Flies That Buzz…

So there I was completing a long overdue spring clean of my hard-drive when I stumbled upon a copy of this article “An inability to tolerate Islam contradicts western values” from the Guardian (actually it was The Observer newspaper). I read through the piece and found myself becoming increasingly annoyed at what at face value is a sound train of thought. The argument follows the line that authors in having freedom to comment on what they like, also have a duty to act responsibly. As is common nowadays the article referred to a (no doubt not very extensive) Gallup poll taken amongst Muslims which asked, in effect, if they hated Western culture. Ostensibly the result was that after the West’s technology, the thing most admired was the freedom to worship, freedom of assembly and the free reign of the press. These are things that I have argued elsewhere we take for granted, and are not liberties available to vast areas of the globe. The author then went on to state that with freedom of expression came responsibility. In this she implied that those who publish articles condemning or ridiculing a target should be aware of that target’s sensibilities. We don’t want to hurt their feelings, do we?

But this does not make sense. If you are critical of something, if you have an opinion and you decide to publish commentary to that effect, it seems blatantly obvious that readers will be forced into evaluating their stance on that subject. Some will agree, some won’t. It is an exercise in futility to try and encompass every possibly opinion. Furthermore, and in particular with regard to Islamic people resident in the West, they must be more grown up. I refute every aspect of their (and other) religions, I despise their medieval lazy mans approach to life and the philosophy that they espouse. But I also acknowledge their freedom to worship whomsoever they like.

In the West there are extremely hard fought freedoms alluded to above. This means people feeling free to provide negative criticism and ridicule against whatsoever they wish. Yet the monotheists regularly pop their head over the parapet to whinge about infringement or insults against their creed. That is part of the package of living in the West and I assume that is why so many people wish to do so. Heresy is not a crime here, or at least it shouldn’t be.

The author mentioned responsibility, but where does that start and where is the line drawn? We run the risk of constraining open mindedness by imposing strictures on what can and cannot be said. The whole point is that in receiving an allegation or rebuttal of ones stance, freedom of expression allows the subject to respond in kind. If Islamic communities feel that they are coming under verbal fire from various quarters then they should use the very same avenues of communication to issue rebuttals – unlike in Iran they have the freedom to do so.

The article mentions that in East London, members of a Christian community expressed their opposition to a mosque being built. The article continues that the message this sends is of “western freedom of worship not, apparently, applying to Islam”. But how did she come to this conclusion? The petition does not imply that at all. How did she get from some East Londoners to the Western world? I doubt if people in Paris, Berlin, Sydney or New York are even aware that there is an argument over this. I live in the same city and I wasn’t aware. If people object to something they have a right to voice their opinions. I am tired of the whining emanating in particular from the Muslim community about cartoonsor novels or such like – but I do not claim to speak for everybody or indeed anybody else. Likewise, people objecting in a small part of a small country about a mosque being built are not representative of western society and the author is wrong to imply so.

In the case of the proposed mosque, many of the arguments stem from the fact that it is for the use of the Tablighi Jamaat sect (mind you, with a proposed capacity of 40,000 I am not sure if it can be classified as a sect). To be honest I know nothing about this group, by all accounts they are media shy which automatically puts them under suspicion in some people’s minds, both western and Islamic alike. Maybe what we should do is argue that the mosque could be built if it allows women unfettered access. This would be in keeping with our (alleged) equalities policy. No women – no mosque (to clarify what I am waffling on about see the last paragraph of this article which has a comment from Murad Qureshi a member of The London Assembly).

People reap many dividends from living in the West and should be grown up enough to take criticism that is part of the package of living there. It is unfortunate that the religious community seems by and large unable to do so – this no doubt due to the very weak position that they are arguing from. Maybe they should forsake their monotheism and start doing something that requires more intellectual vigour. David Ben-Gurion summed this up aptly when he said that the test of Democracy is freedom of criticism. I might add that this is freedom without any strictures despite the risk of hurting the feelings of others.