Protesting Geert Wilders
Joshua Foust on Mar 10 2008 at 9:17 am | Filed under: Foreign affairs, Media
Posted first at Registan.net.
A few thousand people in Afghanistan have begun protesting the reprinting in Denmark of cartoon images of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), as well as a Dutch film that supposedly portrays the Koran as fascist. They are burning Danish and Dutch flags, shouting provocative slogans, and generally behaving as protesters.
Now before we all go pulling a Malkin and accusing them of being protest-happy, infidel-murdering, Jew-hatin’ animals, let us establish some context. First of all—umm, shouldn’t they be mad? There seems to be a coordinated effort in Europe (however well the creators may feel it justified) to discredit and insult the Muslim faith. I’m reminded of no less than the Harry Potter book burnings by Christian activists in the U.S. Similarly, there was the laughable attempt by Fox News flapping jaw Bill O’Reilly to collapse the French economy after France refused to support the invasion of Iraq. Everyone freaks out at perceived slights by foreigners (whether national or religious). They’re not wrong to be angry at the deliberate insults to their faith.
So let them protest. So what if they demand the withdrawal of Danish and Dutch forces in Jalalabad? There aren’t any in Jalalabad… and as best I can tell, the Afghans of Helmand and Uruzgan have grander concerns than what some artist or film maker is doing 6,000 miles away.
This is the sort of thing we should encourage. If you dislike something, protest it. So long as they don’t get violent, this is a good thing. Think of it: who would rather them go on a rampage like Kabul in 2006? No one. Protests, even if Westerners find them a bit overwrought, are a healthy sign of civic society.
Sphere: Related Content19 Responses to “Protesting Geert Wilders”
Trackback URI | Comments RSS
But do the protestors know which cartoons were in the original set? Comparing them to Christians who never read Harry Potter is probably apt.
I agree that protest is a good thing, although burning flags seems to lead to burning other things… particularly when the fire is fanned by an Imam who added pictures to the cartoons of a dog humping a Muslim praying and a French guy with a beard and a pig snout tied on at a pig calling contest who happens to (supposedly) look like Muhammad.
While I agree that there is no real reason to insult people on purpose there was a compelling reason to print the cartoons in the US and elsewhere… probably in Europe too, and maybe even over again now… which is to make clear just what the upset was about. About two of them were even insulting. The rest were simply depictions, which is against the rules, but weren’t even bad. Even breaking the rules about drawing a picture of Muhammad didn’t, and *never* warranted burning buildings or killing anyone. But who even knows that?
So did JK Rowling have to have a special security detail protecting her after the evil christians protested her books? Did the French really fear for their very lives because of OReilly’s stupid “protest”? Protesting is one thing Joshua, but you are completely burying the much more nefarious manifestations associated with Muslim ire. When the Christian right voiced outrage at museums hosting piss-Christ or dung-virgin-Mary, streets weren’t torched and people weren’t killed.
Islam needs to mature, and you do not help by equating vocal outrage with torch and gun carrying rage.
My point in mentioning the book burnings and stupid national boycotts is that we Americans also have silly and childish reactions to people upsetting our holy honor.
Bains, you’re right that “Islam” needs to mature. Which Islam? The Deobandis of India, who have rejected the Taliban as being violent and unIslamic? The Iranians, who chafe under the restrictive mores of the Ayatollahs? Saying “Islam” is about as precise as saying “Christianity” in reference to all Christians around the world—it means too many groups of people to be a cohesive label.
And it is important to note that in Afghanistan, the reaction to the reprinting of those cartoons and that anti-Islamic movie actually is vocal outrage. No one is being murdered, no stores are being broken into and set ablaze like some two-bit LA race riot. They are marching in the streets and voicing their anger.
That is a drastic evolution from even two years ago when the streets of Kabul were thrown into violent chaos after some civilians were killed in a road accident involving the military. And it is a tremendously positive development as well—Afghans, at least in Jalalabad, feel they can achieve something by peacefully protesting. That is a wonderful thing.
So please: save the anti-Islamic invective for someone who doesn’t know any better (better yet, do the country a favor and don’t).
