An Inability to tolerate Islam contradicts western values.
An inability to tolerate Islam contradicts
western values
Free speech is now the rallying cry of escalating tensions, but we can also use
it to expose double standards on both sides
Karen Armstrong
Saturday July 21, 2007
The Guardian
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
comment@guardian.co.uk
Back to articles, lectures All Khutbahs A to Z Khutbahbank Homepage