Censoring Ourselves
Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith, today posted an intense condemnation of the western practice of censoring itself in regards to Islam and the terrorists who operate with its theocratic permission. What’s most interesting about Harris’ article are his personal anecdotes about censorship by the mainstream American press. Highly recommended reading.
(via memeorandum)
Harris writes:
As for infringements of my own speech, my first book, The End of Faith, almost did not get published for fear of offending the sensibilities of (probably non-reading) religious fanatics. W.W. Norton, which did publish the book, was widely seen as taking a risk–one probably attenuated by the fact that I am an equal-opportunity offender critical of all religious faith. However, when it came time to make final edits to the galleys of The End of Faith, many of the people I had thanked by name in my acknowledgments (including my agent at the time and my editor at Norton) independently asked to have their names removed from the book. Their concerns were explicitly for their personal safety.
…
Nature, arguably the most influential scientific journal on the planet, recently published a lengthy whitewash of Islam (Z. Sardar “Beyond the troubled relationship.” Nature 448, 131-133; 2007). The author began, as though atop a minaret, by simply declaring the religion of Islam to be “intrinsically rational.” He then went on to argue, amid a highly idiosyncratic reading of history and theology, that this rational religion’s current wallowing in the violent depths of unreason can be fully ascribed to the legacy of colonialism. After some negotiation, Nature also agreed to publish a brief response from me. What readers of my letter to the editor could not know, however, was that it was only published after perfectly factual sentences deemed offensive to Islam were expunged. I understood the editors’ concerns at the time: not only did they have Britain’s suffocating libel laws to worry about, but Muslim physicians and engineers in the UK had just revealed a penchant for suicide bombing. I was grateful that Nature published my letter at all.
In a thrillingly ironic turn of events, a shorter version of the very essay you are now reading was originally commissioned by the opinion page of Washington Post and then rejected because it was deemed too critical of Islam. Please note, this essay was destined for the opinion page of the paper, which had solicited my response to the controversy over Wilders’ film. The irony of its rejection seemed entirely lost on the Post, which responded to my subsequent expression of amazement by offering to pay me a “kill fee.” I declined.
I could list other examples of encounters with editors and publishers, as can many writers, all illustrating a single fact: While it remains taboo to criticize religious faith in general, it is considered especially unwise to criticize Islam.
There is a reason for this, of course, which Harris identifies quite clearly - physical safety. Those who view the world with open eyes will not be surprised by his words.
Only Muslims hound and hunt and murder their apostates, infidels, and critics in the 21st century. There are, to be sure, reasons why this is so. Some of these reasons have to do with accidents of history and geopolitics, but others can be directly traced to doctrines sanctifying violence which are unique to Islam.
There are those who disagree, of course. Some point out episodes in the Jewish and Christian religions as evidence of a general religious hypocrisy. Others parrot the “Islam is Peace” line while desperately wishing it were so. Still others claim that Harris is racist and that I, by writing this post, am as well. Untrue. And yet…
And if anyone in this debate can be credibly accused of racism, it is the western apologists and “multiculturalists” who deem Arabs and Muslims too immature to shoulder the responsibilities of civil discourse. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali has pointed out, there is a calamitous form of “affirmative action” at work, especially in western Europe, where Muslim immigrants are systematically exempted from western standards of moral order in the name of paying “respect” to the glaring pathologies in their culture. Hirsi Ali has also observed that there is a quasi-racist double-think on display whenever western powers trumpet that “Islam is peace,” all the while taking heroic measures to guard against the next occasion when the barbarians run amok in response to a film, cartoon, opera, novel, beauty pageant–or the mere naming of a teddy bear.
What is true is that actions speak louder than words. When western government and media institutions capitulate to terrorists by censoring the press and the citizenry, western societies are in effect admitting that they have neither the will nor the ability to counter Islamic terrorism’s corrosive effect on freedom and liberty.
Thomas Jefferson is quoted as saying, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” As unpleasant as this may be to bear it is the truth. As such it must be written about and repeated, regardless of who claims to be injured by the words. Denial, after all, is a personal choice.
Could not agree with you more Marc. I fear that most of the western world is too far gone down the path of appeasement in the form of political correctness & multiculturalism to ever right itself. Radical Islam is the gravest danger facing the western world, but with our low birth rates and capitulation, we will cede a great part of the world to it. Unfortunately, Europe first.
I wish we would stop equating a publisher’s (private enterprise) decision not to publish with government censorship.
Chris, I don’t see anybody equating the two things, simply pointing out that voluntary self-censorship in this context can have a very negative impact on the reality of whether our society is really free or not.
Well said. In my multicultural country, I have just been told at work that we are not allowed to refer to Christmas as Christmas, but to say the festive season instead. Because "others" (guess who) "find it offensive." Ridiculous.
