Response to a Concerned Muslim Friend

A few years ago I had the pleasure of heading up a multi-national team looking at issues relating to HIV-AIDS in Swaziland, a small country in Southern Africa. One of the team members was a Civil Engineer from Nigeria and we became friends as well as colleagues. As the Project concluded, he returned to his duties teaching at a university in Nigeria but we have remained in contact through the marvel of the Internet.

Last week he sent me a Press Release that he had received from a Nigerian group: Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC). titled: ANTI-ISLAM FILM: CRIMINALIZE BLASPHEMY.

The group’s web-site notes: Our motto is "Dialogue, Not Violence". We therefore employ peaceful means to resolve conflicts affecting Muslims”. I must say that the tone of the Press Release and the overview of their site appears to bear this out.

What follows is my response. I know it is long but in this instance necessarily so. We live in troubled times and as such our dialogue must be well thought-out and equally important, presented, as this one is, not only as an informative piece but one supported by established principles. Such my was attempt.

Your comments or criticisms are, as always, welcome.

Thomas Ignatius Hayes

My Dear Friend Abdul Hakeem:

 

I carefully read (several times) the Press Release you sent and rather than send a quick and not-well thought out response, I waited for the weekend to compose and offer the following comments.

 

Let me first say categorically that the “film” in question is an abomination. However, it is not even a film, merely a trailer that was dubbed from English to Arabic (with totally different dialogue) and introduced to the world through social media (You-tube). This is hardly a professional enterprise and yet it has sparked such terrible reactions.

 

·         No one that I know of had ever heard of this “film” before the trailer was released on You Tube. To the best of my knowledge the entire film has not been released and probably will not be.

 

·         From what I have understood, the “actors”, none of whom spoke any Arabic, were give other lines to say and the horrible words that caused so much upset were dubbed in by people (assumingly the producer) to elicit the type of reaction that the entire world has seen.

 

·         I can assure you that until the trailer was shown on Egyptian TV, neither I nor anyone I know or have ever heard of had seen or known about the film.

 

·         I applaud the condemnation by MURIC of the violent demonstrations and destruction of property that occurred.

 

·         There are millions of practicing Muslims in America and there was (to my understanding) no violent or otherwise over-reaction to this clearly provocative and unprofessional video.

 

I agree with the presented sentiments that 100% that the world in general finds itself caught between Muslim fanatics and Western extremists.  I wrote a blog some years ago about political extremism in US politics and how, after much debate and way too many speeches, we always reject far right and far left views and vote towards the center position.

 

Rather than boor you with the entire essay, the conclusion I drew is as follows:

 

Somewhere we have to remind ourselves that we are, for the most part, a centrist Republic and we can leave broad swings right and left to France and Italy and maybe sometimes to local elections but not in one that counts towards public policy and protection of the Constitution in the spirit that was intended by the founders.

 

I know that is not applicable to the instant reaction of the rioters and protesters but I truly believe that given the chance, the vast majority of people in our world, irrespective of nationality, religion, language, social status, etc., would lean towards the middle ground just like the pendulum of a clock or the clapper in a bell. Sooner or later they stop and it is always in the middle.

 

·         As your submission continues, it is stated:

 

 “We strongly believe that blasphemy against any religion must be criminalized to serve as deterrent against potential blasphemers.

 

This mandates some comments on my part and especially as pertains to America and its Constitution and Bill of Rights. It must be remembered that America was not just a former English colony. Rather it was a haven from its very beginning for those individuals seeking refuge from harsh persecution, from religious intolerance, denial of free speech, and the denial of basic human rights so well stated by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence:

 

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

 

·         Mr. Jefferson’s philosophy was in part the basis for the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the founding documents of the United States, precepts that have been maintained since their adoption more than a quarter-century ago.

 

The First component of the Bill of Rights specifically prohibits:

 

The making of any laws:

o   respecting an establishment of religion,

o   impeding the free exercise of religion,

o   abridging the freedom of speech,

o   infringing on the freedom of the press,

o   interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or,

o    prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

 

·         As such, the first is notable as it prohibits the mandating of a single religion for the country and the second goes further and allows for the people in America to practice whatever religion they wish.

 

That was and remains one of the unique components of American life. We have Mosques, Synagogues and Christian Churches of many denominations equally protected under the law and no\ne of which can become the state religion. Muslims in America (and there are many and some very well known) enjoy all the freedoms that are provided to any other American, be they Jewish, Protestant, Catholic or even atheistic. In America, no one, citizen, immigrant or visitor has to risk punishment for attending whatever religious service he prefers.

