Back in 1989, when the publication of Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses sparked a new phenomenon of protests from Muslims - particularly by those in the West - I was a student body senator at the University of California at Berkeley, where the Free Speech Movement was born in the 1960s. Two bookstores were firebombed - apparently in retaliation for the book - though without a claim of responsibility. Along with several other Muslim students, I appeared on local television to denounce the bombings and state our belief that while Muslims could understandably be offended, no one had the right to impose censorship or intimidate others with threats to their safety or property.

That situation put us in the unique position of being targets of abuse by Muslims and non-Muslims alike, who either painted us as whitewashing a desire to impose our beliefs on others (this from the public in general) or apologizing for a legitimate Muslim rage, regardless of whether it had crossed the line into violence (this from fellow Muslims). It was a paradox that has repeated itself many times in the 20 years since, most recently with the Danish cartoons and the violent reactions that some Muslims around the world had to them.

Some of the more abrasive encounters between Muslims and others during this time have not centered around politics or foreign policy, but rather in this arena of free expression. Muslims have naturally taken exception to the way their faith has been portrayed by some artists, writers, and academics. Non-Muslims have, in turn, criticized some books by Muslims that are offensive, along with the institutions that sell them (as have we, incidentally). In both cases, people often talk at and over each other rather than to each other. Ideas are not exchanged, and the cycle continues unabated.

So why do Muslims appear to be so sensitive about what the media says about them? Muslims have generally felt embattled during the past few decades as their media image becomes increasingly unrepresentative of the average Muslim. As they struggle against this imagery, they are told that the pre-requisite for changing it is for them to meaningfully change the behavior of extremist Muslims, who exist far outside their sphere of influence - often a half a world away. Muslims in this position feel they have no other choice but to push back harder against portrayals that are insulting or misrepresenting. Some, unfortunately, push too far. But Muslims aren't alone in this. Voices that seek to marginalize the presence of Muslims in public discourse routinely do the same.

Two recent examples illustrate this: the attempts by New York congressman Peter King and others to have "Why Islam" ads banned from NYC subways (based only on the reputation of an external supporter of them) and calls by some to prevent publication of the forthcoming book Jewel of Medina. Neither effort has succeeded in effectively dealing with controversy, which will remain dormant only to reappear another day.

Watching this exchange over time has taught me that the best response to free speech is simply more speech in return. Anyone should have the right to publish whatever they want about Islam or Muslims - even if their views are offensive - without fear of censorship or retribution. Muslims, however, shouldn't be expected to be passive consumers of these views. An offended Muslim has the right - indeed, the responsibility - to vigorously critique anything written about them or their religion, provided they do not cross the line into intimidation and coercion. In an ideal world, both parties would open their minds enough to understand the other point of view.

Getting people on both sides of this equation to follow these guidelines will take a lot of reconditioning. But the alternative - a hyper-sensitive Muslim community that is unable to constructively respond to external criticism (or internal criticism, for that matter), coupled with a journalistic/artistic/secular community that feels genuine fear and is prevented from free expression - cannot be an option. We are witnessing today the stagnation and increased misunderstanding that comes from a stifled discourse.

Ultimately, no one has the absolute right not to be offended, nor does anyone have the right to live without the uncomfortable opinions of others. This is true whether it concerns flag burning (which should harm nothing other than a piece of cloth) or non-Muslim views of the Prophet Muhammad (which should not have an impact on a Muslim's sincere belief). Religion and a universal sense of civility both dictate that emotions be kept in check to preserve social order. In such an environment, the freedom to speak openly - and all the benefits that come from it - can flourish.

To move forward, we all need to develop thicker skins, more open minds, and a common understanding of the principles of free speech, such as those that influenced me as a student and allowed me to subsequently influence others. Only then will everyone - Muslim and non-Muslim - be able to progress their societies and simultaneously preserve their rights.

(Photo: Michael Bina via flickr under a Creative Commons license)

The issue may not be free expression because there really is not free expression in the USA with regard to certain topics as I point out in my blog entry Support Denise Spellberg, which addresses the problem of The Jewel of Medina.

I am indirecting my comment because the book is somewhat explicit in a way that may not be appropriate to discuss in this forum.

