Here in the West, one can find all sorts of books and films which criticize Christianity, modern art, Republican politics, leftist media, magic crystal healing power...you name it, we are free to cast the harsh, bright light of criticism upon it. And I've got to say that I can't remember anyone in my country being killed over this. We like knowing that we can disagree with each other, express that disagreement (in a lawful, non-threatening way), and have done with it. Sure, people can understandably become upset, and sometimes even violent, when beliefs they hold dear are ridiculed or impugned, but here in America at least, the majority of us take it in stride. There's always going to be some jerk who makes fun of Christians, or conservatives, or someone like me who is an advocate for the humane treatment of animals. It's just not a big deal, because most of us feel pretty secure in who we are and what we believe in, and we know that we are protected by law against violent reprisals for our beliefs. We will sometimes even welcome honest criticism. It often ends up strengthening our convictions, or enhancing them with different ones. But when you begin insisting that those who believe differently than you are inferior for no other reason than hubris, or worse, when you kill them for these differences, you have crossed the line from being an unyielding ideologue over to a dangerous supremacist.
But this is what Islam is about. Not only is it utterly resistant to reform as a faith, but it also asserts an entitlement to privileged treatment and exemption from plain and honest criticism, whereas any other system of belief is subject to such normal appraisal and attendant debate. In fact, Islam is a triumphalist creed which demands that other faiths explicitly acknowledge its supremacy. Such has been the lot of Christian and Jewish dhimmis (second-class citizens allowed to live in Muslim lands, but only under humiliating, costly, and often hazardous conditions) throughout the history of Islam. Muslims have been told from the beginning that their religion is so perfect that it qualifies them to use it--literally--as a sword against nonbelievers. Sure, other religions have taken this tack, but in these days of reform, Islam is the last one to insist on this inviolable status, responding to any contravention of this absurd demand reflexively with threats and sometimes murder, as was the case with Mr. Van Gogh.
Until the smashing success of secular Western democracy, and its partner capitalism, Islam never had much of a real challenge to its audacious claims to superiority and exclusive entitlement. Islam had a long history of conquering infidels, stealing their culture and land, and extending Islam's domain. Its worldly ascendency wherever it wielded its bloody sword seemed to affirm its presumptions of spiritual primacy. But as the West has handily dismissed such notions over the past few hundred years, Islam met with a crisis of cognitive dissonance (we're supposed to be superior, but we can't beat them on any level) which has resulted in the type of fury which has led to the death of Mr. Van Gogh and many, many others.
People like Salman Rushdie, Ibn Warraq, and Ali Sina all live under threat of death for simply subjecting Islam to the same strictures of logic and rational analysis that people have always treated religion and philosophy with. They must live anonymously, in hiding, or under heavy guard because they have dared to assert that Islam is not above criticism. And now, since Theo Van Gogh was killed, Ms. Hirsi Ali has been in hiding. Isn't it high time we ask ourselves why such heavy-handed censure and brutal violence often befalls Those who objectively assessand truthfully define Islam? Are we perhaps afraid of learning that it may actually be because of Islam that such things happen? Well, that is why these things are happening, and always have happened. They are Islamic.
There is a truly enormous sense of confidence and entitlement in the Muslim psyche. It is such that any sort of perceived denigration of Islam is met not only with intellectual intolerance, but also with a fierce resolve to punish the offender. Sometimes it is outright violence. Translators of Rushdies's The Satanic Verses have been attacked, injured, and murdered all over the world. Sometimes Islam's critics are chastised with more subtle techniques, such as wrongful legal action or the focused intimidation of Islamic advocacy groups. The hypersensitive Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is notorious for its attack dog tactics against those who exercise their right to speak freely about Islam. To groups like CAIR, the watchwords are hate speech, xenophobia, racism, and intolerant whenever anyone is seen to challenge Islam and its claims to special status. They have bullied more than a few well-known personalities, through letter-writing campaigns and boycotts, into apologizing for perfectly reasonable statements about Islam and Muslims. Islam seems to not be able to withstand an honest intellectual challenge to its outdated and hateful precepts.
