Tom in Egypt // توم في مصر

This morning as I browsed through the feed of the people I follow on Twitter, I was saddened to stumble across this: @monaeltahawy "got my 1st death threat. Someone angry at my Wash Post oped on Yale + Danish cartoons. His email has been passed onto the law enforcement."

Mona is a well known and respected writer and speaker on Arab and Muslim issues whose articles are published in English and Arabic all over the world. I particularly enjoy her direct and uncompromising arguments, especially on women's issues - whether you agree with her opinion or not it's refreshing to hear such refreshingly honest criticism.

The subject of her latest contribution, published in the Washington Post, was the debacle at Yale University Press after they decided that a book written about the controversy following the publication of those Danish cartoons in 2005 should, in fact, not contain the offending images. It is a well argued, nuanced piece that recognises the offensive nature of the images, but questions:

1) The timing of the anger across the Muslim world: "What occurred across many Muslim-majority countries in 2006 was a clear exercise in manufacturing outrage. Consider:

Jyllands-Posten published the cartoons in September 2005. The widespread protests in majority-Muslim countries that eventually left more than 200 dead did not start until about four months later. Indeed, when an Egyptian newspaper reprinted one cartoon in October 2005 to show readers how a Danish newspaper was portraying the prophet, no backlash was heard in Cairo or elsewhere."

2) The double standard of the outrage: "The cowardice shown by Yale Press recognizes none of the nuance that filled my conversations in Copenhagen nor discussions I had with Muslims in Qatar and Egypt during the controversy. Many told me they were dismayed at the double standards that stoked rage at these Danish cartoons yet did not question silence at anti-Semitic and racist cartoons in the region’s media."

and, principally:

3) The fact that Yale removing the images from a book highlighting them as Islamophobic and trying to promote serious academic discourse on the matter proves "what Flemming Rose said was his original intent in commissioning the cartoons — that artists were self-censoring out of fear of Muslim radicals?

Yale has sided with the various Muslim dictators and radical groups that used the cartoons to “prove” who could best “defend” Muhammad against the Danes and, by extension, burnish their Islamic credentials. Those same dictators and radicals who complained of the offence to the prophet’s memory were blind to the greater offense they committed in their disregard for human life. (Indeed, some of those protesters even held banners that said, “Behead those who offend the prophet.”)"

Regardless of whether you agree with her assessment, and I do, for Eltahawy to receive a death threat over the piece is nothing short of obscene. To make matters worse, Masrawy - a site I usually enjoy for its timely content on Egyptian affairs - published an article selectively translating sections of the original piece that seems only to serve as provocation for their readers to fill the comments section with yet more ugly threats (the only comment I read defending Eltahawy seems to have mysteriously disappeared).

Through-mixed with the poison of such threats, there is an odd irony, as the author herself recognises: @monaeltahawy "Someone angry at stereotyping of Muslims for being violent threatens to kill me = what? During Ramadan no less. Wow."

No further comment.

Actually two further comments, if anyone else wants to chip in I'll post your comments on this entry as and when!

2 comments:

1. basuappear said... 31 August 2009 09:55

   Hello Tom,
   
   Interesting post. I do agree with the writer's criticism of the timing of the violent protests which saw the loss of so much human life. The irony in defending a man accused of violence, through violent means is beyond ridiculous. It is all down pretty much to the fact that we sway with the media, the more media coverage, the more the 'dominant' method of 'protest' becomes the only way of showing 'love' and 'support' - yes, it is wrong.
   
   However, I do not think that Yale's decision to not print the cartoons themselves in the book has made them side with the violent extremists and other self-righteous and murderous groups. I think you have to see their decision to not print seperately from the other incidents. To me, it is not "cowardice" but it is a consideration and respect for man held in great esteem and regard by a large and substantial population of this planet, who DO find those cartoons offensive. Do you understand what I am trying to say? Why can't their decision be seen as an independent one? It is not to be compared with the anti-semitic cartoons in the middle east- which yes ARE wrong.. But since when are other people's wrongs to be a reason to adjust our own principles?
   
   Just my thoughts.

2. Tom "El-Rumi" Trewinnard said... 31 August 2009 12:39

   Hey Fadhila,
   
   Here's a piece from the NYT discussing the decision, interesting reading:
   
   http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/books/13book.html?_r=1
   
   And here's Yale UP's statement:
   
   http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/KlausenStatement.asp
   
   If the decision were taken to avoid offence, I think there could be a better case made (although I'd still disagree) but the statement seems to suggest that the decision was taken to avoid violent reprisals, with the caveat that if the reader wanted to view the offending cartoons (although perhaps not the other images of the prophet originally included eg. the Ottoman print) they could do so easily on the internet.
   
   I understand that the cartoons were and are deeply offensive, and certainly a stupid thing to publish in the first place. But in the context of a rigorous academic discussion of the cartoons and with the author's express opinion that the images are Islamophobic I think their inclusion in the book is important, and I don't see how a repeat of the 2006 events is likely. As Reza Aslan notes in the NYT piece "“The controversy has died out now, anyone who wants to see them can see them,” he said of the cartoons, noting that he has written and lectured extensively about the incident and shown the cartoons without any negative reaction."
   
   I'm not sure I fully agree that Yale has sided with violent extremists either, I know they're trying to tread carefully - rightly so - but I think they came up with the wrong conclusion, and that the decision was taken far more out of cowardice than out of respect.