The thing to remember here is that there are literally thousands, if not millions, of caricatures of Jews, Judaism, Moses, Sarah, Abraham, the wailing wall, Israel and any and every conceivable symbol of Judaism. Yet, I don't know of any TV or Movie studio or book publisher pulling material for the fear of reprisals as Random house is doing. Thors and Spellberg might win this so called protest battle, but as Shahed correctly points out, Muslims lose in the long run.

It only strengthens the stereotype that Muslims are like an eight-hundred-pound gorilla that is incapable of battling wit with wit; but knows only to thrash around wildly and destroy everything in sight. Well, you know what happens to King-King...

Sorry - King-Kong!

Well said.

So what do you think of Denise Spellberg's intervention? I have to say, I think it's a disgrace, and I've said so on my website. It's a frontal assault on free speech and it's also, and this is no small thing, an end run around any Muslims who don't happen to want to see other Muslims assailing free speech. What business does Spellberg - an academic, after all - have trying to create outrage where there is none? Couldn't she at least have let other people do that, if any were going to? (And without her interference, is there any reason to think anyone would have?)

Anyway, it's good to see you saying the other thing.

If we actually had free expression with regard to issues that like Palestine are of concern to Muslims, I might be more inclined to criticize Spellberg, but if I as an expert in Jewish and Eastern European studies tried to publish a book on the history of E. European Jewish racism, fanaticism, and extremism from the 19th century until today, I would be tremendously abused and accused of anti-Semitism even though this history is well-known and discussed by experts among themselves and occasionally in very recondite academic journals.

The passage that Asra included in her column certainly seemed trashy. Is that sufficient reason not to publish the book? Probably not. But there is a class of Islamophobic polemic that attempts to depict Islam as the religion of sexual perverts and pedophiles as part of a carefully planned strategy to marginalize American Muslims and perhaps even to incite violence against them. If the book consciously or unconsciously fits into a racist Islamophobic agenda, Spellberg's position and that of the publisher are far more reasonable.

From AJC attacks:

Note

Mark Steyn, who is a Canadian political commentator of mixed Jewish ethnic Ashkenazi and Catholic Belgian ancestry and who is often associated with Neoconservatism, has already somewhat obliquely opened up the discussion of genociding Western Muslims in his recently published book America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It, in which he states the following.

Why did Bosnia collapse into the worst slaughter in Europe since World War Two? In the thirty years before the meltdown, Bosnian Serbs had declined from 43 percent to 31 percent of the population, while Bosnian Muslims had increased from 26 percent to 44 percent. In a democratic age, you can't buck demography - except through civil war. The Serbs figured that out - as other Continentals will in the years ahead: if you can't outbreed the enemy, cull 'em [my emphasis]. The problem that Europe faces is that Bosnia's demographic profile is now the model for the entire continent.

Mark Kleiman discusses Mark Steyn's final solution to the Muslim problem at http://tinyurl.com/3b6hw3

Rabbi Yaakov Salomon of Aish Hatorah (http://www.aish.com) proposes the final solution to the Palestinian problem in a video that can be watched at http://tinyurl.com/3xl7jm.

I will not bother googling to rebut Thors and find out how many Muslim clerics have said that anyone who is not a Muslim should be converted, eradicated or decimated or be subjected to genocide..etc etc ...take you pick of the choice words.

All that Thors is showing here are the Crazy Jews who are far removed from the ordinary Jews, just as the nut-case Islamics I speak about are from the ordinary Muslim people who I know as acquaintances and friends.

On a purely academic level let me posit a question to Thors:

Can you, ThorsProvoni, state with unequivocal confidence that if indeed the Muslim population overtakes that of the non-Muslims in Europe, it will NOT have an effect on the mores of Europe?

I only look at other societies where Islam arrived as a minority and grew to dominate, and in the process annihilated local religions, customs, cultures and not to forget - people who did not convert.

Why should not history repeat itself? After all the younger Muslims of Europe have clearly demonstrated they want to go backwards in insisting on the Hijaab and Burka and such; which their fathers and mothers tried to get away from.

So why do you, Thors, feel so confident that a demographic change will not result in a radical social change also?

And saying this does not automatically make me a supporter of killing them all. What it does make me is a man who is aware of what is going on and is not afraid to speak.