 

This is far different than, for example, in Saudi Arabia where I lived many years ago where not only were there no churches, but even the mention of the word Christmas was punishable. Attending Mass was prohibited by law and when I violated that law by going to Mass at the Irish Embassy I knew the risk. This was usually at the hands of the mutaween (المطوعين، مطوعجية‎) the government-authorized or government-recognized religious police. I felt their lash on my legs more than once.

 

It is interesting that their title translates as “pious man” yet we remember the terrible incident in March 2002, when they prevented schoolgirls from escaping a burning school in Mecca, because the girls were not wearing headscarves and abayas and not accompanied by a male guardian. Fifteen girls died. Again, extremism on its own merit or lack thereof should not be acceptable to our human conscience whether in Saudi or in America.

 

·         The third component, Freedom of Speech, is difficult for people outside (and sometimes inside) America to fully understand. For example: the Flag of the United States is the most respected symbol of the country. There are rules for “flag etiquette” and provisions even made for how worn-out or damaged flags are to be reverentially disposed-of. 

 

Yet even so, the right to burn the American Flag even by American nationals has been upheld by the Supreme Court as being a component of Free Speech. I agree with what you must be thinking. It is on the surface irrational. Sadly, so has the right to protest at burials of returning soldiers from wars. As awful as this sounds, it is a critical component of our history and custom and the cornerstone of our free society.

 

Many times it is hard for most Americans to accept some of the implications of free-speech and there are exceptions. The most obvious is to shout “Fire!” or some other warning in a crowded place to cause panic.

 

Perhaps, just perhaps, purposefully making a film or even other similar actions to cause a reaction that not unexpectedly would lead to violence can be viewed in the same terms as shouting “Fire!” in a theatre.

 

That is for our Supreme Court to decide for that is how our Constitution works. I am not alone in hoping that any action that is designed to incite violence and mayhem should be held to the same standard.

 

In America there are existing laws for slander and libel (spoken vs. written) speech, many of which have their precedence in English Common Law. I am not an attorney but I do not believe there are such laws for blasphemy.

 

Perhaps you think there should be and that is the logical and understandable answer. But if we remember the Freedom of Religion clause coupled with Free Speech, it is clear why no such law has been passed, at least has not in 225 years of American government.

 

·         Next we come to Freedom of the Press. This is entwined with Freedom of Speech but also is notable as unlike many other countries, there is no official or even un-official government news publication. There are media outlets with a bias towards the left or the right but again, that is there privilege. During election times, the editor of a newspaper can openly recommend against voting for the incumbent President or Senator or anyone else without fear of retribution.

 

·         The right to assemble has interesting consequences. The best remembered are when a town in Illinois that was home for the largest number of concentration camp survivors, was targeted as a place for a march by the American Nazi Party, replete with swastikas and uniforms. The Supreme Court upheld their right to march under the terms of this clause in the Bill of Rights – with the caveat that it be “peaceful”. It was and is now a little remembered piece of history and, I believe, a credit to the consistency of the Constitution and its application by the courts.

 

·         And the last of the clauses in the First Amendment, the right to governmental redress of grievances. We have marches in front of the White House and other government buildings every day of every year. Some are silly and some are serious but all are allowed. We could and did protest the draft and the Vietnam War in the 70’s; or the right of African Americans to vote in the 60’s or women in the 20’s. All peaceful protests are legal and interesting were legal more than a hundred years before Gandhi and certainly before Dr. King who both called for nonviolent protests.

 

Is the American system perfect? Of course not. Nothing that is man-made is. Remember that our Constitution upheld slavery and denied citizenship for such people for 70 yerars. Further to that, the Supreme Court, even as late as the 1850’s denied even basic human rights to people held in bondage.  It took a terrible Civil War to change that.

 

There are other instances that parallel changes over the years such as the right of women to vote, to declare once and for all by a constitutional amendment that all people born in this country are citizens and further that all citizens, whether born here or naturalized after coming to America, are equal under the law. That is something that is unique to America.

 

I remember living in England for 12 years and holding a position of some public prominence but never saw myself as being a real part of the country. I was told that the difference between the US and UK was that America was a country of immigrants; the UK is a country with immigrants. Interesting difference.

 

·         And finally, your Press Release also stated: The West must unleash some control mechanism on the “advocatus diabolic” within its system. We will hold the West responsible for the recklessness of its citizens until this is done.”

 

First, look at the meaning of the Latin phrase Advocatus Diabolic: “Devil’s Advocate”. It is a Christian term that is the antonym of Advocatus Dei, or “God’s Advocate”. Rather than actual human titles, the terms represent a metaphor indicative of the conflicting sides of human behavior, that is, that all people are pulled in both ways by the forces of good and the forces of evil. I would not at all be surprised if similar sentiments were to be found in the Holy Koran.

