denise A. Spellberg:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121824366910026293.html
Not that I think it matters much to the essential point of Hari's piece, just so that one can get the complete picture.
Posted by: B.T. Murtagh | August 16, 2008 3:45 PM
What a phenomenally annoying comment system the Independent uses.
The most recent comments are at the top, so if anyone makes reference without quoting to a previous comment (and I've yet to see anyone who had the courtesy to use comment numbers to indicate what they were referring to) you have to go back and try to find it, sometimes a page or two back, scrolling down to get below the entire article at the top each time. Sadistic.
The organization of the suras in the Koran makes more sense, and that's not because they make any sense at all.
Posted by: mayhempix | August 16, 2008 3:47 PM
- Posted by: scooter | August 16, 2008 3:31 PM
- "As far as the East Ender perspective, consult Pat Condell over on You Tube as far as caving into Islam out of fear, liberalism or both.
He seems like a Michael Savage styled bigot from a US perspective, but the situation is different."-
Condell and Savage have nothing in common.
Condell uses the blunt forces of reason and satire and is even across the board in his depictions of the insanity of all religions. You may not agree with his tactics but his scathing criticisms are not bigotry.
Savage uses a chainsaw of racism and bigotry to attract legions of idiots to his radio show to sell advertising slots. He is also the main investor and owns with his son "Rock Star" energy drinks. There is a growing movement to boycott "Rock Star" and I recommend that everyone do the same.
Posted by: inkadu | August 16, 2008 3:56 PM
Scooter - The European situation is almost completely different than it is here, you're right. I remember a play that muslims didn't like was shut down in Britain because of fear of violence. That bugs me. A few years ago, some "conservative" cold-country (Norway? Sweden?) politician was killed by mulsims because he was anti-muslim. I thought, well, that's terrible, but understandable. I mean, I'd understand if black people gunned down the grand wizard of the KKK. But the more I learned about this "conservative" politician, the more sense his position made. He was a homosexual, and it makes sense for homosexuals not to be too excited about large communities of staunchly anti-gay muslims moving into a modern, liberal, gay legal paradise.
Here in America, the culture warriors all tend to be regressive. Liberals don't complain about straight characters being introduced into gay sitcoms. So when I, as an American, hear people bashing people different from them, I assume they are reactionary tribalists.
But orthodox religions... they do creep me out. They don't integrate well. I want my modern society. I don't care if we speak Spanish in the United States, and I don't care if we're black, brown, or have tentacles or anything. But what I do care about is that we are a free, liberal society, and I'd be concerned on those grounds about ANY orthodox religious group that has trouble getting with the Enlightenment program. I don't think the United States has much to worry about - we're pretty damn big and seem to do a good job integrating new groups; so cultural concerns in the US would seem to be a bit hysterical.
And I don't really know much about the European sitch. Probably most of the anti-immigrant fervor is straight xenophobia. But an argument can be made for preservation of values, in this context, without sounding like Pat Roberson or David Duke.
Posted by: inkadu | August 16, 2008 3:59 PM
Scooter - The European situation is almost completely different than it is here, you're right. I remember a play that muslims didn't like was shut down in Britain because of fear of violence. That bugs me. A few years ago, some "conservative" cold-country (Norway? Sweden?) politician was killed by mulsims because he was anti-muslim. I thought, well, that's terrible, but understandable. I mean, I'd understand if black people gunned down the grand wizard of the KKK. But the more I learned about this "conservative" politician, the more sense his position made. He was a homosexual, and it makes sense for homosexuals not to be too excited about large communities of staunchly anti-gay muslims moving into a modern, liberal, gay legal paradise.
Here in America, the culture warriors all tend to be regressive. Liberals don't complain about straight characters being introduced into gay sitcoms. So when I, as an American, hear people bashing people different from them, I assume they are reactionary tribalists.
But orthodox religions... they do creep me out. They don't integrate well. I want my modern society. I don't care if we speak Spanish in the United States, and I don't care if we're black, brown, or have tentacles or anything. But what I do care about is that we are a free, liberal society, and I'd be concerned on those grounds about ANY orthodox religious group that has trouble getting with the Enlightenment program. I don't think the United States has much to worry about - we're pretty damn big and seem to do a good job integrating new groups; so cultural concerns in the US would seem to be a bit hysterical.
And I don't really know much about the European sitch. Probably most of the anti-immigrant fervor is straight xenophobia. But an argument can be made for preservation of values, in this context, without sounding like Pat Roberson or David Duke.
Posted by: mayhempix | August 16, 2008 4:08 PM
Posted by: Briar | August 16, 2008 3:17 PM
-" Helping Judeo-Christian persecution of those it deems enemies is an act unworthy of liberals of any kind, including atheists."
I'm sorry but this is complete BS. To claim criticizing Islam fuels the fires of wingnut bigotry is ridiculous. You are making a causal relationship that has no proof in fact. If you haven't, read my post at #33. To deny human rights violations by any group on the basis of political correctness is wrong.
