Salman Rushdie on 'Innocence of Muslims': 'Outrageous and unpleasant and disgusting'

Salman Rushdie on 'Innocence of Muslims': 'Outrageous and unpleasant and disgusting' 

by Hillary Busis, popwatch.ew.com
September 17th 2012

Twenty-three years ago, Booker Prize-winning writer Salman Rushdie was forced into hiding when his novel, The Satanic Verses, provoked fervent protests, death threats, and a fatwa from Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran. Now the author is telling the story of his life underground in a new memoir called Joseph Anton – the release of which just happens to come on the heels of Middle Eastern violence inspired by an inflammatory video called Innocence of Muslims.

But Rushdie doesn’t have much sympathy for Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the filmmaker apparently behind Innocence. “He’s done something malicious, and that’s a very different thing from writing a serious novel,” the writer told Today‘s Matt Lauer this morning. “He’s clearly set out to provoke, and he’s obviously unleashed a much bigger reaction than he hoped for. I mean, one of the problems with defending free speech is you often have to defend people that you find to be outrageous and unpleasant and disgusting.”

See Video: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640?launch=&width=510&height=300

That said, Rushdie is in no way defending the violence in Libya. On Today, he explained how he believes the world is at the mercy of an “outrage industry” driven by fundamentalists who look for things to be offended by: “It’s to a large extent manufactured. The fact that you can unleash these violent mobs like this is obviously completely unacceptable,” he said.

In another interview, Rushdie told the BBC that he believes The Satanic Verses could never be published in 2012 — “A book which was critical of Islam would be difficult to be published now,” he said, citing a climate of “fear and nervousness.”

That climate certainly seems to be having an effect on Midnight’s Children, a new movie based on Rushdie’s most beloved book. The Washington Post writes that distributors in Rushdie’s native India have been reluctant to screen the film, apparently scared off by Muslims and Indian politicians who have boycotted Rushdie and the movie. The Satanic Verses is still banned in India.

Ahmadinejad Hails Imminent Arrival of 'Ultimate Savior'

Ahmadinejad Hails Imminent Arrival of 'Ultimate Savior'

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrapped up his annual address to the U.N. General Assembly on a theological note Wednesday, hailing the imminent arrival of an "Ultimate Savior."

"God Almighty has promised us a man of kindness," the Iranian leader told world leaders and senior officials gathered in New York, at what was expected to be his last speech to the assembly as president of Iran.

Ahmadinejad said the savior is "a man who loves people and loves absolute justice, a man who is a perfect human being and is named Imam al-Mahdi, a man who will come in the company of Jesus Christ and the righteous."

As a Shiite Muslim, Ahmadinejad reveres Islam's tweflth imam, Mahammed al-Mahdi, who disappeared from the earth in the tenth century and is said to be due to return, accompanied by Jesus, to save mankind.

The date of his return is not known, but Ahmadinejad indicated that he felt the arrival would come quickly, telling delegates: "Now we can sense the sweet scent and the soulful breeze of the spring, a spring that has just begun."

Some critics of Iran's Islamic regime have expressed concern that messianic Shiite beliefs might drive leaders like Ahmadinejad to seek an apocalyptic confrontation with those he sees as foes of God's will on Earth.

But at the United Nations he insisted the Mahdi's return would bless all, not just "a specific race, ethnicity, nation or a region, a spring that will soon reach all the territories in Asia, Europe, Africa and the U.S."

"The arrival of the Ultimate Savior, Jesus Christ and the Righteous will bring about an eternally bright future for mankind, not by force or waging wars but through thought-awakening and developing kindness in everyone.

"Their arrival will breathe a new life in the cold and frozen body of the world. He will bless humanity with a spring that puts an end to our winter of ignorance, poverty and war with the tidings of a season of blooming.

"Let us join hands and clear the way for his eventual arrival with empathy and cooperation, in harmony and unity. Let us march on this path to salvation for the thirsty souls of humanity to taste immortal joy and grace.

"Long live this spring. Long live this spring. Again and again long live this spring," he declared, to a smattering of applause from some dignitaries.

The Sin of Sowing Hatred of Islam


The Sin of Sowing Hatred of Islam

Two weeks ago, on the morning of Sept. 11, I noticed a woman wearing a traditional Muslim head covering on the packed platform of the train station in Scarsdale, N.Y. Her attention was focused on a billboard ad that announced “19,250 deadly Islamic attacks since 9/11/01” and pre-empted those who might dispute that claim with the refrain: “It’s not Islamophobia, it’s Islamorealism.” I could only imagine what she was feeling.

On another morning commute to Grand Central Terminal, I sat on the train with Yawar Shah, a Muslim friend from Scarsdale whom I met years ago at my synagogue when he would attend a bar or bat mitzvah service of his friends’ children. Yawar told me how painful these ads are to his family and what an insult they are to our community in Westchester County and to our way of life.

