I'm not as smart as I look

What I began to understand in Richard Falk’s article

What difference does it make if one is in Turkey, or Denmark, or Britain? Because Rushdie had British residence and citizenship he can write the Satanic Verses, but a cartoon in Denmark is somehow (even) more dangerous? I don’t understand how R. Falk comes to this conclusion? Denmark is just as much as Britain a democratic, free country. I’m not arguing for what the Danish government did or didn’t do, and the fact that they didn’t reverse their decision or discipline the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons, as Rushdie might have done(reverse course) if he could do it over. Basically there is no difference between the two countries in this. The results may have been more dangerous; more public harm could have resulted in the case of the Danish cartoons, but so was 911 the result of too much American interference in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not enough interference in Israel’s atrocities in Palestine. But America doesn’t effectively rethink its policies, even after Bush II.

He suggests that Danish newspaper publishers/editors have less right to publish something that could be seen widely by the public, or at least a large segment of the society, as blasphemous, than Salman Rushdie does, but why? Do newspapers have more weight, or more responsibility than individual writers? Sure. Then if newspapers in America can lie, so can newspapers everywhere. If American owned newspapers can spread the myth that Muslims can and do turn a blind eye to terrorism, then so can other - country owned newspapers. And most widely - read newspapers republished the Danish cartoons.

Also, Rushdie’s remorse could be mere tiredness at the fact that he is a virtual prisoner, with 24 hour guard, and has to be fearful of his personal safety as long as the fatwa stands. It’s not likely he would ever (have)consider(ed) self-censorship in relation to his famous book, Satanic Verses which caused a huge backlash, because it is his most famous and perhaps most-loved work, despite what Falk suggests.

It’s a political and ethical dilemma, says Falk.

What I don’t agree with

Why is turkey a notable exception? In actuality, it is always doing things against Islam; banning hijab in universities for example, in its Islamophobia like so many other European countries except it happens to have a large Muslim majority. It is a puppet regime, for now, because of secularist leanings within the administration which are too influential or powerful for greater change to have happened yet, even though the new President Gul and the Prime minister appear to be practicing Muslims. They can’t change the laws single handedly. Besides, many of Turkey’s Muslims are more secular than religious. The same can be said of Bosnia in the past, at least.

Morocco although an Arab Muslim country, is similarly backwards in its underestimation (and misunderstanding)   of Islam’s true nature and potential. This is the worldwide dilemma of Muslims in fact. Everywhere Muslims (and their religion) are prejudged; the people are seen as uneducated, backward, or aggressive. Meanwhile they must try to defend Islam and Muslims from discrimination, including discriminatory laws, and hate speech.

Too true

Falk says we can’t rely on good intentions between countries, or friendship to solve these ethical problems. The question to me is one of a return to the past; we need the same kind of honest understanding that people in the past had; for example the Prophet Muhammad made treaties with his enemies, or other tribes. In one instance the Prophet gave the new Muslim escapees back to their slave masters, but did not ask for the return of the slaves (of masters) from Medina (Prophet’s city and base) back to the Muslims (there). It seemed unfair to the companions of the Prophet and they complained. (What was the result?)In the end things turned out all right; one famous slave escaped by himself and joined two others, some of them were re - captured. Later on, the tables turned in favor of the Muslims. Despite the seemingly unfair trials and more difficulties history proved that the Prophet Muhammad was not only a military genius, but also a politically successful statesman. Read more about his successes in The Sealed Nectar and other biographies of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him.

Similarly, Muslim leaders if approached, might be able to arrange some kind of political deal wherein they agree to stipulations regarding actions which might seem unfair to Muslims and hurt their sentiments i.e. unfair laws on blasphemy (in theory, permit Salman Rushdie’s book, perhaps, but NOT the Danish Cartoons) but which would in return give Muslims something important back as a concession. I.e. close all the black sites like Guantanamo.

One major obstacle to such a proposal would be that Muslims wouldn’t likely be able to verify if the other side, i.e. the American army, complied with their end of the bargain. This is all a bit too far-fetched, but may be a starting point for experienced heads to think on - motivated to discuss and refine, looking at areas of contention. A fine missing ingredient is the cooperation of Muslim governments with each other. If they are not all on the same agenda, nothing can be accomplished. If Pakistanis revolt, and Saudis or Egyptians disagree then there could never be a fait accompli.

(One idea, which would give strength to Muslims and the Qur’an, is to stop publishing books with the Arabic translations, altogether. Ideally, these should not be permitted for sale to non-Muslims; a very hard task to accomplish now, considering the breadth to which the Qur’an has spread, but publishers, wholesalers, and resellers could begin to do it, within their own spheres of influence. Maybe the Arabic Qur’an should only be permitted online (audio files), or in Masajid (Muslim houses of Worship), and Islamic study circles, or Muslim - only Islamic University libraries.)

Rome was once a powerful country, and as prophesied, the heads of Rome would continue to grow back even after cut off. The Romans (i.e. they had descendents who are similar in looks and beliefs) of today are still as contentious as they were in the early days of Islam, but their plots are not undefeatable, nor are their armies’ strength permanent forever.