And how quickly has the article excluded the general low-level intelligentsia of Islamic criticism we are so used to seeing in the Western Press, with all the simple cartoon "artistry" along with the crass humor and stereotyping and all… Yet what a great opportunity the West got itself to criticize Islam again, this time from a new angle. Please let me shout at all fellow Muslims like myself around the world (1.3 billion of them) from here:
"Hey everyone, there is a new twist to the never-ending saga of daily portrayal of Islam’s humiliation and defamation: Fasten your seat-belts, because the Western Press has just decided that it is… Guess… NOT criticizing Islam… Rigorously enough…"
I’ll try to be calm in this article although you must imagine how hard it must be for a fierce Muslim like myself to try to reason like a "civilized" person as opposed to blowing up myself to become a martyr. Here’s a "thought", wow, I actually came up with two!
1) If Europeans are incapable of expressing their disapproval of the religion of Islam without coming up with some well thought-out and intelligent philosophy for a change, or without evoking the ideas of superiority that they are entitled to as the white European Masters of Enlightenment, then they are being no better than us Muslim "Barbarians" who react at the slightest provocation.
2) Excluding their Muslim minorities out of the "moral system and order" insures that those very Muslim minorities never integrate into the Western society, which is very much done on purpose, because, hello, who would actually want MUSLIMS to be integrating into the Western Society? If the West applied the same laws and regulations to Muslims without showing its hypocritical "business as usual", Muslim minorities would actually have a *chance* to become mainstream rather than remaining as the usual "untouchables" of the Western Cast System. (And we don’t want that, do we?)
So notwithstanding the whole nine yards of stereotyping that comes along with declaring violence as being "unique to Islam", this article is now chastising - guess who - the West, for what exactly?
Hey, Selin, when was the last time a bunch of non-Muslims rioted over cartoons, huh?
We’re perfectly aware over here that not all Muslims are backwards, suicide-bomb-toting savages. However, your purported representatives here in America, like CAIR, seem to be intent on calling US names, saying that anybody who opposes fundamentalist Islam of the sort practiced by Osama Bin Laden and routinely exported by the government of Saudi Arabia is perforce a bigot.
I’ll ask you the same question I ask others making the same points you made. Have you criticized Saudi Arabia and other Arab Islamic countries who make it a criminal offense to attend a Christian church or to even bring a Bible into the country? When you acknowledge the simple fact that on the whole, Muslims in the West are treated far, far better than Christians are treated in Muslim countries, I’ll take you seriously.
As for your #2, you should narrow your targets. It is France and a few other countries in Europe who actively keep Muslims from integrating into their societies. In the U.S., there are no legal roadblocks to Muslims becoming citizens, and there are millions of practicing Muslims who are completely integrated into American society.
Religion is a plague to human race regardless. For some Christians, all Muslims always seem to be of an inferior species than themselves. Conversely, for some Muslims, all Christians always seem to be of insulting, hypocrite type. When I think of it, it feels good to be an atheist.
"Have you criticized Saudi Arabia and other Arab Islamic countries who make it a criminal offense to attend a Christian church or to even bring a Bible into the country?"
Yes, I critique Saudi Arabia a lot yet I know what a darling the country has always been to the United States despite the egregious practices of human rights in that country.
I also know how much America encouraged (and still encourages) the so-called "Green Crescent Revolution" surrounding the Middle East to Central Asia, in their historical effort to fight and eradicate the "Red Revolution" of Soviets under the bed.
Perhaps Fundamentalist attitudes of Saudi Arabia has not been America’s doing, but rising Islamic Fundamentalism in a few other countries including Turkey, has been. So it is up to people like us who need to live in the Middle East to try to undo the disastrous effects of both American and European policies that was designed to maintain an *unstable* Middle East so that no one country including Turkey would be allowed to become a major player in the region. Because that could have prevented the Western countries from exerting full control over the precious oil resources of the Middle East.
You have no idea how hard secular Turks work to fight Islamic Fundamentalism. Which means it is up to people like us to prevent Islam from being hijacked by Fundamentalist Forces. Which also means we need to work *equally* hard against the "Clash of Civilizations" mentality of the West, as Fundamentalist Islam is a necessary ingredient for Fundamentalist Christianity to survive and flourish as well.
The answer to the "big" question is this: The Western Media cannot get itself to intelligently critique Islam because doing so would necessitate a firm and honest look into the mirror. That would necessitate an equally harsh critique of the Western military, economic, diplomatic, and social policies around the world, not to mention the realization of how Christianity has also been used and abused as an ideological tool the same way that Islam has been.
Selin, for somebody who claims to want to avoid a "Clash of Civilizations," you seem very intent on laying all of the major problems of the Middle East at the feet of "Western Civilization."
How is rising Fundamentalism in Turkey "America’s doing"?
I’m perfectly content to work with you to restrain a "clash of civilizations" mentality in America and elsewhere in the West, but when you speak in such broad generalities, condemning MY entire country and apparently every policy we’ve ever had regarding the region, I lose interest, because you are just doing the broad stereo-typing you claim to oppose when done to Muslims. Particularly when you make such criticisms without any analysis of what other options may or may not have been available to America and Europe at the time. Sometimes, all policy choices are bad, and one must simply pick the best of the bad lot. Criticizing such choices with the benefit of 20 or 30 years of hindsight is misleading, because it presumes that some other choice would have led to better outcomes.