I don’t think there’s really any issue with Muslims being upset. And I’m glad that, as Josh notes, the protests in the Middle East and Central Asia have been merely vocal. A couple of years ago I made a similar point with respect to a speech that the Pope gave at Regensburg:
But there is a distinction to be made between these vocal protests and the bullying that goes on in Europe. Please recall that the Danish cartoon fest was in direct response to threats from European Muslims, and please also keep in mind that European Muslims have exhibited a tendency to be rather violent when pressing their view (e.g. Theo Van Gogh, daily riots in France, etc.).
I agree that the whole of the religion need not be tarred with the nasty exploits of some, but so long as Islamic leaders and adherents leave it up to non-Muslims to deal with these problems, then people are going to view the problem as being specifically Muslim in nature. When those leaders speak out and encourage their followers to reject such violent ways (and some do, although they do not get nearly the same air time as the virulent bunch) then people will focus more on the bad actors and not the religion.
Or, at least, some will. There are a great many people who simply hate religion in all forms, such as those still condemning Christianity for the Spanish Inquisition (which, let’s face it, NOBODY expected).
Michael, I think you’re right to note the role the media plays in hyping Muslim extremism. You’ll also get a hearty “hear hear” in pointing the finger squarely at silly European countries that have managed to take immigrants from Muslim lands fleeing tyranny and seeking freedom and turn their children into hate-filled thugs (i.e. that second-generation immigrants from Muslim countries in Europe tend to be far more extremist than their parents).
The problem is that many in the West seem to think there is no connection between their actions and the attitudes and behaviors of those who protest them. Namely, that they don’t realize the systemic, and barely-acknowledged racism in their cities (think of the riots that have regularly erupted in suburbs like Clichy-sûr-bois outside Paris) prompts an angry counter-force in the form of extremist, almost nationalist, sentiment against the “Western values” they believe have shut them out of the system (much of this is drawn out of an excellent discussion of the rise of Muslim extremism in Europe in Foreign Affairs two years ago, and, strangely, a class I took on European politics that focused on the rise of minority extremism).
Similarly, without many acts of provocation, there is every likelihood Islamic extremism will die out on its own. Mark Sageman wrote an excellent essay on “the next generation of terror,” which discusses the rise of disconnected, decentralized Islamic extremists, in the latest Foreign Policy (it’s subscribers only, but I can send the text if you would like it):
It seems we are our often own worst enemy. Indeed, for a while, I have wondered that, as strange as it sounds, if we just ignore extremism, it might go away (this is clearly a simplified view, but the philosophy behind it is what I’m thinking of). I fully support free speech, and believe those Dutch cartoonists had every right to publish their cartoons. I also believe the clerics who organized the peaceful protest in Jalalabad were right to do so; just as Pat Robertson was right in trying to organize boycotts of the NEA for atrocities like the Piss Christ painting. Protesting is healthy behavior. If one of the least developed, most extremism-prone Muslim countries on the planet can hold peaceful protests over what they consider a personal and grave assault on their honor and religion, I count that as progress.
And we’ll never be rid of the willfully blind who discount all the good religion can do. (Christopher Hitchens, I’m talking to you.) All people of all beliefs commit horrors; it is an unfortunate part of the human tradition. Rather than blaming the belief system, as no belief I am aware of has an unbroken record of non-violence, it would be far more constructive to examine why such belief systems eventually mature into cooperative and constructive neighbors of each other; something few screaming about “the terrorists” have yet done.
This is a subtle point, and one that’s often missed. However, I think the underlying causes are often missed even by those who get it. To wit:
I don’t mean to suggest that you don’t “get it”, but instead that there may perhaps be a much simpler and yet more invidious reason as to why European Muslims are so discontented. And without getting into the chicken vs. egg question of provoked whom, and dealing specifically with Europe, I would suggest that the primary reason that the second generation is so much more fundamentalist is because of the prevailing socialist governance in Europe. Lemme ’splain.
I believe that the primary difference between America and Europe is that here individualism is much more supported, whereas in Europe communitarianism is king. In America, anyone can rise up to become a successful, wealthy and healthy citizen. In Europe it is much more difficult. The reason that Europe sees so much more Muslim-perpetrated violence, in my view, is precisely because these unmoored (heh!) individuals can’t gain a foothold in their new society.
Taking example of the French Muslim rioters (or the “youths” as they’re often called), these are largely unemployed men who have not been assimilated into the prevailing culture, and because of the way that the society is structured, they really can’t be. In a socialist society where group rights are more important than individual rights, it is only natural that interest groups form based on commonalities such as gender, race, religion and/or employment. Each group fights with the others for the goodies doled out by the government, thus necessarily pitting themselves against one another for an ever-shrinking slice of pie.
