Thinking inside the iron box

For the faithful, the vantage point of the documentary 'Islam: The Untold Story' is inconceivable.

For the faithful, the portrayal of Muslims in the sitcom 'Citizen Khan' is disrespectful.

For the faithful, the disrespect shown by the makers of 'the innocence of Muslims' is intolerable.

The blasphemy card may be raised by those of us content to voice opinion calmly as well as men inclined to shout. Although the expression may be different, the card remains the same- there are things that a person of faith simply cannot abide.      

The three examples I have given are recent symptoms of a situation that is old news. Inside and outside the faith it is known that there are sections of Muslims who routinely take deep offence. Their discontent is no secret, from peaceful protest to the burning of flags, their sensitivity is made clear.

The events I write about are a little older than the recent wave of troubles. I pondered them at the time they occurred but when the dust settled, so too did my thoughts. The latest hysteria spurned me to revisit my opinion, now crystallised in this blog.

Submission

Theo Van Gogh had directed a short film based around the experience of a downtrodden women within a Muslim country. He had collaborated with writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Muslim who has seemingly made it her life's work to denigrate Islam.

Ostensibly titled Submission, the film is wilfully provocative as it stamps through territory few dare to trespass. As the drama unfolded, my eyebrows raised and did not relax until I stopped watching.

Submission is a strange mix of activism and clumsy propaganda. I was moved by the portrayal of domestic abuse, but not impressed with the way that passages from the Quran were super imposed over half naked bodies. It places Islam soley in a negative light, inferring a direct link between the subjugation of women and passages from the Quran.

The message of the film maybe one sided and bullishly inappropriate, yet it cannot be denied that there exists institutional sexism in countries such as Saudi Arabia. Women have basic freedoms stifled there, including the right to vote and drive. Whether the constraints in Saudi Arabia are Islamic depends on which interpretation of Islam you ascribe to. And therein lies the problem, my Islam may reflect my liberal values as easily as it can interpreted to support the perspective of the extremely conservative.

Not long after the film’s release Theo was cycling to work when he was confronted and shot eight times by Mohammed Bouyeri. The scene descended into a horror scene as Bouyeri is said to have unsuccessfully tried to decapitate Theo whilst he bled to death. 

The killing was carried out as both punishment and warning to those who would insult Islam. 

Who knows whether Theo's murderer saw submission or merely heard of it’s disrespect. All I can do is gauge the furious reaction of a man whose religious zeal is reflected in the poem discovered upon his arrest. Grandiose and forthright, the poem is a window into his interpretation of a faith that consumed him to the point of tragedy.

baptised in blood 

So this is my final word… Riddled with bullets… Baptised in blood… As I had hoped. I am leaving a message… For you…the fighter… The tree of Tawheed is waiting… Yearning for your blood… Enter the bargain… And Allah opens the way… He gives you the Garden… Instead of the earthly rubble. To the enemy I have something to say… You will surely die… Wherever in the world you go… Death is waiting for you… Chased by the knights of DEATH… Who paint the streets red. For the hypocrites I have one final word… Wish DEATH or hold your tongue and …sit. Dear brothers and sisters, my end is nigh… But this certainly does not end the story.

Religion and intolerance are the deadly combination prone to fuse and explode with tragic consequences. Men such as Mohammed Bouyeri are the twisted minority amongst Muslims, but his interpretation of Islam is based on the same Koran that all Muslim's read. Many will argue that it is the conditions, social and political that give rise to the opposing manifestations of a religion. I believe this is true, but then it implies a counterpoint truth that some may find uncomfortable. Islam is wide open to diverging interpretations- like water it easily fills different shaped containers. 

It is the actions of the unhinged few who capture the media’s attention time and time again. And It is largely because of them that Islam is tarnished with a reputation that is perceived to be aggressively intolerant to criticism. Accordingly the cherished western ideal of 'free speech' has an uneasy relationship with Islam.

Earlier this year I attended a discussion about this very topic. 'DV8; can we talk about this?', was a platform to discuss issues raised in the National Theatre Production of the same name.

The conversation centred around the issue of freedom of speech and its documented stormy relationship with Islam. It was a heated debate at times due to the opposing views held with conviction. The question simply put, does Islam deserve its reputation for hypersensitivity to criticism?

In the Muslim corner was Inayat Bunglawala, media secretary for the Muslim council of Britain. His opponent for the evening was ex-Muslim and civil rights campaigner, Maryam Namzie.

Maryam is notorious for her outspoken opinions on Islam and this event was the perfect platform for her to vent. The focus was supposed to be on the issue of freedom of speech but she very quickly sidestepped into more general criticisms. She spoke of the inherent unfairness of shariah law in the rights it affords women. The example she gave was that sharia courts do not recognise the testimony of a female as being equal to that of a male. She then followed with an attack on the government for allowing sharia courts to make judgements in civil disputes. To her mind, western values reflected in English law are not perfect, however it is a more ethical system than it's Islamic counterpart. 

Her views are not surprisingly unpopular amongst Muslims but here Maryam draws a distinction between her criticism of Islamic doctrines opposed to an attack on Muslims as people. She spoke of her family as moderate, law abiding Muslims who typify the majority of Muslims in the UK. However she also identifies a sinister section of Muslims she calls 'Islamists'. 

