It is a matter of supreme indifference to me whether one is a Muslim, a Hindu, a Christian, a Buddhist or a Jew--or anything else I've left out--oh, I left out atheism and agnosticism--regarding these, whether one is an absolute or relative doubting Thomas doesn't count for much in my view, either. The task of everyone is the same, no matter the creed or ethnic origin: to love one's neighbor as oneself. That's the only thing that really matters.
I am no scholar of religion, but I have studied them all and feel I have some internal knowledge of all of them. I can pass from one to another as easily as a breeze can pass over the border of two countries that are at war with each other.
In short, I do not consider a Muslim as the other, but as my brother--(or sister, as the case may be.) In this essay, I will let the Muslim in me (let's call him Alif); the Hindu in me (Ramanatom) and the secularist in me, doubting Thomas, give their various opinions about whether or not free speech is always sacrosanct. Specifically, should insulting the Prophet Muhammad--which, I might add, all three find to be offensive--be banned? (Please note, I am relating what three people of three faiths in me have to say; we acknowledge that while other members of these faiths, if they are kind, would of necessity have to be in agreement with some of what the we have to say, but, beyond that, might have different, equally justifiable, views regarding other things the three in me assert.)
The essay is a response to recent acts of terrorism.
Alif's View
My name is Alif, I live in Marseilles, France.
I am an avid rationalist, but also have a deep need for transcendence. Imagine a soccer game in which each player is a different type of believer. My rationality is the goalie; it will not permit any unreasonable thought to pass and score a goal. For belief to score a goal, it must pass beyond reason without flouting it--thus a transcendence would be reached that would even delight reason, since it really wants a genuine belief to score.
Many people in my tradition have played this game which resulted in the awesome score of one to zero. Let me tell you about one of them, Abu Hamid al-Ghazzali (1058-1111.)
Al-Ghazzali was so brilliant that at the age of 33 he became director of the great Nizamiyyah mosque in Baghdad. This was a Sunni mosque; he was required to defend Sunni teachings and repudiate Shia teachings. Al-Ghazzali, however, insisted on finding the truth. He studied the doctrines of all the schools of Islam--there were many in those days--and found no certainty, no peace. He became convinced that all dogmatic positions, including many of the most important tenets of Islam, rested on assertions that cannot be proven. Al-Ghazzali would not permit any of these unreasonable players, kicking the ball inside him, as it were, to score. He could not abide, however, that the extremely serious game of life could end with a score of zero. Nevertheless, he could not let down his guard and let one pass. He became severely depressed, as this passage from his writings attest:
God shriveled my tongue until I was prevented from giving instruction. So I used to force myself to teach on a particular day for the benefit of my various pupils, but my tongue would not utter a single word.
He was convinced that he had to find a way to believe--or die. He resigned his post. He joined the Sufis, and after a few years, he was able to teach again--with joy.
What had he learned? The Sufis, then and now, are the most undogmatic sect of Islam. In their view, Islam is synonymous with being humble, striving for justice and practicing forgiveness and love. Al-Ghazzali needed to search no further: not by reading books, but by associating and following the examples of loving, wise people did he find the transcendence he had been seeking in vain.
That's the kind of Muslim I strive to be.
So let me now answer the question: what do I think of the caricatures of Mohammad published by Charlie Hebdo? I am appalled. This is certainly not the way to help people reach the goal of unity! But I am even more appalled that terrorists--in the name of Islam!!--attacked and killed so many editors and writers of that satirical magazine.
How do you truly insult Muhammad? How do you truly insult Allah? By giving them lip service while living a life of greed and injustice. We refer to Allah as Allah the Merciful, which means that the most important thing to do is to be merciful ourselves. We are--or should be-- far too busy removing the burdens from other people's shoulders to have a chip on ours. To love and forgive--that's what being a Muslim means; it's as simple and complex as that.
Ramanatom's View
My name is Ramanatom; I am a devout, non-militaristic Hindu. I live in Chennai, India.