The American Freedom Defense Initiative is the group spearheading this provocative anti-Islam campaign. In July, a federal judge in New York ruled in favor of the group in a freedom of speech case, forcing New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority to place an ad that denigrates Islam in subway stations, and now, time may have run out for further appeals. It reads: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.” Those ads went up Monday.

What is the message of this ad, directed at the multitude of subway riders of countless faiths and ethnicities?

By using the term “jihad” in the context of a war against savages, the ad paints Islam as inherently violent, evil and bent on overthrowing the Western democracies and their key ally in the Middle East, Israel — even though, for the vast majority of Muslims, “jihad” refers to a spiritual quest, not the more politicized idea of holy war.

Yes, these ads are lawful. But they are wrong and repugnant.

What other purpose can they have but to incite hatred against Muslims? In addition, they reinforce a terrible stereotype — presenting me and others who love Israel as people who believe themselves to be superior to Muslims. That characterization will only incite hatred of Jews, too.

Further, the group’s effort to co-opt our nation’s commitment to and support of Israel — a commitment embraced by countless millions of Americans of many faiths — suggests that if you love Israel, you must stand up for this distorted formulation of Islam. And it defines support for Israel with a false dichotomy between “civilized “ Jews and Muslim “savages.”

Israel is at the core of my identity. I am unshakably committed to Israel’s security. And I am not naïve about the real threats faced by Israel. We must unequivocally denounce and remain vigilant against terrorist attacks, whether from Al Qaeda, loners or states like Iran and the proxies it sponsors. But we must also defend against those who peddle hate, who would impose the sins of the extremists on more than a billion Muslims. They not only offend Muslims and those of us who value religious diversity and liberty for all; they pollute America’s own public square at a time when our society is desperate for civility and respectful discourse.

Fall in New York is always a special time for me. In addition to relief from oppressive heat, the brisk breezes of autumn herald new beginnings like the start of a new school year for our children. Fall also brings the Jewish High Holy Days, which offer America’s six and a half million Jews (of whom roughly one-third live in the New York area) a time to reflect on the past year and to rededicate themselves to a fresh start in their relationships at home, at work and with friends.

This fall, when religious hate speech appears in public places, when several mosques across the nation have been desecrated and burned, when Sikhs have been murdered, it is time for our nation to raise our voices in repudiation of all manner of hate mongering.

This Yom Kippur, we will once again read these words from Deuteronomy 11:26: “See, this day I set before you blessing and curse.” Those same choices are before us today. Let us, as a nation, reject the curse of hatred and instead choose the blessings of faith, acceptance, understanding and respect for all.

Rabbi Rick Jacobs is the president of the Union for Reform Judaism.

الكتاب: اختلال العالم .. حضاراتنا المتهافتة .. أمين معلوف يدعو إلى ثقافة جريئة لاستكشاف وحدة التجربة الإنسانية

اختلال العالم عرض/محمد تركي الربيعو| الاتحاد الدولي لنقابات العمال العرب


« يبدو أننا دخلنا هذا القرن الجديد بلا بوصلة»، بهذه العبارة المقلقة يبدأ الكاتب والروائي اللبناني أمين معلوف كتابه الجديد، الذي يعد استكمالا لكتابه السابق «الهويات القاتلة»، الذي أصبح اليوم مادة تدريسية في برنامج العديد من الجامعات في العالم.


-الكتاب: اختلال العالم.. حضاراتنا المتهافتة
-المؤلف: أمين معلوف
-المترجم: ميشال كرم
-عدد الصفحات: 312
-الناشر: دار الفارابي, بيروت
-الطبعة: الأولى/2009


حيث يرى الكاتب أن تعبيره هذا ليس هنا بصدد حالات الجزع اللاعقلانية التي رافقت الانتقال من ألفية إلى أخرى، ولا بصدد صيحات الويل التي يطلقها دوما أولئك الذين يخشون التغيير أو يفزعون من وتيرته.

بل لكونه قلق نصير للأنوار التي أخذت تترنح وتشحب وأخذت في بعض البلدان تشرف على الانطفاء، إنه قلق مولع بالحرية التي كان يحسبها سائرة إلى الانتشار في كل أنحاء المعمورة وهو الآن يشهد ارتسام ملامح عالم لا مكان لها فيه.

كما أنه قلق للتنوع الذي تحول إلى انفلات في المطالبات المتعلقة بالهويات من عقالها، وإلى اختلال اقتصادي ومالي يجر الكوكب بأسره إلى منطقة من الاضطرابات يتعذر التكهن بنتائجها، وكذلك اختلال مناخي ناجم عن فترة طويلة من الممارسات غير المسؤولة وبكل بساطة فهو قلق عاشق للحياة، لا يقبل التسليم بالفناء الذي يتربص بها.

ولذلك فهو يسعى إلى فهم أسباب بلوغنا هذا الدرك وكيفية الخروج منه، حيث إن اختلال العالم بنظره مرتبط بحالة الإنهاك المتزامنة للحضارات كافة وبخاصة للمجموعتين الثقافيتين اللتين يدعي العالم نفسه الانتماء إليهما ألا وهما الغرب والعالم العربي، أكثر من ارتباطه بـ"حرب حضارات". فالمجموعة الأولى تعتورها قلة وفائها لقيمها الخاصة، أما الثانية فواقعة في شرنقة تاريخية.