Muslims in the US who are concerned about false perceptions of the religion they practice have every opportunity to speak out and present their point of view. But I can promise you that will not change the minds of the wingnut bigots who have already decided what is evil in this world. To hold atheists or anyone else including those on the left who point out the foolishness of Islamic fundamentalism as responsible for acts of of verbal and physical aggression by the bigots and racists is foolish and irresponsible.
Posted by: scooter | August 16, 2008 4:10 PM
#53
I agree with your post.
However, if Pat Condell were talking about the United States, while going off on Muslims taking over because of Liberals, he might be confused with Michael Savage, because it would be somewhat baseless.
Because he is talking about London, he is definitely NOT MICHAEL SAVAGE.
I'm sorry if that was unclear..
I did find it disturbing that Condell includes Michael Savage rants in his Favorites, I'll write that off as Condell's ignorance of US ChristoFascism on the ground.
Houston has a huge population of Arabs, and Middle Easterners because of the oil trade. There's no way they would attempt the antics they do in GB, they are too busy looking over their shoulders already.
You lay low when the skinheads are the moderates, and everybody has assault rifles. I see families out and about in Arab dress, they keep their children close, speak softly and tend not to interact more than necessary.
they're frightened, and probably horrified if they are unlucky enough to stumbe across AM radio freaks like Savage, he ain't the only one
Posted by: negentropyeater | August 16, 2008 4:20 PM
Inkadu,
are you talking of Pim Fortuyn ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pim_Fortuyn
The "cold country" then was the Netherlands (not that "conservatve" btw, neither are Norway or Sweden, at least compared with the USA) ? He wasn't killed by a muslim, but "by a militant animal rights activist Volkert van der Graaf, who claimed in court to murdering Fortuyn to stop him exploiting Muslims as "scapegoats" and targeting "the weak parts of society to score points" in seeking political power."
Or was it another openly gay politician with negative views on Islam ?
Posted by: Rey Fox | August 16, 2008 4:22 PM
"If people learned the definition and etymology of the word bigot they would hopefully use it less often."
As we saw during the whole cracker debate, people are quite happy to make up their own definitions of the word "bigot".
Posted by: mayhempix | August 16, 2008 4:24 PM
- Posted by: scooter | August 16, 2008 4:10 PM#53
- "I did find it disturbing that Condell includes Michael Savage rants in his Favorites, I'll write that off as Condell's ignorance of US ChristoFascism on the ground." -
Thanks for the response. I was not aware that Condell had condoned any Savage rants and also find it disturbing. Hopefully he is misinterpreting Savage in the context of Islamic extremism in Europe.
Posted by: inkadu | August 16, 2008 4:30 PM
Negentropyeater - Righto. Pim Fortuyn. And this is why I'd be a terrible eye-witness at any trial. "Are you sure, Mr. Inkadu?" "No, I'm not. I pretty much don't trust a single damn thing that's in my head. I probably made most of it up." And now I have to revise my entire polemic about teh muslims in Europe, since he was assassinated by an extremist of the Briar-persuasion and not an actual muslim. BTW - I think he was described as "conservative" by the press, which, as far as his immigration policy goes, he probably was.
Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | August 16, 2008 4:35 PM
MYOB wrote:
One of the foundations is that we insist "Muslim" isn't a proper noun? I dislike the religion as much as anyone here, but it seems silly to me to throw out proper English as a way to lessen the opponent.
Posted by: negentropyeater | August 16, 2008 4:38 PM
Well, Fortuyn was a bit of a special case, he was supposed to be a Catholic, but "conservative" in the American sense, I wouldn't say so. He was far-right, but not really. Just someone difficult to put a label on.
Posted by: SC | August 16, 2008 4:48 PM
Here's some information on recent developments in Iran that I've received over the past few days:
http://www.labourstart.org/cgi-bin/solidarityforever/show_campaign.cgi?c=416
http://iran-women-solidarity.net/spip.php?article430
There seems to be a campaign underway against the "Family Protection Bill," but I've had technical problems getting to it. I'll post more information as I get it.
Posted by: inkadu | August 16, 2008 4:55 PM
Tabby -
Muslim may be a proper noun, but it seems weird to capitalize to me, because it's just another descriptor, no more or less important than anyone else. Do we capitalize black, white, blond, conservative, liberal? In that context, it doesn't make much sense to capitalize someone's religion. The only thing I tend to capitalize is names of people or localities...
Ah, the politics of grammar...
Posted by: scooter | August 16, 2008 5:01 PM
The key to Fortuyn's seemingly confusing views my very well be the fact of his being Gay.
I have a friend in NYC who does a program on WBAI, and he is virulently anti-muslim, while also a staunch human rights advocate, and a lefty/moderate.