First, I would like to inform my soul-mate, Alif, of the "fact" that the essence of both our traditions are in complete agreement. One of the greatest sages of my tradition asserted that when the mind turns inward something deep inside manifests itself as God. This God reveals that all things are interconnected; once one realizes this, selfish behavior is impossible. Just what you believe, Alif, albeit said in a different way.
Do I believe that caricatures of Muhammad should appear in print? I do not. Let me tell you why.
I live in a country of rising Hindu nationalism. I live in a country where the Muslims are a significant minority, but a minority nevertheless, about 14% of the population. The relationship between the Hindu and Muslim communities is definitely deteriorating. An example: a few years ago a fire broke out aboard a train of Hindu pilgrims. Muslims were blamed. (A 2005 government investigation of the incident determined that the fire had been an accident.) As a result, thousands of innocent Muslims were murdered by rioting Hindus. The police did not intervene. This was an appalling and alarming episode. Some people even want to have India, which has a secular constitution, to be declared a Hindu nation, which would only make matters worse. The potential for communal rioting remains, sadly, great.
If India allowed caricatures of Muhammad to be published, horrible things would likely happen. If they appeared in a magazine, I can imagine an angry Muslim--not like Alif, of course--desecrating a statue of Shiva in a village. I could then, unfortunately, picture Hindu villagers slaughtering scores of their fellow citizens who happen to be Muslim in response. Such crimes must be averted.
Free speech is precious, but life is even more precious. It's as simple and complex as that.
Doubting Thomas's View
My name is Doubting Thomas; I am a secularist who lives in Baltimore, a city in the United States. I do not believe any Western nation should prohibit the publication of insults to any religion. I find the caricatures of Muhammad to be stupid, puerile and inappropriate. But I defend the right of offensive people to publish offensive things.
One of the greatest American values is free speech, enshrined in the first amendment of our great constitution. This great law does not permit government to decide what isn't permitted to be spoken or published--provided, of course, that the content does not suborn violence. I am proud to live in a pluralistic society that embraces many views. I insist that people should be allowed to express themselves, even if their views are deeply offensive to many, including myself.
The Pope has recently said that free speech has limitations and should not include the freedom to mock another religion. I agree with him; however, I believe that the should should not become a must. One's conscience must be the law-giver here, not politicians.
Free speech has a long tradition in my country. Perhaps Ramanatom is correct regarding the Indian context, but not in the country where I live. Even immediately after 9/11, there was no incidence of hordes of people hell-bent on slaughtering Muslims. Yes we have individual crazies, but never hordes of marauding bigots. (Not too long ago, however, such crimes did occur on American soil; we should all be grateful that those days are gone forever.)
We cannot allow the abrogation of free speech due to the action of terrorists. We must also defend what's sacred to us. If we don't, the terrorists will have won.
I also think that there might even be an advantage to ridiculing religions. If you live in a pluralistic society, you have to have a thick skin. Forgiving those who mock Muhammad might help a Muslim to ignore the noise of Western society, and concentrate on its music: the right to practice any religion without interference. Doubting Thomas has just read about a very decent young man who wanted to promote democracy; he was sentenced by Saudi authorities to a long prison term in addition to the horrific punishment of 1,000 lashes, a punishment he would most likely not survive. His crime? Alleged blasphemy against Islam. Doubting Thomas believes it would be better for Muslims to tolerate (and ignore) insults, rather than to tolerate horrific punishments of those insults, many of which are fabricated.
Conclusion
Three good people with three different views--talk about situational ethics! Maybe so-called situational ethics aren't bad, however, as long as they are consistent with the greatest commandment, namely, Love Your Neighbor as Yourself. Loving your neighbor doesn't mean that your neighbor has to agree with you. As long as there is no threat of violence, your neighbor should be entitled to express opposing opinions, even if those opinions insult the sensibilities of others. If your neighbor is stating something that you think is ignorant or insulting, protest. If that doesn't work, forgive him and move on with works that make the world a better place.
All three are in basic agreement: the greatest commandment must take precedence in all situations.
Je suis Charlie? Non, je suis tous.
I am no scholar of religion, but I have studied them all and feel I have some internal knowledge of all of them. I can pass from one to another as easily as a breeze can pass over the border of two countries that are at war with each other.