الانتصارات الكاذبة
يرى الكاتب في هذا الفصل أنه في لحظة سقوط جدار برلين اجتاحت العالم موجة من الأمل. فانتهاء المواجهة بين الغرب والاتحاد السوفييتي أبعد خطر حصول زلزال نووي كان معلقا فوق رؤوسنا منذ نحو أربعين سنة، وكان ينتظر بعد ذلك أن تنتشر الديمقراطية شيئا فشيئا وأن تزول الحواجز بين مختلف أصقاع الكرة الأرضية، ليدشن بذلك عهدا من التقدم والازدهار.

"
بتنا نجد أنفسنا في هذا العصر الجديد ضمن كوكب استشرت فيه الانتماءات، خصوصا تلك المتعلقة بالدين، بحيث أقلع الناس عن طوباياتهم المهزومة، ولجؤوا إلى سقف طائفة تشعرهم بالأمان
"
وعلى الرغم من تحقق بضع خطوات مرموقة في كل الميادين بادئ الأمر. لكننا كنا نزداد ضياعا كلما ازددنا تقدما، وربما لدينا من هذا القبيل مثال ساطع هو الاتحاد الأوروبي، حيث كان تفكك الكتلة السوفييتية انتصارا في نظر هذا الاتحاد، إلا أن أوروبا ضيعت معالم طريقها لحظة انتصارها، وكان عليها أن تساءل نفسها عن هويتها وحدودها ومؤسساتها المستقبلية وموقعها في العالم الجديد.

كما أننا بتنا نجد أنفسنا في هذا العصر الجديد ضمن كوكب استشرت فيه الانتماءات، خصوصا تلك المتعلقة بالدين، بحيث أقلع الناس عن طوباياتهم المهزومة، ولجؤوا إلى سقف طائفة تشعرهم بالأمان.

وكان لهذا الانزلاق من الأيديولوجيا نحو فكرة الهوية عواقب مدمرة على الكرة بمجملها، بدليل أن التعايش بين مختلف الجماعات البشرية بات يزداد صعوبة يوما بعد يوم، ولعل أوضح مثال بليغ الدلالة ذلك الذي يتعلق بالعلاقات بين مختلف الطوائف في الشرق الأدنى، فقد كان السنة والشيعة مثلا يتبادلون نظرات الارتياب أحيانا، لكن حالات الزواج المختلط كانت متواترة بينهم، وأما هذه المجازر اليومية المتبادلة اليوم التي سخفتها المأساة العراقية فما كانت لتخطر ببال أحد.

وكما أنه مع انتهاء الحرب الباردة راح بعضهم يتحدث عن «نهاية التاريخ» لأن العالم بكامله يزمع أن يذوب سلميا في قالب الغرب الظافر، لكن التاريخ اثبت أنه ليس العذراء الطيعة العاقلة التي يحلم بها الأيديولوجيون، وهكذا أدى انتصار الغرب، في الميدان الاقتصادي، ويا للمفارقة، إلى إضعاف هذا الغرب، فقد انطلقت الصين ثم الهند بسرعة وقوة في هذا الميدان بعد اكتساب هذين المجتمعين الآسيويين ما كان ينقصهما، وذلك بالاقتباس من مدرسة الغرب التي بنفاذها المعرفي والثقافي إلى روح كل أمم الأرض قد أمست في نفس الوقت مقصرة عن حضارات الآخرين لأنهم تبنوا حضارتها، فحرموها مما كان يشكل نوعيتها وتفوقها.

وفي رأي الكاتب فإنه إذا كان الغرب قد عجز عن الإفادة بصورة كاملة من انتصاره على الشيوعية فذلك يعود لأنه لم يعرف نشر ازدهاره فيما وراء حدوده الثقافية، وهذا التقصير تدفع البشرية بكاملها ثمنه اليوم.

وقد حاولت الدول الغربية تبرير هذا الفشل في القول بأن الشعوب الأخرى كانت غير جاهزة لتقبل مثل هذا «اللقاح»، وكانت آخر صياغة لها تتعلق بالعراق، إذ قيل إن غلطة الأميركيين هي أنهم أرادوا أن يفرضوا الديمقراطية على شعب لا يريدها.

"
الإنترنت غدا مكان تجمع وتعبئة لـ«قبائلنا» العالمية، وذلك ليس نتيجة تلاعب غامض بل لأن الإنترنت قد ازدهر في لحظة من التاريخ تتفلت فيها الهويات من عقالها وينتشر صراع الحضارات ويزداد العنف في الكلام كما في الأفعال
"
بينما الحقيقة تكمن في أن هذه الدول لم تحترم قيمها في علاقاتها مع الشعوب المغلوبة، فالدكتاتور غير المقبول في أوروبا بات مقبولا حين يمارس هوايته في الجانب الآخر من البحر المتوسط، لا بل إن الغرب فقد النخب المتمسكة بالحداثة «خصوصا»، بينما وجد دائما مع قوى التخلف تسويات وحقول تفاهم ومصالح متلاقية، وبالتالي فإن مأساته أنه كان على الدوام حائرا بين رغبته في تمدين العالم وإرادته السيطرة عليها، وهذان أمران لا يمكن الجمع بينهما.