 

The point I am making is that there is nothing that I can envisage, nothing of course other than the power of God, of Allah, that has the supremacy to control the actions of the Devil or of the evil that we see in this world. We men are not only servants of God but we are also his chosen instruments to fight evil on His behalf.

 

The question for you is how Allah would wish us to act in his name. Is it violence or hatred? We are taught that God is love, pure love, and if we believe that, then how can violence and wars be in his name?  That question my friend has been asked over the millennia. It has also been prayed over so let us agree to do just that: pray to the One who has made all of us and who gave to us an intellect and a free-will that allows us to determine right from wrong.

 

I thank you for sending me this Press Release as it has made me think deeply and that is always good. I hope that my very human way of trying to explain what is a very complex process can, hopefully, bring our two outlooks closer.

 

Edmund Burke, the famous political philosopher in England hundreds of years ago wrote: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”.

 

I have every confidence that your sending the Press Release and my response represent at the very least “our doing something”.

 

With warm regards,

 

Thomas

 

What Can Be Done?

I’ve Got Them on a List and There’s None of Them Be Missed

The above is a line of a song from Gilbert and Sullivan’s Mikado.

The song is appropriately titled:

“As Someday It May Happen That a Victim Must Be Found”

Most of what pops up during our web explorations or un-wished for e-mail does not generate a second thought let alone an impulse to download the “link “and either read or watch it.

The other day however, I saw the introduction to a picture-essay claiming to deal with “Failed Sates “and as I have had a multiple decade career working in many developing or under-developed countries (yes, there are differences) I took the bait and downloaded the piece aptly titled “Postcards from Hell”.

The findings presented were not unexpected or startling but nonetheless emerged as truly disquieting at least for me and I imagine for many others also. (Thinking of what I just wrote, that is perhaps an example of self-acknowledged quixotism and certainly not my first.)

Nonetheless I am not naive enough to believe that the majority of people in the self-defined developed world really care about the majority of the countries identified as failed states unless for some personal, particular or peculiar reason: hands-on experience, nationality, business needs, commercial goods etc.

I could be pejorative and say that most of my fellow citizens have never heard of any number of these fellow members of the “family of nations” (whatever that phrase means).

Not unexpectedly, a disproportionate number of the named countries are in Africa. Considering cause and effect arguments, it is simple for us to ignore that for many leading economically developed countries, ourselves included, a part of their current well-being has a historical base built in part on and by the people, goods and wealth extracted from this troubled continent essentially with no regard to the long-term effects of their actions.

Anthropologists and others are quick to place the culpability for slavery on black Africans themselves. However, by doing so, it totally ignores the fact that if there were not a market for these captives, there would not have been a slave trade. There might have been tribal conflicts but nothing to the extent of the millions of human souls that were torn from their homes and transported to the other side of the world.

Supply is based on demand; even in human trafficking.

Putting the slavery issue aside (if that is possible), we can and do tend to look at the colonial powers as the principal evil-doers and unquestionably in places like the former Belgian Congo (now the DRC) that is the unquestionable truth. Consider that in a twenty year period that included the first ten years of the 20^th century, Leopold II, as absolute ruler of the Congo, is estimated to have directly caused the deaths of 20 Million people in his quest to dominate the world’s rubber production.

When looking at the largest colonial powers in Africa, and, showing my personal bias, it appears that the British did a marginally better job than their French cousins if only that most of its colonies were managed with better attention to areas such as schools, hospitals, infrastructure etc. Sadly, such progress did not continue after independence.

It was also demonstrated in the peaceful hand over of power by the British in the majority of East Africa nations to leaders who had a degree of education and training in running an emerging nation. What maltreatment did occur in Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya, Malawi, is dwarfed by the actions of the Portuguese in Angola and Mozambique as well as the French in Algeria and most of West Africa.

The continuing genocidal horrors of Rwanda and Burundi and the Congo remain a lasting testament to abandonment of a colony to people who had no understanding of consequences.

Ironically, there are countries today like the Philippines and Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Haiti where cheap labour has become a commercial item to be exploited not unlike the indentured peoples of their own past.

Speaking of Haiti: let’s remember that this was the first slave dominated country to win independence: in its case from France. The French demanded that this new nation, devoid of almost every trace of government or civil service etc, pay back for supposedly lost income that France would have enjoyed had they remained. The Haitians agreed to something that no other country ever did.