One such goody is the promulgation of many “workers rights” laws in France that have the perverse effect of leaving the younger generations with fewer employment options than they might otherwise have. Since groups stick together, it’s much easier for a white, French native to get one of the scarce jobs than a black, second generation Muslim (N.B. most Muslims in France are from North Africa, primarily Algiers).
Ergo, like everyone else in a socialist nation, the “youths” gravitate towards a common group, the only one of which they really have any access to (and can exert any power with) is as a Muslim. Throw in a few preaching Imams who blame the inequities suffered by European Muslims on Western culture and the failure to accept Islam, and voila, you have a highly energized underclass of religious warriors ready to do battle in order to advance their cause.
Now, I could be wrong about all of that, but when you compare a place that does largely ignore Muslim extremism (Europe) to a place that doesn’t (America), and one has a significantly larger problem with such extremism, then I’d have to say that paying attention to the matter looks less like a cause than something else. If you then take note of the biggest difference between the two places and consider how one set of domestic policies works versus the other, I think that my theory holds some water. Of course, YMMV.
Absolutely, and one that needs to be encouraged.
Fair enough. I have seen some such examinations (I’ll see if I can rustle some up), and I think that’s what bains was referring to when he wrote “Islam needs to mature ….”
You know, it’s funny you mention that, because I think it’s even more subtle, and not blamable on socialism per se, but rather a generic sense of utopianism. Officially at least, the French government is against what is calls “communitarianism,” or the focus on race as an issue with regard to rights. Officially, there are no race or religious differences in France: the government does not measure such statistics in its census, and therefore it cannot officially discriminate against ethnic or religious minorities (it was the basis for the controversial “no religious symbols in school” law a while back).
Sounds like a Republican dream, right? But it’s not: refusing to recognize the existence of racism means that when it happens, there is little legal recourse for the victims. This helps explain a great deal of the anger that regularly explodes on the streets. I explored this two years ago, after the first round of riots in France:
I think we largely agree that it is myopic policies and naïve assumptions that are responsible for the radicalization of Europe’s Muslim immigrants.
That’s one of the policies I had in mind (and to which I thought you were referring). It’s not so much that one cannot “officially discriminate” as it is that under this policy there is only one race: French.
As to socialism and “a generic sense of utopianism” I’m not sure there’s much difference.
Ah, but that is really a difference between Europe and America, n’est pas? It would be a “Republican dream” over here because individuals don’t need to belong to any particular group in order to succeed. In France, everybody is considered French, but at the same time group rights are deemed more important than individual rights. So whereas the group rights of the homeless, or women bakers, or truck drivers, or whatever might be protected, unless you belong to such a group you cannot get in on the game. And since everyone is officially French, and there is no official recognition of religion, being a black Muslim does not help you.
But clearly these policies are derivative of French/European socialism where group rights and secularism are paramount. IOW, the generic utopia being striven for is a socialist state of equality — “Liberté, égalité, fraternité.”
Speaking of invective:
It is no surprise that you would imediately jump to conclusions about what I meant when I said Islam needs to mature. As Michael says:
Religions mature when they start honestly policing their own. The Baptist Church is not defined by the likes of Fred Phelps. Why? Because Baptists, by an overwhelming majority, and in both clergy and laity, have no problem utterly mocking the views Phelps preaches. You see this in all Christian denominations - in Judaism as well. Mature religions recognize, irrespective of how fair it may be, that the core can be tainted by the fringe - they do their best to make sure that does not happen. Micheal again:
Part of maturity is recognizing that the world is not fair, that others perceptions of you may be way off base and entirely unfounded, and that whining about is not going to change those perceptions one whit.
Bains,
How was my remark about Michelle Malkin “invective?” I suppose the irony of Ms. Malkin calling Islam “the religion of perpetual outrage,” given the tenor of her blog and columns, is just set aside? I don’t think I’m being unfair in how she characterizes peaceful protests when it’s Muslims doing it.
Also, it’s telling you edited (improperly) Michael’s exact quote, which included the rather salient observation that anti-terror, pro-reason Muslim clerics are routinely ignored or marginalized by the same media hyping Muslim craziness:
My own experience dealing with my Muslim friends is the same. No one with a camera cares about the Imam condemning acts of violence, but they flock to the guy with the crazy hair shrieking death to America and brandishing an AK.