كما أنه من البديهي أن القرن الواحد والعشرين ابتدأ في ذهنية مختلفة اختلافا محسوسا عما عرفته الإنسانية من قبل فـ«الشبكة المعلوماتية» تفتح اليوم آفاقا غير محدودة أمام من يهتم بمسيرة التاريخ.

إلا أن هذه الأداة العصرية العظيمة التي يراد لها أن تشجع التداخل والتبادل المتناغم بين الثقافات تغدو مكان تجمع وتعبئة لـ«قبائلنا» العالمية، وذلك ليس نتيجة تلاعب غامض بل لأن الإنترنت قد ازدهر في لحظة من التاريخ تتفلت فيها الهويات من عقالها وينتشر صراع الحضارات وتفسد طبيعة المناقشات، ويزداد العنف في الكلام وفي الأفعال وتضيع فيه المعالم المشتركة.

التقنيات الخيالية
يؤتى أحيانا، في الكلام عن أزمة زماننا الخلقية، على ذكر "فقدان الاتجاه"، هذا قول في رأي الكاتب لا يجد نفسه فيه لأنه يحمل على الظن بأنه يجب استعادة "الاتجاهات المفقودة"، والتضامنات المنسية، والشرعيات التي فقدت قيمتها.

ولذلك فليس المطلوب منا "أن نستعيد" بل علينا أن نخترع والذي لا يمكن أن يتم من خلال الدعوة إلى عودة وهمية لسلوكيات الماضي لنتمكن من مواجهة العصر الجديد.

فالحكمة تبدأ بمعاينة استحالة مقارنة عصرنا بغيره، ومعاينة نوعية العلاقات بين الأشخاص كما بين المجتمعات البشرية ونوعية الوسائل المتوفرة لنا والتحديات التي يجب علينا مواجهتها.

فعلى صعيد العلاقات بين الأمم وإدارة الكرة، ليست حصيلة التاريخ بالمثالية بتاتا، إذ إن الحصيلة حافلة بحروب مدمرة، وجرائم بحق الكرامة الإنسانية. وبالتالي فبدلا من تجميل الماضي وأمثلته قد يكون من الواجب أن نتخلص من العقد النفسية التي اكتسبناها فيه والتي تتبدى كارثية في الوضع الراهن.

وكذلك الأمر في قول الشيء ذاته عن "العجل الذهبي"، فالتنديد بالثروة المادية، وتجريم من يجتهدون منها، موقف عقيم كان يستخدم دائما لأسوا ضروب الدجل. لكن جعل المال معيارا لكل استحقاق للاحترام، وأساسا لكل سلطة، وكل تراتبية أمر يؤدي إلى تمزيق النسيج الاجتماعي.

"
لم يعد بوسعنا أن نكتفي بمعرفة "الآخرين" معرفة تقريبية، سطحية، غليظة وإنما نحن بحاجة لمعرفتهم معرفة دقيقة ولصيقة من خلال اطلاعنا بإرادة معرفية على ثقافتهم وآدابهم
"
وينطبق الحال أيضا فيما يتعلق بالشعوب المتعددة الأصول التي تعيش جنبا إلى جنب في جميع البلدان، وجميع المدن والتي ظلت ولا تزال تنظر إلى بعضها زمانا طويلا من خلال مؤشرات مشوهة، بضعة أفكار موروثة، بضعة أحكام مسبقة قديمة العهد، وبضعة تصورات ساذجة.

وبالتالي يبدو أنه حان وقت تغيير عاداتنا وأولوياتنا كي نصغي بمزيد من الجدية إلى ما يقوله لنا العالم الذي نبحر على متنه. ذلك أنه لم يعد ثمة غرباء في هذا القرن، بل ثمة "رفاق سفر" وسواء كان معاصرونا يسكنون الجهة الأخرى من الشارع أو الجهة الأخرى من الكرة الأرضية، فهم لا يبعدون عنا سوى خطوتين، تصرفاتنا تمسهم في الصميم وتصرفاتهم تمسنا في الصميم.

وإذا كنا نحرص على صون السلم الأهلي في بلداننا، وفي مدننا وأحيائنا كما في كامل الكرة الأرضية، فإنه لم يعد بوسعنا أن نكتفي بمعرفة "الآخرين" معرفة تقريبية، سطحية، غليظة وإنما نحن بحاجة لمعرفتهم معرفة دقيقة ولصيقة من خلال اطلاعنا بإرادة معرفية على ثقافتهم وآدابهم.