Islamism was a label I first heard used by former Muslim radical turned author Ed Hussain. An Islamist is politically driven and puritanical in their interpretation of Islam. They strive towards a global Islamic state and are intolerant of anything outside of their world view. When Inayat challenged Maryam on her use of the term, she became defensive, appearing paranoid in her proclamations about the Islamist threat. Inayat rightly inferred that the term was being used to denigrate and laughed when she responded to his goading, accusing him of being an Islamist.

Within Islamic communities, those who fit the description of the 'Islamist' described by Maryam do exist. And in the context of political ideology, 'islamism', epitomised by Taliban rule in Afghanistan might easily be called fascism. Unfortunately the term 'Islamist' does not register with most people, Muslim or otherwise. It has its use in discussions where categories are invented and labels placed on people. But in reality the terms 'muslim' and 'Islam' are already synonymous without further thought for the distinction of an 'Islamist' or 'islamism'. In my experience,  rather than highlighting the perceived bad apples, the term currently serves a greater consequence of alienating moderate Muslims. 

Free Speech

As the discussion progressed, Inayat made it clear that he did not believe that Islam had an problem with free speech. This was a predictable stance considering his role in the ideological battle. But to me it was a deceitful claim I could not co-sign. Perhaps it was wishful thinking or maybe Inayat meant free speech within the boundaries of dogma. To my mind it has always been the case that there are topics within Islam that are absolute no go areas. I am Muslim, raised by Muslim parents, come of age amongst Muslim friends. Far from freedom of speech, there is zero tolerance for any question over the integrity of the Quran or prophet Muhamed. The long established doctrines of the faith require an absolute acceptance of the Quran as the preserved word of Allah, revealed to the final messenger, prophet Mohammed. 

Prophet Mohammed is held up as an ideal, the best of creation, beyond criticism. The boundaries are made clear for all to see and the faithful do not hesitate to defend his name when they are encroached.

Raised with this understanding, absolute acceptance of doctrine is part of your identity. Accordingly it is only natural to perceive dialogue that goes against this as a personal attack. A personal attack may illicit an emotional response, and some people are more emotional than others.

Twitter Blasphemy

This year Saudi Arabian resident Hamza Kasgari tweeted about prophet Mohamed amongst other things,

"On your birthday I find you in front of me wherever I go, I love many things about you and hate others, and there are many things about you I don't understand."

"On your birthday I won't bow in front of you, I won't kiss your hand. Instead, I will shake it as an equal, I will smile at you and you will smile back and I will talk to you as a friend, no more."

"All the great gods that we worship, all the great fears that we dread, all the desires that we wait for impatiently are but figments of our imagination."

"No Saudi women will go to hell, because it's impossible to go there twice."

Clerics and sections of society alike were deeply aggrieved, their discontent culminated in a sizeable facebook group calling for his death. He fled for his life but was extradited back to Saudi Arabia where he remains incarcerated on a charge of blasphemy. Although I do not agree with this hysterical reaction, Hamza should not be surprised. If you are born and raised within Islamic culture you will instinctively know of the no go areas. If we also consider the fact that Hamza Kashgari lived in Saudi Arabia, the geographical and spiritual home of Islam, the response is not surprising at all. 

But what if Hamza did know better? There are two factors that I considered as parts of he's motivation. The first is youthful exuberance in pursuit of attention. The human condition craves it and some will do the reckless to achieve it. The second is activism, Hamza Kashgari may be more calculating than perhaps he is given credit. Unreserved courage may have got the better of him in the footsteps of dissenters such as Rosa Parks. Rosa in an iconic moment, galvanised the civil rights movement when she refused to adhere to oppression. Rules dictated that she must give up her seat on the bus for a person of white skin. Rosa made a conscious decision to dissent, knowing full well she would face the wrath of society. Yet she still did it and in doing so she made a difference.

Freedom of speech is an extension of freedom of thought. If I am honest, Islamic sensibilities and the notion of free thinking will always clash where the dialogue serves to undermine long established doctrine held dear. A man may marry outside of the faith and have up to four wives, a woman may do neither. Positions such as this have been clarified and cemented centuries ago by scholars. To question the fairness of such a principle is to skate on thin ice. There exists an intolerance that has its foundation in doctrine that explicitly forbids you to question authority. Reinterpretation of the Quran to support new approaches to old ideas is expressly forbidden. Such 'innovation' is considered heretical due to an 11th century Fatwa that declared the gates of interpretation closed, indefinitely.  We now find ourselves in the position where Muslims in the 21st century are bound by the interpretation of scholars whose could not see beyond the century in which they existed. The irony of this inflexibility is that we still have a multitude of sects within the body of Muslims, each side sincerely declaring that the other side is misguided due to their diverging interpretation and practice. 

The issue of free speech and Islam is as much a problem within the faith as it is an external issue. Indeed the voracity of the response to external criticism is underpinned by the fierce restraint on internal dialogue.

A bizarre situation occurred last year, the Guardian newspaper reported..

Dr Usama Hasan, vice-chairman at Leyton mosque and a senior lecturerin engineering at Middlesex University, ceased delivering Friday prayers after 25 years of service when 50 Muslim protesters disrupted his lecture by handing out leaflets against him and shouting in the mosque for his execution.

It seems his transgression was to suggest that Darwin's theory of evolution may be compatible with Islam. Most Muslim's I know would condemn the frenzied response reported in the article. But I also believe that many would passively agree with the principle. To align Islam with a scientific theory that shows that humans share a common ancestor with apes may be a bit too much free thinking for some to stomach.

Although we may read from the same page, clearly not everyone is on the same wave.