CAIR has taken advantage of the liberal democratic institutions which distinguish our nation from the totalitarian oppression of Islam to undermine those very same institutions to reinforce Islam's spurious mantle of supremacy. American citizens have the right to free speech and expression--even if that means a harsh indictment of, or even explicit aversion to Islam. It's our right, and the body of laws which we live by here in America are not subordinate to the overblown narcissism of any religious sensibilities. We've learned how to make room for differences of opinion, politics, and faiths here, even through our Judeo-Christian heritage, and we won't be made to accept that any one faith merits special consideration. It's really that simple, and all of the uninformed, multicultural appeasement that Islam's useful idiots can marshal won't change that--let us hope.
I hold myself to the same standards I speak of here. By all means, criticize me. Challenge my positions, my reasoning. Hate me if you must. But don't threaten me, my life, or the lives of my family because I disagree with you and unapologetically criticize you; because I wouldn't do that to you. That's just common civility and human decency. You are not civil or decent if you threaten a man's life and force him into hiding because he wrote a book which calls into question the character of a vaguely historical character that you happen to revere as a religious figure. Islamic supremacy does not grasp this simple ethical concept. In fact, it turns it on its head by making violence against its critics a noble, religious obligation. The dons of Islam authorize a hit with a fatwa, and there's one more dead kafir.
Why is it that The Last Temptation of Christ (book and film) didn't prompt angry Christians to surge into the streets howling for the blood of Nikos Kazantzaki and Martin Scorsese? And when Mel Gibson's controversial The Passion of the Christ was finally screened, why is that Jews satisfied themselves with civilized criticism in print, on the radio, and television? Aren't these reasonable questions to ask? And while we're asking questions, why did Theo Van Gogh have to die such a cruel and barbarous death for asking questions of Islam that the other two Abrahamic faiths seem to be able to handle without recourse to homicidal fury? Why?
I didn't really know anything about Theo Van Gogh until I read about Submission this past September. I don't know about his other work, his politics, or his reputation in the Netherlands. But when I discovered his involvement in this important film, I had to say to myself, "Bless this Theo Van Gogh for preserving the Dutch devil may care trueness to oneself that his grandfather's brother so passionately embodied!" I was glad to learn of his courage and that of Ms. Hirsi Ali--two people who decided to tell the truth about an ideology which has grown far too complacent in its unjustified sanctity. They made the decision to do nothing more than what is done every day in many parts of the world. To speak freely about a faith which sanctions and glorifies the murder of its opponents.
Theo Van Gogh is a martyr to liberty and truth. He only exercised his freedom--the freedom afforded all Dutch citizens, including the scum who killed him--to express himself along with Ms. Hirsi Ali in their honest and compassionate portrayal of a woman's life in the misogynistic culture of Islam. I hope the people of the Netherlands will reflect on what Mr. Van Gogh died for--freedom. I hope they will remember him for a long time. I know I will.
(With my heartfelt condolences to the family and friends of Mr. Theo Van Gogh and to the people of the Netherlands.)
originally posted at Clarity & Resolve
copyright 2004 Patrick D. O'Brien cannot be copied, published, or otherwise used (except for brief quotes) without express permission of author
Theo Van Gogh: Not in Vain
by Patrick D. O'Brien
Two weeks ago Theo Van Gogh was murdered in the street by a young man who took offense with Mr. Van Gogh's latest film, Submission, which honestly depicts the the mistreatment of women in Islam. This young man, Mohamed Bouyeri, is a Muslim and appears to have ties to Al-Takfir Wal Hijrah (Anathema and Exile), one of many violent groups which carry out the violent mandates of the violent faith of Islam. Ayan Hirsi Ali, who wrote the screenplay to Submission is a Somali-born Dutch politician and an apostate from Islam (and the punishment for apostasy in Islam is death). When Mr. Van Gogh was found dead, there was affixed to his chest, with the knife used to slash his throat, a rambling Islamic screed which also contained an explicit death threat to Ms. Hirsi Ali.
