Money vs Values

The whole world seems at odds rights now with how most Muslims feel. As if somehow choreographed, one disparaging representation of Islam after the other suddenly takes the spotlight. Even if its not exactly new, or saying something new or trying to say something new. That a ridiculous, poorly made video about prophet Mohammed went viral overnight comes as no surprise. Such is the case with the randomness of cyberspace. But that it elicits such uproar and extreme violent reactions from Muslims all over the world seems to continue shock and offend many, especially westerners.

To add insult to injury, and not having completely recovered from the emotional meltdown of the video, a satire newspaper insists on publishing silly cartoons of the prophet and forces a country the size of France to shut down its embassies in 20 or countries. The price of freedom of speech they say.

Some diplomatic missions even had to flee back to France for fear of retaliation from the Muslim populations.

France itself a host to more than 4 million Muslims (the biggest Muslim population in Europe) is dreading the outbreak of mass protests all over the country.

All over a series of silly cartoons.

What seems to be the problem? Are the cartoons really that bad?

They are not that funny, definitely tried and downright distasteful.

Would stopping them from getting published account for 'hindering freedom of speech'?

No. They have nothing to do with 'freedom of speech', and that is precisely the point that the French, and some Europeans seem to be not getting.

Hate speech, slander, defamation of character, mocking religious symbols does not account for 'freedom of speech'. Even in the secular republic of France.

It is so funny that the editor-in-chief of the weekly newspaper met the extremism of the fanatic Muslims with equal zealotry on his part stating, 'we will continue to make fun of Islam until its like any other religion'.

Exactly how is that a message of tolerance?

Or how does that promote mutual dialogue and understanding?

Does the editor-in-chief know Mohammed? Or Islam? Does he even bother reading about the religion, its history, culture and its legacy?

No he does not and he does not care.

Because it is not about upholding the values of freedom of speech or the right to criticise religion, as much as it is about the intense discomfort that someone might still hold something sacred and inviolable. 

That seems to give the French skin rash.

And this is not a cartoonist satirizing the attitude of extremist Muslims, thousands do this everyday, even Muslims themselves. That is perfectly acceptable, even expectable. 

No, this is choosing a particular figure and attributing to it the extremism and bigotry of misinformed group of followers.

Had Mohammed been a living figure he would have sued the French newspaper for slander and won.

The only problem is, that he is a historical figure that happens to fall within a religious legacy. That does not translate that his status and representation is open to insults and verbal attacks. 

Mohammed is an easy target. A lot of information about his life is disputed and contested, and a lot of what we know about his life can very easily be misinterpreted. Perfect target.

 But the problem with that statement is not just the choice of subject to satirize, its the phrase 'other religions'.

I haven't seen a cartoon satirizing Hindu deities before. Despite the fact that many adherents of the faith have very conservative attitudes towards women, LGBT individuals and even certain members of their own society. And they too have a history of violence (who do you think killed Gandhi? Another fellow Hindu). Or Sikhs. I haven't seen any cartoons satirizing Guru Nanak. Although the Sikh also have a history of violence towards other members of Indian society (who do you think killed Indira Gandhi? Her Sikh bodyguards). Or Buddhist, despite the fact that Buddhist were at wars for centuries against Confucians and other Hindus. Or Confucians who themselves have a long history of persecuting Christians in the far corners of the world.

So where are the other religions? Where are all the cartoons that condemn or rather  represent those leading figure in disparaging and insulting ways?

It is not about making 'Islam like other religions'. Other religions do not wake up in the morning and find the figurehead of their faith naked in a ridiculous cartoon. I doubt anyone who would wake up to this would not feel at the very least offended.

I am not condoning in any way what many Muslims are doing. I find it hysterical, sad and counter-productive. And if it does serve to show anything, it shows the salient fact that the majority of Muslims completely misunderstand their own religion. That the brand of Islam existing in the world right now, is the very one that values appearances over people, slogans over real action and sight over vision.

It is the kind of Islam that pays billions of dollars to build museums but not to educate women or provide equality for workers and minorities.

It is so ironic that this newspaper comes out, right after a scheduled opening of new Islamic Galleries in the Louvre was announced. 

As part of the ongoing Gulfiation (rendering something into the Gulf sphere of influence) of culture, the galleries were made possible through the single most largest personal donation from an individual to the Louvre, Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal, who donated 20 million USD towards the construction and establishment of the galleries.

The day after photos of the galleries were released and news about how it will help the French gain a nuanced understanding of the complex history of Islamic arts and cultures, the cartoons are published.

I couldn't think of a better timing.

Money is not the problem it seems. Or culture. 

Every other day we keep reading about the Louvre and other culture institutions in Europe striking a deal with the UAE  on one hand (who went as far as 'buying the brand of the Louvre' for millions and millions of dollars) or Qatar on the other hand in opening a new museum, a set of galleries, an art center promoting cultural exchange and "dialogue". And introducing the world to the  'wonders of Islamic arts of civilization'.

So why is not working?

Because the French are doing the same thing they are criticising others for. They are supporting oppressive, backward regimes that only perpetuate conservative and unjust policies towards their citizens. Not once did France withdraw its support for those very regimes that deny workers their rights and classify Shiites as second-class citizens. Not once did we read that the French decided to walk out on all those magnificent cultural porject because of the human right records of the UAE or Saudi Arabia. Not once did anyone criticise the Louvre for taking 20 milllion dollars from Al-Waleed bin Talal and not refuse this money on the gournds that Saudi Arabia has the worst track record in the world for the treatment of women.

No. None of that. 

Take the money, build big museums, floating galleries, fly objects and artefacts from all over the world and not once stand up and actually practice the right of freedom of speech and criticise those atrocities you are accusing Mohammed for.

Mohammed is dead and we have no way of knowing what he would have done had he been alive, how about all fat cats of the Gulf? Do the same magazine dare to publish a cartoon satirizing the Prince of Qatar or the King of Saudi Arabia?

And will the same newspaper continue to exist had they actually did that?

I wonder.