نحو بناء سفينة نوح ثقافية
وأما عن كيفية الخروج من مأزقنا في هذا العالم الجديد فإن الكاتب يقترح أن نقلع عن الأفكار السابقة والانطباعات الموروثة كي ندخل بقدم ثابتة في طور جديد من المغامرة البشرية، طور يجب أن يخترع فيه كل شيء من جديد، التضامن والشرعيات والهويات والقيم.

وإن البداية في عالم القيم الجديد هذا تتم من خلال تبني سلم للقيم يؤسس على أولوية الثقافة، لا بل يؤسس على الخلاص بواسطة الثقافة، وأن علينا الاعتراف بأننا لن نتمكن من الاهتداء إلى الطريق الصحيح في متاهة الحياة العصرية دون بوصلة روحية، وذلك على الرغم من معرفتنا من قبل بأن البشر يمكن أن يضلوا الطريق بواسطة الدين كما يمكنهم أن يضلوا الطريق من دون الدين.

أما إذا اعتبرنا الثقافة حقلا بين حقول أخرى أو وسيلة لتزيين الحياة عند فئة من الناس فنكون قد أخطأنا القرن وأخطأنا الألفية، لكون دور الثقافة اليوم هو تزويد معاصرينا بالأدوات الفكرية والخلقية التي ستسمح لهم بالبقاء.

فعدد الذين من بيننا يعيشون حياة أطول وأفضل يرتفع أكثر فأكثر ويتربص بهم حتما الضجر والخوف من الفراغ وتسول لهم أنفسهم حتما أن يفلتوا منها بالارتماء في استهلاك جنوني.

"
القرن الواحد والعشرون لن ينقذ إلا بواسطة الثقافة التي ستعزز شيئا فشيئا الإيمان بوحدة المغامرة الإنسانية، فاسحة المجال بذلك لحصول صحوة إنقاذية
"
وإذ كنا نتمنى ألا نستنفذ موارد الكرة بسرعة فسيكون علينا أن نفضل قدر المستطاع إشكالا أخرى للشبع، وأشكالا أخرى للمتعة، من بينها تحصيل المعرفة وتنمية حياة داخلية تساعد على التفتح.

وليس المقصود هنا فرض حرمانات ولا العيش في تقشف، غير أننا إذا رغبنا في أن نستمتع طويلا على نحو كامل بما تقدمه لنا الحياة، فيكون من واجبنا أن نعدل سلوكياتنا.

وبالتالي فإن القرن الواحد والعشرين لن ينقذ إلا بواسطة الثقافة التي ستعزز شيئا فشيئا الإيمان بوحدة المغامرة الإنسانية، فاسحة المجال بذلك لحصول صحوة إنقاذية.

وفي نهاية الكتاب يرى أمين معلوف أنه على الرغم من غيظه وقلقه، فإنه ما زال مفتونا بالمغامرة البشرية ومقدسا لها، وليس مستعدا لمبادلتها بحياة الملائكة أو البهائم مهما كان الثمن، لكوننا نحن البشر، مؤتمنين على الخلق ومكملين له، وإذا كان فوق رؤوسنا من خالق أسمى، فإننا أهل لافتخاره كما نحن أهل لغضبه.


المصدر: الجزيرة

إحالة مدون مصري للمحاكمة لاتهامه بازدراء الأديان

إحالة مدون مصري للمحاكمة لاتهامه بازدراء الأديان

ألبير صابر
العربية.نت

ألقت السلطات القبض على مدون مصري، للاشتباه بأنه بث على الإنترنت لقطات من فيلم يسيء إلى الإسلام أثار احتجاجات المسلمين حول العالم، حيث سيقدم إلى المحاكمة هذا الأسبوع بتهم ازدراء الأديان.

بعد أن اتهمه جيرانه ببث مقاطع من فيلم (براءة المسلمين) ونشر كتابات ولقطات تسخر من جميع الأديان، تم القبض على الشاب الذي يدعى ألبير صابر 27 عاما في مسكنه بالقاهرة في 13 سبتمبر/ أيلول.

بعدها أحيل إلى محكمة جنح المرج بتهم "ازدراء الديانتين الإسلامية والمسيحية وسب الذات الإلهية والتهكم على المقدسات والشعائر الإسلامية والمسيحية والأنبياء"، وسيمثل أمام المحكمة يوم الأربعاء.

ويقول محامون حقوقيون إن صابر ألقي القبض عليه بدون إذن من النيابة، وإنه تعرض للضرب أثناء استجوابه.

وقالت وكالة الشرق الأوسط إن المتهم "أنشأ صفحات متعددة على مواقع التواصل الاجتماعي على الإنترنت دعا فيها إلى الإلحاد وتحقير الديانتين الإسلامية والمسيحية، مشككا في العديد من الشعائر الإسلامية والمسيحية والمقدسات بالديانتين والكتب السماوية، وطعن في السيد المسيح".