Theo Van Gogh was savagely executed for exercising a right that is intrinsic to what we Westerners know as liberty: the right to free speech. But it really goes beyond that.
Here in the West, one can find all sorts of books and films which criticize Christianity, modern art, Republican politics, leftist media, magic crystal healing power...you name it, we are free to cast the harsh, bright light of criticism upon it. And I've got to say that I can't remember anyone in my country being killed over this. We like knowing that we can disagree with each other, express that disagreement (in a lawful, non-threatening way), and have done with it. Sure, people can understandably become upset, and sometimes even violent, when beliefs they hold dear are ridiculed or impugned, but here in America at least, the majority of us take it in stride. There's always going to be some jerk who makes fun of Christians, or conservatives, or someone like me who is an advocate for the humane treatment of animals. It's just not a big deal, because most of us feel pretty secure in who we are and what we believe in, and we know that we are protected by law against violent reprisals for our beliefs. We will sometimes even welcome honest criticism. It often ends up strengthening our convictions, or enhancing them with different ones. But when you begin insisting that those who believe differently than you are inferior for no other reason than hubris, or worse, when you kill them for these differences, you have crossed the line from being an unyielding ideologue over to a dangerous supremacist.
But this is what Islam is about. Not only is it utterly resistant to reform as a faith, but it also asserts an entitlement to privileged treatment and exemption from plain and honest criticism, whereas any other system of belief is subject to such normal appraisal and attendant debate. In fact, Islam is a triumphalist creed which demands that other faiths explicitly acknowledge its supremacy. Such has been the lot of Christian and Jewish dhimmis (second-class citizens allowed to live in Muslim lands, but only under humiliating, costly, and often hazardous conditions) throughout the history of Islam. Muslims have been told from the beginning that their religion is so perfect that it qualifies them to use it--literally--as a sword against nonbelievers. Sure, other religions have taken this tack, but in these days of reform, Islam is the last one to insist on this inviolable status, responding to any contravention of this absurd demand reflexively with threats and sometimes murder, as was the case with Mr. Van Gogh.
Until the smashing success of secular Western democracy, and its partner capitalism, Islam never had much of a real challenge to its audacious claims to superiority and exclusive entitlement. Islam had a long history of conquering infidels, stealing their culture and land, and extending Islam's domain. Its worldly ascendency wherever it wielded its bloody sword seemed to affirm its presumptions of spiritual primacy. But as the West has handily dismissed such notions over the past few hundred years, Islam met with a crisis of cognitive dissonance (we're supposed to be superior, but we can't beat them on any level) which has resulted in the type of fury which has led to the death of Mr. Van Gogh and many, many others.
People like Salman Rushdie, Ibn Warraq, and Ali Sina all live under threat of death for simply subjecting Islam to the same strictures of logic and rational analysis that people have always treated religion and philosophy with. They must live anonymously, in hiding, or under heavy guard because they have dared to assert that Islam is not above criticism. And now, since Theo Van Gogh was killed, Ms. Hirsi Ali has been in hiding. Isn't it high time we ask ourselves why such heavy-handed censure and brutal violence often befalls Those who objectively assessand truthfully define Islam? Are we perhaps afraid of learning that it may actually be because of Islam that such things happen? Well, that is why these things are happening, and always have happened. They are Islamic.