The press does that to Christians, too.
Guilty of editing. It was parenthetical however, and I thought that with just the three of us commenting, I could discard it for brevities sake. Seeing as you are reading much into the edit, I’ll admit, it was a mistake.
But your objection underlines what I thought salient - the primacy of perception (and yes, I know there is a book of that title). Of course the media focuses on the incendiary - Michael sees that, you see that, I see that. My point is that as a whole, Muslim clergy seem oblivious, or worst, petulantly outraged by this fact. Grasping upon tenuous high moral ground seems appropriate - until you recognize that the media driven public is building a funeral pyre beneath your dangling feet. Yes it is unfair as hell, but it is the world we live in. That is why I say Islam needs to grow up.
As for Malkin, the way you phrased it tucks neatly between invective and hyperbole. It sure read as you were trying to be insulting, but I could be mistaken.
Insulting Michelle Malkin? Yes. That was intentional.
Tell me Joshua, why is it we can be so comfortable, so gleeful in fact, insulting fellow countrymen?
I don’t really understand the question, but I’ll turn it around regardless: I think Malkin is a stupid moron, but I don’t think she is a traitor or that she hates her country… something she is not shy of accusing any and everyone who disagrees with her. Like many crazies with multiple books on the right and left, she finds the very existence of different thought offensive.
That is worth deriding, I feel.
Hmmm, I’m of two minds on this one. MM is definitely incendiary, and I agree that she does give short shrift to the Muslim religion as a whole. As I stated before (and as you both took pains to acknowledge), there are Imams and other Muslim leaders who speak out against the perversion of their religion, yet get little attention from the media or anyone else. But at the same time, there does not seem to be any shortage of people who will claim to speak on behalf of Islam, who are held in high regard by a great many Muslims, and who routinely inveigh against the West and non-Muslims, preaching violence as a proper tactic to spreading the faith. These are the ones whom MM typically holds up for shame and ridicule.
That being said, I’ll stick with the same thing I said earlier:
MM is over-inclusive with her rants, but that’s usually in response to those on the left who simply want to ignore the problem altogether and instead blame America.
I agree with how bains put it as well:
It may not be fair that all Islam is saddled with the deeds of the fringe, but it’s also not fair to expect non-Muslims to do the work of rooting out the corruption and excess. I mean, who has the greater interest in seeing Muslims treated fairly? And if non-Muslims are going to be placed in the position of challenging the extremists, then they are going to speak mostly to those Muslims who can at least comprehend the issue rationally. Extremists don’t, and there’s little sense in trying to reason with them.
Enough said.
Fair enough, but she’s much more even-handed than I think you realize. There’s no doubt that MM incites, and she doesn’t mince words, but she’s no Ann Coulter either (and, in fact, has roundly condemned Coulter’s excesses).
Nevertheless, bains is a fan, and Josh thinks she’s a harpy. I don’t have an opinion one way or the other so I’ll let y’all duke it out.
I should add that, before I started reading Poet Omar (our long lost brother at ASHC), I was inmuch the same frame of mind as MM. As far as I knew Islam was neither a religion of peace nor worthy of much more than contempt. Since learning a great deal from Omar (a devout yet decidedly libertarian Muslim) I’ve come to appreciate the religion much more, and have been exposed to Muslim voices )check our blogroll) that not only speak out against the terror perpetrated by extremists, but also preach the tolerant, loving religion Westerners know (and see) so little of.
I can’t stress enough how much our perception of Islam is tainted by media portrayals, and how different those portrayals are from what a good many Muslims practice every day. MM doesn’t help matters much with her absolutist take, but Muslims still need to do a better job of getting their message out there. In addition, the media deserves special blame for not relaying the truth, opting instead for derisive headlines and stereotypes.
Oh and, Synova:
They certainly do,and much for the same reasons. That was one of the points made in the Pope at Regensburg piece as well.
I could quibble…
Back to Joshua’s original point, yes, it is nice to see peaceful protests, particularly from a group that has of late been the primary group of non-peaceful protests. Irrespective of how peaceful the protest, until heads of state and heads of church are resoundingly denounced for calling for the beheading of such “blasphemers” your attempted analogy is left wanting. There is still a huge difference to the anti-Potter and O’Reilly-supplicant crowd. And as evidenced by this thread, gratuitously throwing in Malkin does not serve your argument.