Non-religious readers may not understand the objections of religious readers to irreverent or salacious materials written about historical figures. I think that explicit sexual descriptions serve only one purpose: to arouse the sensual emotions of the reader. As such I don’t think it is psychologically productive in writings about the lives of people whom we seek spirit inspiration. I am not suggesting that sex is a bad thing. What I am suggesting is that reading such descriptions roots one's attention and consciousness in the very physical here and now, and the psycho-ritual technology of reading that is designed to create a sacred space within the consciousness of the reader is rendered ineffectual by mixing states of mind that are incompatible.

Yesterday in one of the book trade journals I read a lengthy description of a steamy new novel about Rumi and Shems. Readers outside of Islam may find this book exciting because such themes provide an artificial sense of human familiarity with the subjects of the book and allows readers to smugly feel like they "own" some secret knowledge about sacred historical figures. I believe in freedom of expression but I believe just as strongly in good taste. I do not believe at all in the banning of books, but I do believe in applying a deep awareness to the machinations of others, publishing houses included. And that includes manipulation directed towards ourselves and in the media’s manipulation of mass sentiments, both for political reasons and for the solicitation of consumer dollars.

I also have concerns about the publishing schedule of Random House and this title’s place on their list. I work in the book trade and I know how books are produced. There is a very extensive process by which book ideas are considered before a contract is ever offered to an author. They read the material and knew it would be a problem and produced it anyway and now at the last minute are pulling it???? If they did NOT produce the book, then they are releasing the story with the intention of causing controversy. If they printed the book and just now figured out it would be a problem, they’re are just plain dumb. I am the person at our house (a children’s book publisher) who reads the manuscripts first when they come in and I carefully consider how story lines will be viewed. There is something wrong with this Random House occurrence. The NY Times article said it was due for a pub date of Tuesday. That means the book is in their warehouse and ready to ship. . You don't print 100,000 copies and then just say oops, let's not and just eat the books. The industry doesn't work that way, not with editors who keep their jobs. And I can promise you, in this day and age, ANY book touching upon an Islamic theme is gone over with a fine toothed comb prior to publication at legitimate mainstream publishers like Random House.

Just like what happened with the OJ book a while back. The editor of that book was a known sensationalist agent who got a job with a big publisher and was given pretty much carte blanche to publish what she wanted, without scrutiny. Big mistake. She was fired over that debacle, other execs whose job it is to panel and monitor projects got their butts whacked, and the house ate a million books. Even the bookstores took a bath and were trying to find ways to sue the publisher. I watched all that noise unfold in Publisher's Weekly. This book, if it was printed, is in that same category. If it was NOT printed, and they gave an advance, then they had to give a kill fee and somebody at the house got a spanking. If they did not have the book under contract, then why did they have a jacket photo floating around? And economic reasons would have been clear up front. Even I look very carefully at Islamic titles that come in for children's books, based on not only what I know about Islam and the environment we are in but what I know about schools, libraries, and the buying public. I have very often rejected Islamic titles because I knew the fit was not right. No one at Random House was in the dark about the potential sales, if any, and the potential problems with this book. I cannot see this as anything but either a mistake that someone is going to pay for, or a political ploy to cast more aspersions on Islam and Muslims. So they pulled the book because of what "some" Muslims might do? They knew that when the query first came in the door. But they wanted to make a point out of it in the minds of the American public. "See? Islam is curtailing our freedom of expression even now!" Lions and tigers and bears. Oh my!

That is a very good point by Akenaubis. It does appear to be a gimmick.But even if it is, the point is that Muslims fall for it every time by obliging and going on a rmpage- in this case it was not even Muslims and instead it was some nosy do-gooders!

Thanks for the insight into the publishing business Akenubis- it seems far fetched to imagine that a pedophilia soft-porn scene involving would not garner notice by the muslim community.
I can think of no instance in literatue where a jewish or christian prophet has been so portrayed- even the last temptation of christ only vaguely alluded to any sexual contact by showing the women pregnant later on (as did the book)

but- they are in the business to sell books- bottom line.
And such a setup seems like it will get at least a little free publicity.
It's nice to know there are manuscript readers like yourself out there who have a sense of discernment and good taste.

Pointing out the questionable literary value and intentions of such an author is one of the ways to counteract such works.
If it is good art- it will stand the test of time- if it is just sensationalist drama- it will find its audience and sell some books.
Either way- it has little effect on my life or philosophy.

Pointing out the questionable literary value and intentions of such an author is one of the ways to counteract such works.
If it is good art- it will stand the test of time- if it is just sensationalist drama- it will find its audience and sell some books.>>>

Agreed. I am a fan of historical novels, when accurately researched, as well as historically based movies. And I ask myself whenever I see some run-away success at Barnes & Noble and the box office, would this be the same hit if it was about an average person and not a historical figure? And would this book stand alone without the slacious passages? This is a hot genre these days and has been for the last few years. Sex sells and we have been "treated" to the speculative narratives of the romantic lives of everyone from Julius Caesar to Popeye. I dread the day when Bush is out of office (well, not really) and the quasi-romance mavens turn their cross hairs to George and Laura. I shudder......

Oliver Stone is already on it-
"I want a fair, true portrait of the man. How did Bush go from an alcoholic bum to the most powerful figure in the world? It's like Frank Capra territory on one hand, but I'll also cover the demons in his private life, his bouts with his dad and his conversion to Christianity, which explains a lot of where he is coming from. It includes his belief that God personally chose him to be president of the United States, and his coming into his own with the stunning, preemptive attack on Iraq. It will contain surprises for Bush supporters and his detractors."
Oliver Stone[3]

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/Vote2008/story?id=4563558&page=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._(2008_film)

There's even a teaser trailer- and release date is set at Oct.17th- a scant few weeks before the election.

"I am a fan of historical novels, when accurately researched, as well as historically based movies..."

Accurately researched? I don't believe I am familiar with that term. You silly literary types and your desire for truth-
America doesn't want that! We want really really good looking people acting out our darkest fantasies!

(Or, really really good looking people caught being really dumb so we can feel superior for a moment)

Can you, ThorsProvoni, state with unequivocal confidence that if indeed the Muslim population overtakes that of the non-Muslims in Europe, it will NOT have an effect on the mores of Europe? I only look at other societies where Islam arrived as a minority and grew to dominate, and in the process annihilated local religions, customs, cultures and not to forget - people who did not convert. Why should not history repeat itself? After all the younger Muslims of Europe have clearly demonstrated they want to go backwards in insisting on the Hijaab and Burka and such; which their fathers and mothers tried to get away from. So why do you, Thors, feel so confident that a demographic change will not result in a radical social change also?

=======================
Here goes dumpkopf again, doing what Americans go best. FEARMONGERING.

And may I ask, what if indeed Muslims "take over" the social mores of Europe? What is so bad about that? You make it sound like Muslim social mores are something ugly and unhealthy and that somehow European social mores are better than Muslim social mores???

Who knows, maybe there will be less East European women paraded around as whores in Western Europe? That would certainly be a loss of business for such women, I can see that. Or maybe less drunken orgies by football fans. Bad for the beer industry, eh? Certainly less bigotry and racism and mass killing of innocent people, the history of 20th century Europe speaks for itself.

Maybe dumbkopf, you need to extract your head from a hole in the ground and face the fact that perhaps Islamic culture ends up "dominating" other cultures, simply because it is superior in its humanity and egalitarianism. Duh.

Hajibaba ....

What concerns me about your comments is that there is no monolithic pure "Islamic" government in the world today that is practicing the high water mark of Islamic social values. And by that I don't mean regimes and governments that are authoritarian enough to keep everyone on a tight short leash. The inspiration and opportunity to allow citizens to grow into healthy productive people, is far more valuable to the life of society, and the religious life of individuals, than is the totalitarian whip curtailing the minutia of daily life and asigning it an over arching and nebulous "sin" quality. This is what conerns me about some so-called Islamic communities. They have raised "sin" and immoral behavior to the level of a fetish and see it everywhere.

The inspiration and opportunity to allow citizens to grow into healthy productive people, is far more valuable to the life of society, and the religious life of individuals, than is the totalitarian whip curtailing the minutia of daily life and asigning it an over arching and nebulous "sin" quality.

====================
Oh yeah? Then why dont you go talk to your government and ask them to support democracy in the Muslim World!!!! Its very easy for you to sit in America and make tart comments about "inspiration" and "healthy People" while between Britain, Russia and your own government, you install and support thugs and dictators thru-out the Muslim World.

