Moving Toward An Islamic Reformation

So now embassies burn because of one culture's inability to accept limitations placed on its speech in order to meet the mores and beliefs of another. The culture war is in progress. The combatants each have their tools, honed by living each day as they now fight.

One speaks publicly whatever it thinks to whomever, regardless of whether its words may cause suffering. Only slander and its ilk are restricted. Their idea: that each person's suffering is his own responsibility. In other words: you define what brings you suffering. Relevant to this viewpoint is a distinction between pain (a body phenomenon) and suffering (a state of mind).

The other reacts with physical aggression. Their response to anything that offends them is to burn it. They threaten and sometime actually destroy. Tolerance for them only becomes relevant once their point of view is granted equal worth to yours. And by worth, they mean validity and not simple acceptance of individuality. Their idea: that they will only be free of suffering if everyone is doing what they think is right.

These are the two sides of this war. Can you figure out which one is which? I wonder which one is going to win.

==================================

One has to wonder why, for a religion that forbids icons and symbols of worship, there is so much concern about icons and symbols. It seems what this religion really forbids is the use of its icons and symbols. "We own our idols; don't you do anything with them" seems to be the real message. So much for a lack of idolatry. Thus, it seems this may be a trademark dispute.

==================================

While this current dispute has been about specific actions and events, what it seems more about is insult and feeling offended. Disrespect, if you're from the projects.

The cry for respect is a complicated one in that it consists of the individual assertion of beingness admixed with a test of the limits of propriety -- what society's rules are.

Now we are witnessing a culture's cry for respect, its anger about being disrespected, and seeing firsthand just how complicated it is for respect to be achieved. The one who wishes respect does not want to be treated condescendingly, but it isn't often recognized what one needs to do to gain respect.

Respect means, literally, "turning to look again". We all know this experience: we see something or someone. We turn away, only moments later to realize there was something interesting, unusual, engaging or otherwise attractive in what we just saw. So we turn to look again. That is the root meaning of respect.

So respect is a relationship, and since it is a relationship, there are two parties engaged in its creation and maintenance. One of the problems that arises around the issue of respect is that it often is regarded as created by the action or decision of only one of the two parties in the relationship. This misunderstanding can occur in two ways: thinking one has already done enough, and thinking the other has not yet done enough. Most of the time, both are operational for both parties when disrespect characterizes the relationship.

=================================

I wonder whether those rioters (of course they are really just a mob-mind, almost not sentient -- no mob is) have given any thought to how their reaction provides to the world a confirmation that the cartoon depictions of the Prophet were accurate (never mind the question of how they, the rioters, know what Mohammed looked like during his life fourteen centuries ago). So now we in the rest of the world know what Mohammed looked like (those cartoons have shown us), and we realize the whole of the Muslim world is trying on an individual basis to look just like the Prophet! Again, it seems the Islamic prohibition against icons is all but meaningless, unless you want to riot, that is! I wonder: do Muslims realize they are just emulating by their dress and appearance what they (who are not idolators) think Mohammed looked like? Do they not think this is a form of idolatry?

=================================

So the Vatican has now spoken on this topic: "The Vatican says the right to freedom of expression does not imply the right to offend religious beliefs." This is just a strategy to avoid being caught up in this madness, of course. If people were to follow this instruction, who could speak? There are so many religions, so many beliefs. The world would be silent. Further, have not all advances in human society somewhat offended the beliefs of those among whom the progressive one has lived?

Madness. It really is a mad world.

=================================

Dare I suggest the Muslims have it wrong? It seems they don't even know their own religion. Or if they choose to plead ignorance and turn to their imams and other religious leaders for guidance and "knowing", then it must be those leaders who don't know their own religion. After all, the rioters are chanting: "...we defend you, O Prophet of God." Isn't the whole point of Islam to align oneself to Allah and not to anyone else? Is there supposed to be worship of Mohammed? Isn't that focus on God (Allah) the reason Islam says there are to be no images of Mohammed? I think there was some confusion about this even when Mohammed was alive.

Now I suppose also it's hard to keep this sort distinction clearly in mind in the midst of a mob mind-meld. Then the lowest denominator takes over, and apparently for Muslims -- at least those who are rioting, and quite likely upon the command or suggestion of some religious leader(s) who has suggested these actions -- that lowest common denominator means forgetting God (Allah) and defending Mohammed (as if a dead guy needs defending). This is the Islamic Reformation crying for its birth.