August 19, 2003

"This clear flaunting of Islamic Law by displaying pictures of scantily clad women will only add fuel to sentiments that the U.S. is trying to undermine Muslim culture in Iraq. It risks alienating the actual population."

Why is it, I wonder, that so many people are concerned about offending anyone except Americans?

Mr. Bunglawala is talking about the admittedly odd effort to boost troop morale and smoke out B'aathists and Saddam loyalists by postering Photoshopped images of the ex-tyrant all over Tikrit, his former stronghold.

The whole edifice of the politically correct, multiculteral ethos of sensitivity and tolerance rests on a bastardized post-modern understanding of power, which assumes as an axiom that those with power cannot be oppressed in any way. This means that while it is important for us as Americans to be sensitive to the dictates of what is portrayed as Muslim law and culture so as not to offend, there is no equivalent proscription against doing things that may offend some Americans such as, say, burning our flag or dancing in the streets following the massacre of our citizens.

There is also something else at work here. Examining the CNN article for its quoted objections, I noticed that Bunglawala calls the posting of the Photoshopped Sadaam images a flaunting of "Islamic Law," and an undermining of "Islamic culture."

But just what is "Islamic Law?" And what is its relationship to "Islamic culture?" The Encyclopedia of the Orient reports that,

Sharia is often referred to as Islamic law, but this is wrong, as only a small part is irrefutably based upon the core Islamic text, the Koran. A correct definition would either be "Islam-inspired", "Islam-derived" or "the law system of Muslims".

My own dead-tree reading on the subject bears this out. Modern Sharia as we know it is an amalgamation of old Bedouin law, commercial and agrarian law from seventh-century Mecca and Medina, and law from countries conquered by expansionist Islam, with a smattering of Roman and Jewish law thrown in for good measure. The extreme form of hand-amputating, adulteress-stoning, toppling-the-wall-onto-the-homosexual Islamic Law as practiced by the Taliban and favored by the Wahabbists out of Saudi Arabia is the nineteenth-century iteration of a continually evolving tradition.

While condemning the extremist Muslim elements in his native Britain, Mr. Bunglawala writes,

It would be unfair to make generalised assumptions about a large and diverse British Muslim community that is 1.8 million strong, on the basis of the actions of a misguided few.

Iraq is roughly 60% Shi'ite and 40% Sunni, with a bit of "Christian/Other." It is 75% Arab, 20% Kurdish, and 5% Turkoman, Assyrian and "other." 42% of its population is 14 years old or younger.

And yet, Mr. Bunglawala seems to be objecting to pictures of Zsa Zsa Saddam, Porn Star Saddam, and Billy Idol Saddam on the basis of some all-encompassing, unifying "Law" that is apparently synonymous with Muslim culture. Does a 12-year old Shi'ite have the same objections to a Gabor-breasted Sadaam as a 55-year old Sunni? Or, for that matter, does a make-up wearing, loosely-headscarved female Iranian law student have the same concept of "Islamic Law" as a gray-bearded Saudi Arabian cleric? I suspect not. Although the Koran exhorts Muslims to "Hold fast to the Rope of Allah and do not diverge," [3.103] it is clear that there are many ropes and much divergence within the nominal Muslim world.

Nevertheless, because the Photoshopped posters are creations of America--the primary wielder of power in the world--the issue becomes a matter of our offenses against the supposedly monolithic sensibilities of another culture. I'm fairly certain that Mr. Bunglawala would acknowledge the differences between the various Muslim communities and, if pressed, might even agree with my depiction of Sharia. But CNN didn't ask him about that. CNN's purpose is quite clear: find support for

...there are nonetheless concerns that, far from aiding the American cause, the images will only serve to increase anti-American feeling among ordinary Iraqis.

That's where the story is.

Lately, it seems, that's where the story always is.

----------

AS I WAS SAYING: On-the-scene Chief Wiggles writes:

Maybe our efforts for the most part are going unnoticed: the schools and hospitals that have been opened, the playgrounds and housing projects that have been started, and the many jobs that have been created. Where is all the talk about the thousands of good things that have been done? Why is the media not assisting to promote the word that many great things are occurring day after day? Where is the truth in reporting that makes good news as sellable as bad news?

AS I WAS SAYING, II: In the course of an interesting bit examining the validity of the KKK's claim to represent Southern culture, and comparing it with Islamic Terror's claim to represent Muslim culture, Lee Harris writes:

"Merely to ask such a question is to reject the paradigm of culture that has come to dominate so much contemporary academic and pseudo-liberal thinking, namely the naïve multiculturalist's simplistic concept of a culture as a single monolithic entity, homogeneous and immutable."

Hey! When do I get a column?