وأضافت الوكالة "قامت النيابة العامة بتفريغ محتويات مقاطع الفيديو والصور الموجودة على المواقع والصفحات الالكترونية المملوكة للطالب المتهم، والتي وضعها على شبكة الإنترنت، حيث تبين لها قيام المتهم بترويجها على المواقع بقصد إثارة الفتنة وتحقير وازدراء الأديان السماوية".

وأثارت قضية صابر مخاوف بشأن حرية التعبير في عهد الرئيس الإسلامي محمد مرسي الذي تولى السلطة في انتخابات حرة في وقت سابق من هذا العام، بعد الإطاحة بحسني مبارك في انتفاضة شعبية أوائل العام الماضي.

How dare you not love Atatürk?! Can we impose love !?

How dare you not love Atatürk?!

MUSTAFA AKYOL mustafa-akyol

| 6/14/2008 12:00:00 AM | Mustafa AKYOL

Love cannot be imposed. If you want all citizens to appreciate Atatürk as The Father of All Turks, then you should make him the symbol of freedom and justice for all

The ultra-secular camp in Turkey has just found a new reason to bolster its campaign of fear. Two young ladies wearing the much-hated Islamic headscarf showed up on a TV program, and one of them declared, “I don’t like Atatürk.” The other even said she rather has sympathy for Ayatollah Khomeini, the leader of the Iranian revolution. And hell broke loose.

No, it is not just the secularist media that unleashed its wrath on these ladies, namely Nuray Bezirgan and Kevser Çakır. The prosecutors have also caught on. The other day, an Istanbul prosecutor announced that an investigation has been launched in order to file a case against these university students for violating the “Law on Crimes Against Atatürk.” If they get penalized for this “felony,” then it will mean that the level of our official thought control has been raised from orange to red. Every Turkish citizen will have to love the Eternal Leader in order to avoid jail. 

Not suppressed enough?:

I think the more reasonable secularists will tell you that it will be wrong to prosecute Ms. Bezirgan and Ms. Çakır because of their remarks. Yet, they are arguing that such outrageous ideas show the severity of the “Islamic threat” to the Turkish Republic. They also say that the establishment is right in its authoritarian ways to contain religious practice. “You see,” they reason, “what will happen if we don’t sufficiently suppress these religious bigots.”

Well, could the problem rather be that those “religious bigots” have been suppressed too much?

Let’s just get back to the TV show in question to get some insight. It was journalist Fatih Altaylı who hosted Ms. Bezirgan and Ms. Çakır, who are both university students who wear the headscarf (at least outside the campus). At some point in the show, Mr. Altaylı asked them about Khomeini. Ms. Çakır said she “liked” the late Ayatollah because “he was a Muslim.” Yet when Mr. Altaylı asked them about the current regime in Iran, which is obviously suppressive, both students noted that they don’t approve of it.

 The real shocking news came a minute later. Mr. Altaylı asked, “So what about Atatürk, do you love him as well?” Ms. Bezirgan responded first by asking, “Do I have the right not to love him?” And she added, “If yes, then I don’t love him.” Then she said why:

“If people are persecuting me in the name of Atatürk, you can’t expect me to love him.”

When, in return, Mr. Altaylı noted, “Atatürk fought against invasion and saved us from the British yoke,” the young lady gave a very interesting reply. “If the British were here, I actually would have much broader rights,” she said. “That’s the whole point.”

And then she further explained what her problem was with the Kemalist system in Turkey:

“A party which will defend my ideas cannot be found in Turkey. It will be banned. Yes, if any party dares to defend my view, it will be closed down… Muslims work day and night in this country in order to get their rights. Then when Parliament gives them a little right, someone comes and takes those freedoms away from us in the name of Atatürk, or the Republic.”

“What I want,” she finally said, “is a system in which I am totally free, in which my rights and freedoms are not suppressed.”

Thus, fellow columnist Yusuf Kanlı was right yesterday to point out that these ladies “want to wear Islamist attire everywhere, including state offices!” In other words, they want full equal citizenship. What a big heresy for our Republic, which openly favors secular citizens over observant ones... 

Atatürk and his discontents:

Now, the big question is this: How do we suppress the rights of conservative Muslims in the name Atatürk and then expect them to be his greatest fans?

The Kemalists can’t think of that, because they have no sense of empathy. For them, Atatürk is the Great Liberator who gave them all the privileges they have. But not all groups in society have had the same experience. For conservative Muslims, Atatürk symbolizes the purging of religion and religious believers from public life. In the eyes of the Kurds, he is the one who initiated the policy of enforced “Turkification.”

In other words, while the early decades of the Turkish Republic were a great blessing for some elements of society, it was a dark period for the rest. And there is no way that you can make them “love” this system, and its official cult of personality, by media campaigns and court decisions.

But you can do something else. You can put Atatürk in his historical context, argue that his revolution was destined to give all of us freedom in the future, and you can move toward that point. In other words, you can stop using Atatürk as a flag against “internal enemies,” which make up at least half of the nation.

Let me give you an example. What do you think blacks would have felt like in the 1960s if the U.S. Supreme Court had decided that segregation had to go on because of the “principles of George Washington”? Washington, after all, established a republic in which blacks were slaves. Wouldn’t that make Afro-Americans cold toward the founding father? Today America doesn’t have Black Panthers anymore, or black leaders who denounce the “American dream” as “American nightmare,” because racial segregation, at least officially, has become history. And the more Americans solve the “race issue,” the more the scars of the past will be healed.

If Turkey’s secular elites want to achieve social reconciliation, which we desperately need, then they have to accept a similar act of civil rights. If you want all citizens to appreciate Atatürk as The Father of All Turks, then you should make him the symbol of freedom and justice for all. As the famous Turkish proverb goes, “there is no benevolence by force.” And as common wisdom suggests, there is no love for Atatürk by the how-dare-you-not-love-Atatürk hype.

Google defies Turkey, reinstates Atatürk insult videos

Google defies Turkey, reinstates Atatürk insult videos

Update Google has reinstated the Atatürk-insulting videos that caused the Turkey's 30-month YouTube ban, setting up yet another run-in with local authorities just days after a Turkish court lifted the ban.

Late last week, at the request of the semi-independent Turkish Internet Board, a German company used Google's automatic copyright protection system to have the four videos taken down. On Saturday, a court lifted the ban on YouTube, pointing out that the videos were no longer available. But Google now says it has reinstated the videos because they did not violate copyrights.

"When we looked into this, we found the videos were not, in fact, copyright infringing, so we have put them back up, though they continue to be restricted within Turkey. We hope very much that our users in Turkey can continue to enjoy YouTube," reads a statement Google sent to The Reg.

The head of the country's Telecommunications Transmission Directorate told The Wall Street Journal he would meet with Google "in the coming days." The head of the Internet Board said that if Google's statement about the videos was true "it would make it more difficult for our board to defend YouTube", and that the ban may be put back in place.

Until this past weekend, Turkish authorities had continuously blocked access to YouTube since May 2008, after users uploaded videos that insulted the Turkish republic's founder, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. The government previously banned the site on at least three other occasions.

Apparently, the first ban – laid down in 2007 – was a response to a parody news broadcast in which Greek football fans taunted the Turks by saying: "Today's news; Kemal Atatürk was gay!"

Under Turkish law — Law 5651 — the courts can shut down a website if it attacks Atatürk or incites suicide, paedophilia, drug usage, obscenity, or prostitution. The original video was removed, but prosecutors have since objected to various other videos insulting Atatürk, including the four that were just reposted by Google.

Turkish president Abdullah Gül has used Twitter to criticise the country's YouTube ban. "About Turkey’s YouTube prohibition: I don't approve of the state's blocking of Google categories. Legal channels can be found," he tweeted.

The ban has been a stumbling block in the country's efforts to join the European Union. ®

Updated: This story has been updated with additional info supplied by Google.

No religion has a monopoly on irrational violence

Deja Vu, 1988: Protesters Throw Bombs Over Religious Film

September 16, 2012 07:00 AM
By Susie Madrak

While listening to all the outraged right wing rantings about free speech and how Muslims were a separate, primitive class of religion for their outraged and violent response in Libya to the deliberately provocative work of a California porn director, I kept thinking to myself, "Why does this all seem so familiar?"

And then, last night I watched Martin Scorcese's 1988 film, "The Last Temptation of Christ", and it all came flooding back. From Wikipedia:

On October 22, 1988, a French Christian fundamentalist group launched Molotov cocktails inside the Parisian Saint Michel movie theater while it was showing the film. This attack injured thirteen people, four of whom were severely burned.[8][9] The Saint Michel theater was heavily damaged,[9] and reopened 3 years later after restoration. Following the attack, a representative of the film's distributor, United International Pictures, said, "The opponents of the film have largely won. They have massacred the film's success, and they have scared the public." Jack Lang, France's Minister of Culture, went to the St.-Michel theater after the fire, and said, "Freedom of speech is threatened, and we must not be intimidated by such acts."[9] The Archbishop of Paris, Jean-Marie Cardinal Lustiger, said "One doesn't have the right to shock the sensibilities of millions of people for whom Jesus is more important than their father or mother."[9] After the fire he condemned the attack, saying, "You don't behave as Christians but as enemies of Christ. From the Christian point of view, one doesn't defend Christ with arms. Christ himself forbade it."[9] The leader of Christian Solidarity, a Roman Catholic group that had promised to stop the film from being shown, said, "We will not hesitate to go to prison if it is necessary."[9]

The attack was subsequently blamed on a Christian fundamentalist group linked to Bernard Antony, a representative of the far-right National Front to the European Parliament in Strasbourg, and the excommunicated followers of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.[8] Lefebvre had been excommunicated from the Catholic Church on July 2, 1988. Similar attacks against theatres included graffiti, setting off tear-gas canisters and stink bombs, and assaulting filmgoers.[8] At least nine people believed to be members of the Catholic fundamentalist group were arrested.[8] Rene Remond, a historian, said of the Catholic far-right, "It is the toughest component of the National Front and it is motivated more by religion than by politics. It has a coherent political philosophy that has not changed for 200 years: it is the rejection of the revolution, of the republic and of modernism."[8]

[...] Although Last Temptation was released on VHS and Laserdisc, many video rental stores, including the then-dominant Blockbuster Video, declined to carry it for rental as a result of the film's controversial reception.[14] In 1997, the Criterion Collection issued a special edition of Last Temptation on Laserdisc, which Criterion re-issued on DVD in 2000 and on Blu-ray disc in Region A in March 2012.