It demonstrates how desperate people are for freedom and how often unequipped they are to use this new found gain.

That was in 1801 and was it was finally paid in full in the early 1950’s. A century and a half of virtually all positive economic gains being sent back to the mother country. Add to that the fact that America, frightened at the prospect of its slaves revolting as had the Haitians, forbade any trade with the island and used its growing naval forces to convince others to do the same. That continued till the end of the Civil War in 1865.

So do we wonder why Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere?

And the dictatorships whose power surely in part resulted in significant profits for those international companies who choose to convey weapon systems to keep despots in power and called it good business practice and increased profits for shareholders. Just think of Zimbabwe once the bread basket of southern Africa and now impoverished by 30 plus years of Robert Mugabe. His power is maintained at the point of a gun. Likewise in Syria where the adage of the apple not falling far from the tree truly defines Al Assad.

In both these countries and countless others, the strength of government comes not from the democratic process but from the will to use military force on their fellow citizens and a supply of weapons being readily available.

We easily point fingers at China and Russia but sometimes mirrors have a purpose. Ask Mexico.

We hear about radical fundamentalists and Islamists and we circle the names of Pakistan, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, and add the weirdoes like North Korea and some of the “Stans”.

There is the ever popular corruption perhaps best exemplified by Nigeria and those who seem forever to be at conflict, domestic or cross-border: Eritrea, Ethiopia, Côte d'Ivoire, Burkina Faso, Uganda and others. Catching the pattern? The tribal issues that sent enemies into slavery now send them into poverty or worse. Ask the Tutsi and Hutu peoples.

The Arab Spring has brought a hope of change but Yemen, Libya, Egypt and Lebanon, are on the list because of the current vacuum of leadership. Close behind are the two lands where we and our allies have waged war for a decade or more: Iraq and Afghanistan. Is that all our fault? Of course not but some of it must relate to decisions to keep martinets like Hamid Karzai and Nuri al-Maliki in power irrespective of their unambiguous welcomed acceptance of graft and corruption.

Lord Acton wrote: “"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. He added: “Great men are almost always bad men."

Interesting thoughts.

Assuming corporations are really people; perhaps their role models are Halliburton, Bechtel and the myriad of other contracted civilian companies, many of whom profited to a degree that even they could not imagine. Think Blackwater.

Continuing, we have the “usual suspects”: Sudan, Liberia, Somalia, Mali, Niger, and Mauretania. Poor? yes; Corrupt? yes; Genocidal? at times. Does anyone truly care? Buono and Clooney maybe.

Most countries care if they have a need to be seen as caring. We call it “sphere of influence.” Oil comes to mind.

Also notice that is the first time the word “poor” has entered this discussion. Why? because it is so widespread and also because it is subjective and at times simply a matter of geography. Try growing commercial agriculture in Chad or East Timor or the Comoros. Not going to happen.

The developed world can feed the world if it so wishes. Once again there is that annoying “sphere of influence”.

So we have covered the alphabet of nations from Angola to Zambia. The essay holds 59 countries and even has a statistical scoring matrix (if that is even remotely possible or even necessary).

Think of it: there are no South American countries except for Colombia and its drug issues. Mexico and Central America are not there and yet “we” see them as failed. Or do we?

Interestingly there are no Middle Eastern lands except for Yemen so one has to ask what “failed” really means; should it maybe include Bahrain? It does include Djibouti which seems pretty immaterial compared to the Gulf but the parameters are different I guess.

That is for sure as Russia is not there; neither is China.

Accordingly, let’s assume the “we“ of the self-defined developed world do care. That would mean mainland Europe (most of it excepting some of the Balkans), but including Scandinavia, and the British Isles plus North America (north of Mexico), Australia and New Zealand. That is a very big assumption.

Now: is there a definitive answer to the question: “What can be done?”

I don’t know; I’m not even sure where to start.

Maternal child health? Cures for HIV and Malaria? Clean water? Sure, all of those and a handful more resulting in a higher population surge while remembering that we cannot feed the current numbers of people.

Could we add improved agriculture techniques? Sounds easy but go to Togo or the Central African Republic and show me where.

Let’s dream: Assume we can eliminate graft, corruption, despotism, war, tribalism, religious persecution, profiteering, piracy, lack of education, climate change (yes, the Sahara is moving south), gender disparity, lack of health resources and masses of other dreams.

Idealism gone viral!

Still, do we start like the ant that moved the rubber tree plant or do we ignore it and bury are heads symbolically in the sand and hope it goes away or at least does not directly bother the collective “us”.

If that is the choice, what do we do when we are on the list?

The essay can be found at http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles