G. Willow Wilson: January 2009 Archives

Guest post by G. Willow Wilson.

Over at TalkIslam, we've been having an ongoing debate about the merits of liberal military intervention around the world. The debate was sparked by an entry about the Shabab Islamist group, which is growing in power and influence in Somalia.

A condensed version follows:

Tariq Nelson: I hope that outsiders will just leave them alone this time. As long as they do their thing inside Somalia and leave the rest of the world alone then I am fine with that...

Let me clarify. I do not approve of them in the least. However, we have to stop trying to police the world and establish our way of life on others. There are plenty of sad atrocities going on all over the world and we can't impose our will in all of those places.

I think it is time that we leave well enough alone.

Aziz: As we learned in Afghanistan though, if you let extremism fester, it eventually comes back to bite us on our own shores.

I am an unabashed pragmatic liberal interventionist. I think democracy promotion is sound policy, not to "impose our values" but because I believe the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is truly universal and that the Cairo Declaration falls short. I think this is not "imposing our will" but rather a moral calling to let people express their own will.

Yes that makes me in some ways akin to the raving nutter neocons. But there are nuances that are critical. As the new administration says, it's "smart power" not soft or hard.

Orwell was right - the history of the world is a boot stamping on a human face, forever. Until we change it.

Thabet: I think AE has slayed this beast. 

Aziz: oh, quite agreed, American Imperialism = Very Bad ++ungood. And yet, he signed the Euston manifesto (as did I).

Abou Noor Al-Irelandee: Aziz and Tariq,

Your interchange is bizarre to me because you seem to be talking as if the U.S. has not been involved militarily in Somalia for many years, including backing and participating in the Ethiopian invasion of Somalia which attempted to prop up an ineffective warlord based puppet regime. Such foreign invasions and occupations will always eventually lose and the result is that groups like AlShabab only become stronger and more radicalized.

(see the whole discussion at Talk Islam)

As I discussed in an earlier post, free media and unbiased media are not the same thing. Current coverage of the situation in Gaza by American press is a perfect example of this discrepancy. But an op-ed by Professor Rashid Khalidi in the New York Times yesterday provided a refreshingly frank look at the crisis. If you're sketchy on the roots of this conflict, it's a good place to start. Read here.

If you'd like more in-depth coverage, try watching Al Jazeera English on Live Station. It's free to download and the image quality is excellent. AJE boasts some wonderful British and American journalists, including Sir David Frost. You'll find it an educational alternative to media outlets like CNN, in which hard news and opinion are becoming so entangled that it is difficult to tell them apart.

When most Americans hear 'Al Jazeera', they think of terrorists. Watch and form your own opinion. You might be surprised.

Recently at Talk Islam, we've been having a discussion about the Islamic attitude toward environmental conservation. It started when blogger Umar Lee, an anti-conservationist, posted this entry at his blog. When Talk Islam blogger Thabet called Lee's attitude "ignorance dressed up as piety", the following debate ensued:

Willow: Yup. I find it especially sad considering "those who spoil the earth" are mentioned time and again in the Quran as being among the unjust.

Oh well.

Umar: Well, the point is,. that thee are many things that Greens support that are not conducive to Muslim lifestyles. "Zero Population Growth" and international family planning are central to green efforts and that is not very family friendly or in line with the sunnah as we have been ordered to increase. This also puts many greens in line with many eugenicists and white racists who fear the population growth amongst certain groups and see it as a threat to the status quo.

Willow we should preserve the creation of Allah and use it for our benefit; but not worship it as many do. Animals are to be used for the benefit of humanity and eaten and not gawked at and to be called "mans best friend" or what not.

As for gas guzzlers well they may not be the best but I can think of many other things that people on the left are normally silent about that are much worse and kill a lot more humans a lot faster ( such as alcohol, drugs, pornography, and deviant sexual behaviors). There is also the fact that if you are a large Muslim family what are you supposed to drive around in? A mini cooper?

Thabet you are taking the tone of the condescending arrogant left who believes that anyone who disagrees with them is ignorant and that is part of the reason so many Americans vote against their own economic interests.Because, like me, they see the artificiality and shallowness of the Woody Allen, latte, tofu, and gentrification set who are all worked up over green issues but could care less about the poor people they displace in their own communities.

Willow: In order to preserve it, we can't corrupt it. You're creating a false dichotomy-as if there are only two choices: dominate the earth (a Christian concept, not an Islamic one) or worship it (a pagan concept, not an Islamic one). The Quran and hadith are very clear about the custodianship of the earth. We're not allowed to hunt for sport; only to feed ourselves. We're not allowed to pollute the drinking water or farmland of others. In Bukhari there is even a hadith in which the Prophet rebukes one of his followers for setting fire to an anthill instead of moving his resting-place away from it.

You're using stereotype and ridicule instead of an argument based on the sunnah. Show me where the Prophet negligently wasted natural resources, and then we can have a debate.

Furthermore, on a practical level it should be evident to anyone that oil wealth and the political struggle for oil are helping to destroy the Muslim Middle East. You've spoken recently about Gaza-imagine how the political geography would be different if Saudi Arabia was not in the US's pocket.

"Be merciful to the earth, so the One above the heaven will be merciful to you." -ahadith of al Tabarani and al Hakim

Thabet: Umar,it may help you feel good about yourself to paint me as a tofu eating, latte drinking, sandal wearer, but you are simply relying on a personal prejudice against "greens" dressed up in the language of religion or populism (as you do above). That is why I called your post 'ignorant'.

As Willow says, you have created a false dichotomy. I think you're right to criticise the 'environmental movement' as elitist and hypocritical, and usually only interested in self-promotion, but that doesn't mean the issues raised are false.

The funny thing about your response is that it is Muslim peoples in places like Bangladesh, SE Asia, or sub-Saharan Africa that face the problems of rising sea water levels, desertification, depletion of resources, etc -- all so you can eat your beef steak and drive your 4 litre SUV in keeping with your "Muslim lifestyle" (which is an interesting choice of terminology).

(Btw, I hate tofu, do not drink coffee and eat meat. Though I do confess to owning a pair of sandals.)

Umar: Both of you seem to read something that is not here. I never said we should harm the environment or purely exploit it. We should take care of the earth because we need it for our survival but we should do this in a balanced manner. I never said anything to the contrary. The Green Movement, with its Zero Population growth and support for International Planned Parenthood,I do not see as something Muslims can get down with.

BTW, I have never owned an SUV, have lived most of my adult life in urban areas without a car, do not own a vehicle now ( I lease a taxi),and probably have not eaten a steak in a year ( but eat beef on the regular). I grew up wearing hand me downs, as the kids in my house do, and I accumulate very little by choice other than books so, in all actuality, I live a lifestyle probably greener than most of these jet-setting Prius driving Greens.

Willow: What's The Green Movement, capitalized? I recycle, but I don't believe in universal Chinese-style population control.

My beef with the anti-environmentalist argument that "environmentalism hurts the poor" is that it is not only false but extremely US-centric. Anyone who's spent time in a really polluted country knows that pollution hits the poor first and hardest. They're the ones who have to deal with lung cancer, birth defects and water-born illnesses while the rich hole up in their global green zones with bottled water and air purifiers. I lived for a year in a factory district in Cairo, and believe you me, environmental pollution was nothing abstract to the people who'd grown up there. Babies were born underweight because the air was so polluted it was like their mothers were smoking 2 packs a day. Childhood lukemia was sky-high. I knew two people who dropped dead of heart failure in their mid-thirties. It was so bad that the workers in the factory, many of whom suffered from serious lung and heart conditions, went on strike last year to demand healthcare and cleaner working conditions.

If people like you keep scoffing at conservation efforts and insist environmentalism is all about Priuses and lattes (my first car was a 1.3 cc Hyundai, which achieves the same thing for 1/4 the money), it won't be long before the working classes in this country are facing similar environmentally-driven health and welfare issues.

This is a guest post by Muslim comics writer and essayist G. Willow Wilson.

One of my literary heroes, Neil Gaiman, is an ardent supporter of free speech. In this entry of his blog, he discusses an issue that has set the comics industry on fire in recent months: the question of whether fictional depictions of child pornography are protected speech. (Child pornography involving live children is not; about that I think we can all vigorously concur.) Gaiman concludes that we must protect all speech, no matter how vile, because the law cannot draw a line between art and smut.

The debate brought me back to the infamous Danish cartoon scandal of 2005. Like many thinking Muslims, I was forced by the controversy to fight a war on two fronts: against religious violence on one hand, and against hate speech on the other. I condemned the threats of death and violence made by my angry coreligionists, but I also condemned the cartoons.

Among my fellow comics creators, my position was considered reactionary. Why couldn't I recognize that the man behind the Muhammad cartoons was An Artist, excercising the noblest of ideals, Freedom Of Speech? Was not art inherently worthy? Why did I insist on holding An Artist morally responsible for the ideas his art promoted?

The answer was--is--quite simple: because an artist is morally responsible for the ideas his art promotes. Free speech does not mean all speech is just or good. When an artist promotes (or worse, invents) ugly stereotypes, he or she is responsible for helping create cultural consensus about the people, ideas or activities s/he stereotypes. And consensus is dangerous.

I recently looked over a gallery of cartoons that appeared in World War II-era Germany. And I found this. (H/T The German Propaganda Archive) He looked oddly familiar. Hadn't I seen him somewhere before? Ah yes: here. Man, they could be brothers. I don't think anyone would dispute that the 'artist' of the first cartoon was responsible for perpetuating Nazi consensus against the Jews. He may not have fired a single bullet or locked a single gas chamber, but he helped ease the minds and lend confidence to the hearts of those who did. Yet western leftists lined up in solidarity with the 'artist' of the second cartoon, which perpetuates a near-identical consensus against Muslims. Right down to the hooked nose, maniacal gaze, and scruffy facial hair. Someone--probably many someones--looked at that cartoon, looked at an Iraqi civilian with his legs blown off, and didn't care.

When you defend hate speech, you defend hatred. Whether you like it or not, whether you deal with it or not, whether you admit it or not. I refuse to defend hate speech. I refuse to call it art. There is only one reason I do not call for it to be censored: if we start censoring hate speech, we give the government a precedent to censor anything. Gaiman is right--the law cannot draw fine lines.

So the hate-cartoonists and (fictional!) child-pornographers are free to continue Being Artists. The fashionable are free to worship them, rationalize them, and split hairs for them. And I am free to be a curmudgeon, who continues to insist that art is not merely a right--it is a moral responsibility.