http://www.slate.com/id/2169020/
It's impossible to satisfy "Rage Boy" and his ilk. It's stupid to try.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, June 25, 2007, at 1:46 PM ET
Rage Boy.
If you follow the link, you will be treated to some scenes from the
strenuous life of a professional Muslim protester in the Kashmiri city
of Srinagar. Over the last few years, there have been innumerable
opportunities for him to demonstrate his piety and his pissed-offness.
And the cameras have been there for him every time. Is it a fatwah? Is
it a copy of the Quran allegedly down the gurgler at Guantanamo? Is it
some cartoon in Denmark? Time for Rage Boy to step in and for his visage
to impress the rest of the world with the depth and strength of Islamist
emotion.
Last week, there was another go-round of this now-formulaic story, when
Salman Rushdie accepted a knighthood from her majesty the queen, and the
whole cycle of hysteria started up again. Effigies and flags burned (is
there some special factory in Karachi that churns out the flags of
democratic countries for occasions like this?), wounded screams from
religious nut bags, bounties raised to suborn murder, and solemn
resolutions passed by notional bodies such as the Pakistani
"parliament." A few months ago, it was the pope who was being
threatened, and Christians in the Middle East and Muslim Asia who were
actually being killed. Indeed, Rage Boy had a few yells and gibberings
to offer on that occasion, too.
I have actually seen some of these demonstrations, most recently in
Islamabad, and all I would do if I were a news editor is ask my camera
team to take several steps back from the shot. We could then see a few
dozen gesticulating men (very few women for some reason), their
mustaches writhing as they scatter lighter fluid on a book or a flag or
a hastily made effigy. Around them, a two-deep encirclement of camera
crews. When the lights are turned off, the little gang disperses. And
you may have noticed that the camera is always steady and in close-up on
the flames, which it wouldn't be if there was a big, surging mob
involved.
Of course, this is not to say that there isn't a lot of generalized
self-pity and self-righteousness (as well as a lot of self-hatred) in
the Muslim world. A minister in Pakistan's government—the son of
revolting late dictator Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, as it happens—appeared to
say that Rushdie's knighthood would justify suicide bombing. But our
media regularly make the assumption that the book burners and fanatics
really do represent the majority, and that assumption has by no means
been tested. (If it is ever tested, and it turns out to be true, then
can we hear a bit less about how one of the world's largest religions
mustn't be confused with its lunatic fringe?)
The acceptance of an honor by a distinguished ex-Muslim writer, who
exercised his freedom to abandon his faith and thus courts a death
sentence for apostasy in any case, came shortly after the remaining
minarets of the Askariya shrine in Samarra were brought down in shards.
You will recall that the dome itself was devastated by an explosion more
than a year ago—an outrage described in one leading newspaper as the
work of "Sunni insurgents," the soft name for al-Qaida. But what does
"Rage Boy" have to say about this appalling desecration of a Muslim holy
place? What resolutions were introduced into the "parliament" of
Pakistan, denouncing such shameful profanity? You already know the
answer to those questions. The lives of Shiite Muslims, Jews, Hindus,
and Christians—to say nothing of atheists or secularists—are considered
by Sunni militants to be of little or no account. And yet they accuse
those who criticize them of bigotry! And many people are so anxious to
pre-empt this accusation that they ventriloquize the reactions of Sunni
mobs as if they were the vox populi, all the while muttering that we
must take care not to offend such supersensitive people.
This mental and moral capitulation has a bearing on the argument about
Iraq, as well. We are incessantly told that the removal of the Saddam
Hussein despotism has inflamed the world's Muslims against us and made
Iraq hospitable to terrorism, for all the world as if Baathism had not
been pumping out jihadist rhetoric for the past decade (as it still does
from Damascus, allied to Tehran). But how are we to know what will
incite such rage? A caricature published in Copenhagen appears to do it.
A crass remark from Josef Ratzinger (leader of an anti-war church) seems
to have the same effect. A rumor from Guantanamo will convulse Peshawar,
the Muslim press preaches that the Jews brought down the Twin Towers,
and a single citation in a British honors list will cause the Iranian
state-run press to repeat its claim that the British government—along
with the Israelis, of course—paid Salman Rushdie to write The Satanic
Verses to begin with. Exactly how is such a mentality to be placated?
We may have to put up with the Rage Boys of the world, but we ought not
to do their work for them, and we must not cry before we have been hurt.
In front of me is a copy of this week's Economist, which states that
Rushdie's 1989 death warrant was "punishment for the book's unflattering
depiction of the Prophet Muhammad." There is no direct depiction of the
prophet in this work of fiction, and the reverie about his many wives
occurs in the dream of a madman. Nobody in Ayatollah Khomeini's circle
could possibly have read the book for him before he issued a fatwah,
which made it dangerous to possess. Yet on that occasion, the bookstore
chains of America pulled The Satanic Verses from their shelves, just as
Borders shamefully pulled Free Inquiry (a magazine for which I write)
after it reproduced the Danish cartoons. Rage Boy keenly looks forward
to anger, while we worriedly anticipate trouble, and fret about
etiquette, and prepare the next retreat. If taken to its logical
conclusion, this would mean living at the pleasure of Rage Boy, and that
I am not prepared to do.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
“If government half a century ago had provided us all with dinners and
breakfasts, it would be the practice of our orators today to assume the
impossibility of our providing for ourselves.”
.
|