I wonder how many dictators would be there in so-called "Islamic Communities" today if the Russians, Americans and British were to have exercised a hands-off policy thru-out this past century. Which mind you would not be that hard to do, since all three are quite far from the Middle East and not in any danger of being "over-run" by some Muslim horde.

You live a hypocritical existence my friend. Talking about inspiration and healthy people on one hand and being the overwhelming manufacturer and EXPORTER of weapons and human death systems on the other hand.

You live a hypocritical existence my friend. Talking about inspiration and healthy people on one hand and being the overwhelming manufacturer and EXPORTER of weapons and human death systems on the other hand.>>>>

Hajibaba ....

We cannot simply look at things as simply as you seem to suggest. I do not support the government of the US and its foreign policirs. I have not voted any of the last several presidents into office. I do not live a hypocritical life at all. I absolutely loathe the policies of the US. I have spent the last 35 years of my life earning two degrees in history so that I can combat the economic and social trends in the world today. Short of going to Washington with a Howitzer, I find that education, speaking with people, writing on these topics, voting appropriately, is what I can do. All people in America are not one dimensional evil debauched cardboard cutouts drunk on imperialist glories and making untold riches off the backs of others, any more than all people outside of the of the US and the west are toothless illiterate terrorists. Although it seems convenient sometimes for people on all sides to vent their rage, fears, and frustrations by seeing the world so simply. That is not productive. I am a Muslim by the way. But there is a dangerous fantasy in the world today. Inside the US and outside of it. And that fantasy is that there is a democracy in the US and that it represents the minds and wishes of the American people. The American people, for the most part, with a few last bastions, is becoming itself an illiterate narcotized gellatinous mass drunk not on imperialist dollars but prescription psych meds and bad TV. We should all be very, very afraid.
Another dangerous trend is believing unilaterally that our own favorite team is perfect and reflects our own personal views and values. That is not possible in a world as diverse as our own. This is the problem with identifying too closely, wihtout question, with any group. I have spoken to many Americans who believe that Hilary Clinton would have been the world's savior who would have ushered in a bright new world for all peoples, just because she is a woman. How sad and desperate a belief is that? I have heard the same from people speaking of Obama. I am voting for Obama. But he is just one man and the world is what it is. And guess what? America doesn't exist anymore. It's just the military arm of a conglomerate of corporations whose intellectual imperialism is far more insideous than the actions of people like George Bush. I find the writings of people like Jalal al-e Ahmad and Abdolkarim Soroush most eloquent in these matters.

"The inspiration and opportunity to allow citizens to grow into healthy productive people, is far more valuable to the life of society, and the religious life of individuals, than is the totalitarian whip curtailing the minutia of daily life and asigning it an over arching and nebulous "sin" quality. This is what conerns me about some so-called Islamic communities. They have raised "sin" and immoral behavior to the level of a fetish and see it everywhere."


Akenubis- that is a really outstanding and elegantly put observation. Especially the last sentence. If you don't mind- (well, if you state that you do- I will not) it is likely that I will co-opt it in some way even if it's not deliberate- as it's somewhat burned in there now.

"level of a fetish and see it everywhere."
I like points that stab us with the sharpness of truth.

I like points that stab us with the sharpness of truth.>>>>

Thank you Mrs. A. I am honored you would use my points and comments. I think that a much more powerful enforcement of right moral behavior in society is the development of the inner compass that aligns people to what is right for themselves and for society. The problem in the US, is that this inner compass has been co-opted and realigned to focus on what is good for companies, what drives sales and conformity with the trends of pop culture. This is just as dangerous as the armed enclave. It's just more insidious because people think they adhere to it voluntarily. But the inner malaise and misery in the US that this has produced is evidenced by the so-called, and also manufactured, epidemic of "depression."

Akenanubis- You're most welcome.

Well, the Washingotn Post OnFaith blog has picked this story up-

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/islamsadvance/2008/08/censoring_islam.html
(I post as Victoria there)

O- here also-
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2008/08/debating_islam_from_within/allcomments.html

Here also, which was linked from this webiste-

http://talkislam.info/2008/08/06/no-good-deed-goes-unpunished-i-believe/#comment-1919