In short, I do not consider a Muslim as the other, but as my brother--(or sister, as the case may be.) In this essay, I will let the Muslim in me (let's call him Alif); the Hindu in me (Ramanatom) and the secularist in me, doubting Thomas, give their various opinions about whether or not free speech is always sacrosanct. Specifically, should insulting the Prophet Muhammad--which, I might add, all three find to be offensive--be banned? (Please note, I am relating what three people of three faiths in me have to say; we acknowledge that while other members of these faiths, if they are kind, would of necessity have to be in agreement with some of what the we have to say, but, beyond that, might have different, equally justifiable, views regarding other things the three in me assert.)
The essay is a response to recent acts of terrorism.
Alif's View
My name is Alif, I live in Marseilles, France.
I am an avid rationalist, but also have a deep need for transcendence. Imagine a soccer game in which each player is a different type of believer. My rationality is the goalie; it will not permit any unreasonable thought to pass and score a goal. For belief to score a goal, it must pass beyond reason without flouting it--thus a transcendence would be reached that would even delight reason, since it really wants a genuine belief to score.
Many people in my tradition have played this game which resulted in the awesome score of one to zero. Let me tell you about one of them, Abu Hamid al-Ghazzali (1058-1111.)
Al-Ghazzali was so brilliant that at the age of 33 he became director of the great Nizamiyyah mosque in Baghdad. This was a Sunni mosque; he was required to defend Sunni teachings and repudiate Shia teachings. Al-Ghazzali, however, insisted on finding the truth. He studied the doctrines of all the schools of Islam--there were many in those days--and found no certainty, no peace. He became convinced that all dogmatic positions, including many of the most important tenets of Islam, rested on assertions that cannot be proven. Al-Ghazzali would not permit any of these unreasonable players, kicking the ball inside him, as it were, to score. He could not abide, however, that the extremely serious game of life could end with a score of zero. Nevertheless, he could not let down his guard and let one pass. He became severely depressed, as this passage from his writings attest:
God shriveled my tongue until I was prevented from giving instruction. So I used to force myself to teach on a particular day for the benefit of my various pupils, but my tongue would not utter a single word.
He was convinced that he had to find a way to believe--or die. He resigned his post. He joined the Sufis, and after a few years, he was able to teach again--with joy.
What had he learned? The Sufis, then and now, are the most undogmatic sect of Islam. In their view, Islam is synonymous with being humble, striving for justice and practicing forgiveness and love. Al-Ghazzali needed to search no further: not by reading books, but by associating and following the examples of loving, wise people did he find the transcendence he had been seeking in vain.
That's the kind of Muslim I strive to be.
So let me now answer the question: what do I think of the caricatures of Mohammad published by Charlie Hebdo? I am appalled. This is certainly not the way to help people reach the goal of unity! But I am even more appalled that terrorists--in the name of Islam!!--attacked and killed so many editors and writers of that satirical magazine.
How do you truly insult Muhammad? How do you truly insult Allah? By giving them lip service while living a life of greed and injustice. We refer to Allah as Allah the Merciful, which means that the most important thing to do is to be merciful ourselves. We are--or should be-- far too busy removing the burdens from other people's shoulders to have a chip on ours. To love and forgive--that's what being a Muslim means; it's as simple and complex as that.
Ramanatom's View
My name is Ramanatom; I am a devout, non-militaristic Hindu. I live in Chennai, India.
First, I would like to inform my soul-mate, Alif, of the "fact" that the essence of both our traditions are in complete agreement. One of the greatest sages of my tradition asserted that when the mind turns inward something deep inside manifests itself as God. This God reveals that all things are interconnected; once one realizes this, selfish behavior is impossible. Just what you believe, Alif, albeit said in a different way.
Do I believe that caricatures of Muhammad should appear in print? I do not. Let me tell you why.