Lesson of the day: No religion has a monopoly on irrational violence.

Catholics Then, Muslims Now

Catholics Then, Muslims Now

THE short, crude anti-Muslim video that sparked a wave of violent protests across the Middle East did not emerge from an obscure pocket of extremism; it is the latest in a string of anti-Muslim outbursts in the United States. In August, a mosque was burned down in Missouri and an acid bomb was thrown at an Islamic school in Illinois. The video’s backers are part of a movement that has used the insecurity of the post-9/11 years to sow unfounded fears of a Muslim plot to take over the West.

Their message has spread from the obscurity of the Internet and the far right to the best seller lists, the mainstream media and Congress. For the first time in decades, it has become acceptable in some circles to declare that a specific religious minority can’t be trusted.

During the Republican primaries, Muslims were accused of harboring plans for “stealth Shariah.” A group of five Republican House members, led by Michele Bachmann, groundlessly accused two prominent Muslim federal officials of loyalty to Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood. Another Republican representative, Joe Walsh of Illinois, used a campaign rally to suggest that Muslims in the Chicago suburbs were plotting to commit terrorist attacks. In New York City, the police spied on thousands of Muslims for six years without producing any evidence that could lead to an investigation.

The view that members of a religious minority are not to be trusted — that they are predisposed to extremism, disloyalty and violence; resist assimilation; reproduce at alarming rates, and are theologically compelled to impose their backward religious laws on their adopted home — is not new. From the 19th century on, distrust, violence and, eventually, immigration restrictions were aimed at waves of Roman Catholic immigrants.

As late as 1950, 240,000 Americans bought copies of “American Freedom and Catholic Power,” a New York Times best seller. Its author, Paul Blanshard, a former diplomat and editor at The Nation, made the case that Catholicism was an ideology of conquest, and that its traditions constituted a form of “medieval authoritarianism that has no rightful place in the democratic American environment.”

Catholics’ high birthrates and educational self-segregation led Mr. Blanshard and others — including scholars, legislators and journalists — to warn of a “Catholic plan for America.”

Many Americans shunned such views, but some liberals did not. Mr. Blanshard’s book was endorsed by the likes of John Dewey and Bertrand Russell, and respected scholars like Seymour Martin Lipset, Reinhold Niebuhr and Sidney Hook debated Catholics’ supposed propensity toward authoritarianism.

Then, as now, there seemed to be evidence supporting the charge. Majority-Catholic countries like Spain, Italy, Portugal and Austria, had fallen into fascism or extremism. Crime and educational failure were rife among the children of Catholic immigrants. In the years after World War I, Catholic radicals carried out a deadly wave of terrorist attacks in the United States.

These days, the same dark accusations are being leveled at American Muslims, many of whom are recent immigrants. And many otherwise reasonable Americans have greeted Muslims with fear and suspicion — in part because they came at a bad time. Their emigration to the United States, like that of many Catholics before them, has coincided with turmoil in their native countries and violence from a few extremists in their midst.

In the years after 9/11, anti-Muslim rhetoric simmered on blogs, YouTube videos and a stream of inflammatory best sellers. But not until Barack Obama’s presidency was it allowed to erupt into prominent corners of mainstream politics. Mitt Romney, to his credit, has shunned notions of American Muslim disloyalty, but Republican political and media figures have tolerated or even advanced these hateful myths.

In reality, Muslim immigrants are a success story. They have high levels of educational attainment. Their birthrate is converging quickly with that of the general population. They are likely to ultimately make up less than 2 percent of the population, around the same share as Episcopalians and Jews.

The violent few among them are no more a product of Muslim values than 1920s anarchists were of Catholic values. Extremism is vanishingly rare among American Muslims, and loyalty to secular state institutions is high. The idea of a stealth takeover by Islamic believers is a delusion. So is the more moderate idea of a permanently alien and unassimilable “civilization” in America’s midst.

American Muslims are falling victim to the same misunderstandings and fallacies that threatened earlier waves of non-Protestant immigrants. The last thing they need, as they work to become part of the mainstream, is a political movement devoted to portraying them as a menace. In an election year when both major parties have a Roman Catholic on the ticket, we should take care to make sure that history does not repeat itself.

Doug Saunders, the European bureau chief for The Globe and Mail, is the author of “The Myth of the Muslim Tide: Do Immigrants Threaten the West?”

Regards,
Walid.