The reason he does not abide with typical lefty tolerance of Islam is quite simple.
He would regularly read off the names of young men who had been recently executed for homosexuality, just in Iran, and believe me, it makes the TX execution mill seem humanitarian.
In the present, there are no Christian nor Jewish nor secular nations that execute homosexuals, so you can not make the argument that Islam is just another quirky stoopid religion like Christianity to someone who is serious about Gay human rights.
This might explain Mr. Fortuyn's political views
Posted by: inkadu | August 16, 2008 5:01 PM
Negentropyeater - In the United States, a conservative gay politician is a contradiction in terms.
Posted by: El Herring | August 16, 2008 5:05 PM
Inkadu #55: I'd just like to point out that it was a Sikh play, not a Muslim one, that was cancelled due to protests (by Sikhs). It happened in my home town, Birmingham (England).
It's unusual for Sikhs to cause such a rumpus, but personally I don't care who it was. If you don't like something, you have no right to stop others seeing it.
Posted by: craig | August 16, 2008 5:09 PM
"What Hari ignores is that, in this country, Islam is a minority faith held in the main by groups which are marginalised and vulnerable to discrimation due to the ignorant racism they evoke."
The obvious solution is to be evenhanded. Write a novel where Jesus and Mohammed come back, fall in love and get married.
Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | August 16, 2008 5:12 PM
inkadu wrote:
I'm Canadian (sorry - canadian). We do capitalize Liberal and Conservative here. :)
Seriously, if someone is a member of the Liberal or Conservative parties, we do capitalize the word that shows their affiliation. Just as you (hopefully) capitalize Democrat or Republican.
Islam, as with Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. is a proper noun, and following that, so are Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.
Belgium is the name of a country, and Belgian is just a descriptor relating to the citizens of that country, but we wouldn't call them "belgians" just because we don't believe the nation really exists ( http://zapatopi.net/belgium/ ).
Religion needs to be diminished, but through logic, reason, ideas, and more reason. Playing fast and loose with grammar is just silly and only a few steps above nonsense like "feminazis" and "LIEberals".
Posted by: scooter | August 16, 2008 5:12 PM
#67
Cmon inkadu, certainly you mean, In the United States, a conservative OPENLY gay politician is a contradiction in terms.
Otherwise, they seem to be quite the norm, you can spot them by their 'over-the-top' voting records on Family Values issues.
Posted by: Greta Christina | August 16, 2008 5:25 PM
They should be so lucky. "The Satanic Verses" was HUGE seller. The argle-bargle turned a book that normally would have been bought and read by a handful of literary fiction readers into an unstoppable best-seller.
Posted by: valor | August 16, 2008 5:39 PM
Jewel of Medina isn't even about Mohamed (so many different ways to spell that....). It's primarily about his wife A'isha.
I think that the book is in no way supposed to be critical of Islam. (Sherry Jones learned Arabic to write it. Have you ever tried to learn Arabic? there are 8 distinct "h" sounds. No one learns that with out love).
The thing that bugs on me is that Random House should have realized months before print date, like when the book was first shopped to them, that it might rub some people the wrong way. If they were going to be cowards, they should have been cowards a long time ago.
Posted by: David Marjanović | August 16, 2008 5:42 PM
The book has seen the light of day.
In Serbia.
Dragulj Medine by Šeri Džons is delivered to the USA and Canada within 7 to 15 working days...
It's a small world...
Posted by: David Marjanović | August 16, 2008 5:45 PM
How did you count? I can't get beyond 5 or maybe 6 by the most generous definition... :o)
Posted by: Big Cat | August 16, 2008 5:47 PM
Actually I'd REALLY like to see a movie about the life of the prophet Mohammed starring Mel Brooks :)
Posted by: Lancelot Gobbo | August 16, 2008 5:51 PM
If no publisher will take this book, then it should be sent to lulu.com as a PDF where it can be sold as a print-on-demand book for whatever profit the author deems appropriate. Sounds like there would be a few copies sold to Pharyngula readers!
Posted by: Moses | August 16, 2008 6:10 PM
I want me some crackers!
Posted by: Mark | August 16, 2008 6:21 PM
I hope the book gets published at some point, because this is just ridiculous.
I mean, it's one thing for cowards to capitulate when Islamic radicals threaten them. It's quite another to capitulate before the radicals have even had a chance to make any threats! I mean, what do we call people who are way more cowardly than the people that we are calling cowards now? Ultra-cowards? Double-plus cowards? Do we need a whole new way to describe cowardice? Given the way that society is headed, we'll probably require a logarithmic scale or something.
Posted by: negentropyeater | August 16, 2008 6:23 PM
David 74,
too bad !
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/news/article_1424597.php/Serbian_publisher_withdraws_Jones_book_after_protests_by_Muslims
Serbian publisher withdraws Jones book after protests by Muslims
Posted by: DiscoveredJoys | August 16, 2008 6:25 PM