Very well said Selin. Still, I think even though mightier and Christian West is responsible for the rise of Islam initially against Soviets, the arrow has undeniably turned its direction to its perpetuators. Yet, Middle East is the true sufferer, not the Christian West. But as all sufferers do, partially due to the lack of economic and democratic power, the reaction of Muslim Middle East excluding Israel, has a wide spectrum from verbal complaints to primitive guerilla tactics. Needless to say that Iraq war made things worse in shifting towards irrational reactions in this spectrum. People in middle east as common human response, mostly blames the West for the situation that they are in. They are not totally wrong, however, it is their weakness to let their economy and politics driven by West’s interest. When a country operates on democratic, secular principles, a route is initiated to rid themselves from the dependence of West. Turkey has started off its quest some 75 years ago along these lines with the worst possible scenario, inheriting the backwardness of centuries old Ottoman monarchy. Islam has been the biggest road-block for what needed to be accomplished due to its dogmatic nature and its strong influence on social life as it has been the same in Christian West during its own "secularization era". The goal to have a functioning democracy, a strong judicial and educational system had to be achieved in an incremental approach due to Islam’s inquisition power in people’s minds. When you dont have a functioning democracy in all cylinders with a strong and intellectual parliament, the religious circles always surface and try to gain back from what they lost to secular republic. It is this struggle that Turkey has been over many decades as its representation quality has never been up-to the task, partly due to political parties administered using feudal tactics that promotes in-breeding and disfranchising able, young intellects and partly due to the collective evolution of its democratic know-how. Now, back to the discussion topic of this post, which was the lack of boldness in lifting the censorship towards religion mostly Islam, it is mentioned that not all muslims are the bomb-exploders etc, but yet the comments sounded more like whatever the minority extremists do, it is reflected to the entirety of Muslims; the kind of same name calling…. When you do that, you invite the other party to have its complaints justified as if all Christians denigrate and look down onto all Muslims. And I know that most Christians unfortunately do, and I also know that most Muslims feel beaten to the civilization machine of Christian West and strive to score better than West’s success .
It’s obvious that you have zero background on Turkish affairs to judge the current American and European support for religious right in this country posing as representatives of "Moderate Islam". You are also unaware of the last military coup that America called "our boys" was engineered as a clamp-down on rising Communist influence in Turkey as well as in the region. You are unaware of how religious elements have been supported and funded via certain European countries and America. Fethullah Gulen, (the Turkish Ayatollah), gets his backing from the U.S. AND gets adoring news coverage from many mainstream American newspapers for his evangelical teachings around the world of the "Moderate Islam".
You are unaware of the support both Europe and the U.S. is giving to the present religious AKP government, calling the perfectly legal suit by the Kemalist Judiciary "undemocratic" because pro-Kemalist forces in Turkey are actually working for the self interests of Turkey as opposed to being puppets for U.S. and European interests.
You are unaware that problems in Iran can be traced back to the US overthrow the democratically elected leadership of Dr. Mohammed Mosaddeq, only because he wanted to nationalize the oil companies, which wouldn’t be good for American oil interests in the region, would it? When the U.S. and Britain put the puppet government of Shah who was unable and unwilling to provide for the good of the people, the Iranian Revolution occurred, which led to the rise of Ayatullahs and hence to further rise of Fundamentalist Islam in the country. All of these wouldn’t have occurred, by the way, had the US, along with Britain, not overthrown Mossedeq’s democratic government to secure its share of oil resources. Madeleine Albright has conceded that this coup was a clear setback for Iran’s political development.
I have given only two details of American foreign policy in support of my argument on how disastrous American policies have been in leading to the rise of Political (and hence Fundamentalist) Islam around the Middle East.
However, you still haven’t expressed a word of critique OR regret for America’s unconditional support for Saudi Arabia despite the fact that this country has had the most undemocratic regime in the region. You don’t seem to be well versed in foreign policy details except for complaining about how Christians are unable to carry their Bible under Fundamentalist Islamic regimes. I can ignore your ignorance.
BUT… For an American who complains about Saudi Arabia yet won’t even discuss or admit to America’s unconditional support for that country, aren’t you a bit quick to blame Muslims for not critiquing Saudi Arabia that vigorously. From the demeaning arguments of you and of others, it’s clear that no "Christian" is turning the other cheek when they make their points. I am a big girl and I can handle it if such "Christians" will not take me seriously. I’m not going to blow up on you, so spare the "suicide bombing" argument, but pleeeease don’t expect me to "turn the other cheek" when I get continually slapped in the face.
By all means, perhaps if you read my comments in a different light it could even teach you a lesson on "empathy" for a change. For instance, how does it feel to be treated just like the way YOU are treating the "other" in YOUR battle of the "Clash of Civilizations"? Maybe instead of criticizing me for not turning my other cheek in your battle, you should learn about how it feels to have tables turned around for once in your life.
Also, you have talked about how well Muslims are integrating to the American Society. As a Muslim AND as an American Citizen who used to live and work in the U.S., I can tell you that what you say has NOT been my personal experience precisely because of prejudice from people like you that I’ve encountered in my daily living.