I live in a country of rising Hindu nationalism. I live in a country where the Muslims are a significant minority, but a minority nevertheless, about 14% of the population. The relationship between the Hindu and Muslim communities is definitely deteriorating. An example: a few years ago a fire broke out aboard a train of Hindu pilgrims. Muslims were blamed. (A 2005 government investigation of the incident determined that the fire had been an accident.) As a result, thousands of innocent Muslims were murdered by rioting Hindus. The police did not intervene. This was an appalling and alarming episode. Some people even want to have India, which has a secular constitution, to be declared a Hindu nation, which would only make matters worse. The potential for communal rioting remains, sadly, great.
If India allowed caricatures of Muhammad to be published, horrible things would likely happen. If they appeared in a magazine, I can imagine an angry Muslim--not like Alif, of course--desecrating a statue of Shiva in a village. I could then, unfortunately, picture Hindu villagers slaughtering scores of their fellow citizens who happen to be Muslim in response. Such crimes must be averted.
Free speech is precious, but life is even more precious. It's as simple and complex as that.
Doubting Thomas's View
My name is Doubting Thomas; I am a secularist who lives in Baltimore, a city in the United States. I do not believe any Western nation should prohibit the publication of insults to any religion. I find the caricatures of Muhammad to be stupid, puerile and inappropriate. But I defend the right of offensive people to publish offensive things.
One of the greatest American values is free speech, enshrined in the first amendment of our great constitution. This great law does not permit government to decide what isn't permitted to be spoken or published--provided, of course, that the content does not suborn violence. I am proud to live in a pluralistic society that embraces many views. I insist that people should be allowed to express themselves, even if their views are deeply offensive to many, including myself.
The Pope has recently said that free speech has limitations and should not include the freedom to mock another religion. I agree with him; however, I believe that the should should not become a must. One's conscience must be the law-giver here, not politicians.
Free speech has a long tradition in my country. Perhaps Ramanatom is correct regarding the Indian context, but not in the country where I live. Even immediately after 9/11, there was no incidence of hordes of people hell-bent on slaughtering Muslims. Yes we have individual crazies, but never hordes of marauding bigots. (Not too long ago, however, such crimes did occur on American soil; we should all be grateful that those days are gone forever.)
We cannot allow the abrogation of free speech due to the action of terrorists. We must also defend what's sacred to us. If we don't, the terrorists will have won.
I also think that there might even be an advantage to ridiculing religions. If you live in a pluralistic society, you have to have a thick skin. Forgiving those who mock Muhammad might help a Muslim to ignore the noise of Western society, and concentrate on its music: the right to practice any religion without interference. Doubting Thomas has just read about a very decent young man who wanted to promote democracy; he was sentenced by Saudi authorities to a long prison term in addition to the horrific punishment of 1,000 lashes, a punishment he would most likely not survive. His crime? Alleged blasphemy against Islam. Doubting Thomas believes it would be better for Muslims to tolerate (and ignore) insults, rather than to tolerate horrific punishments of those insults, many of which are fabricated.
Conclusion
Three good people with three different views--talk about situational ethics! Maybe so-called situational ethics aren't bad, however, as long as they are consistent with the greatest commandment, namely, Love Your Neighbor as Yourself. Loving your neighbor doesn't mean that your neighbor has to agree with you. As long as there is no threat of violence, your neighbor should be entitled to express opposing opinions, even if those opinions insult the sensibilities of others. If your neighbor is stating something that you think is ignorant or insulting, protest. If that doesn't work, forgive him and move on with works that make the world a better place.
All three are in basic agreement: the greatest commandment must take precedence in all situations.
Je suis Charlie? Non, je suis tous.
Very well-written and I agree with you. I'll add a secular note. Satire should have a purpose and not just be provocative. Though "taste" is subjective individually and culturally, we should consider the feelings of others which is part of the Love your Neighbor foundation of what you write. Violence and inhumane intolerance is the offense that terrorists commit. That glaring thuggish inhumanity is a legitimate target for satire. Mocking one's faith should not be the point unless the faith is a faith in violence and atrocity. No, not the faith, the attempt to reach transcendence and harmony with Being. The complete disregard, the bullying of others, the pain that we cause----they are the crimes and legitimate targets of satire.
ReplyDelete