There is a truly enormous sense of confidence and entitlement in the Muslim psyche. It is such that any sort of perceived denigration of Islam is met not only with intellectual intolerance, but also with a fierce resolve to punish the offender. Sometimes it is outright violence. Translators of Rushdies's The Satanic Verses have been attacked, injured, and murdered all over the world. Sometimes Islam's critics are chastised with more subtle techniques, such as wrongful legal action or the focused intimidation of Islamic advocacy groups. The hypersensitive Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is notorious for its attack dog tactics against those who exercise their right to speak freely about Islam. To groups like CAIR, the watchwords are hate speech, xenophobia, racism, and intolerant whenever anyone is seen to challenge Islam and its claims to special status. They have bullied more than a few well-known personalities, through letter-writing campaigns and boycotts, into apologizing for perfectly reasonable statements about Islam and Muslims. Islam seems to not be able to withstand an honest intellectual challenge to its outdated and hateful precepts.
CAIR has taken advantage of the liberal democratic institutions which distinguish our nation from the totalitarian oppression of Islam to undermine those very same institutions to reinforce Islam's spurious mantle of supremacy. American citizens have the right to free speech and expression--even if that means a harsh indictment of, or even explicit aversion to Islam. It's our right, and the body of laws which we live by here in America are not subordinate to the overblown narcissism of any religious sensibilities. We've learned how to make room for differences of opinion, politics, and faiths here, even through our Judeo-Christian heritage, and we won't be made to accept that any one faith merits special consideration. It's really that simple, and all of the uninformed, multicultural appeasement that Islam's useful idiots can marshal won't change that--let us hope.
I hold myself to the same standards I speak of here. By all means, criticize me. Challenge my positions, my reasoning. Hate me if you must. But don't threaten me, my life, or the lives of my family because I disagree with you and unapologetically criticize you; because I wouldn't do that to you. That's just common civility and human decency. You are not civil or decent if you threaten a man's life and force him into hiding because he wrote a book which calls into question the character of a vaguely historical character that you happen to revere as a religious figure. Islamic supremacy does not grasp this simple ethical concept. In fact, it turns it on its head by making violence against its critics a noble, religious obligation. The dons of Islam authorize a hit with a fatwa, and there's one more dead kafir.
Why is it that The Last Temptation of Christ (book and film) didn't prompt angry Christians to surge into the streets howling for the blood of Nikos Kazantzaki and Martin Scorsese? And when Mel Gibson's controversial The Passion of the Christ was finally screened, why is that Jews satisfied themselves with civilized criticism in print, on the radio, and television? Aren't these reasonable questions to ask? And while we're asking questions, why did Theo Van Gogh have to die such a cruel and barbarous death for asking questions of Islam that the other two Abrahamic faiths seem to be able to handle without recourse to homicidal fury? Why?
I didn't really know anything about Theo Van Gogh until I read about Submission this past September. I don't know about his other work, his politics, or his reputation in the Netherlands. But when I discovered his involvement in this important film, I had to say to myself, "Bless this Theo Van Gogh for preserving the Dutch devil may care trueness to oneself that his grandfather's brother so passionately embodied!" I was glad to learn of his courage and that of Ms. Hirsi Ali--two people who decided to tell the truth about an ideology which has grown far too complacent in its unjustified sanctity. They made the decision to do nothing more than what is done every day in many parts of the world. To speak freely about a faith which sanctions and glorifies the murder of its opponents.
Theo Van Gogh is a martyr to liberty and truth. He only exercised his freedom--the freedom afforded all Dutch citizens, including the scum who killed him--to express himself along with Ms. Hirsi Ali in their honest and compassionate portrayal of a woman's life in the misogynistic culture of Islam. I hope the people of the Netherlands will reflect on what Mr. Van Gogh died for--freedom. I hope they will remember him for a long time. I know I will.
(With my heartfelt condolences to the family and friends of Mr. Theo Van Gogh and to the people of the Netherlands.)
originally posted at Clarity & Resolve
copyright 2004 Patrick D. O'Brien cannot be copied, published, or otherwise used (except for brief quotes) without express permission of author
Posted by Patrick at November 19, 2004 05:14 AM