This is a Blog that has taken much longer to write....
I started with Terry Jones last week but then could not complete it. So I will leave my early (and still relevant) reflections here, but then complete them with related ideas on religious discourse in the public sphere.
Terry Jones, pastors to 50 in Gainesville, is a famous man. He is known to almost everybody on the planet who has access to TV, news and the Internet. It does not take much these days to get on Global TV. In spite of the latter's increasingly contracting attention span, a threat to burn the Qur'an, draw the Prophet Muhammad, or insult Muslims is a sure way to get you a spot.
Of course, one cannot credit the Terry Jones of this world for single-handedly turning free speech into media attention. Mass media provides a spectacle that is both fascinating and tempting. It appeals to a human emotion for recognition, so central to human interaction. Recognition takes place when we talk to each other, when we also argued with each other. In all aspects, recognition is a kind of self-affirmation even when the other is attacked.
What kind of affirmation comes from public mass media, though? What does it say about Terry Jones?
I am not inclined to go a psycho-analytical route. I will leave that to the experts, but perhaps to Jones himself.
With my research project on Islam and public life, I have become more aware of taking into consideration early pre-modern conceptions of the public life in general. And this includes readings in the Qur'an.
In the last couple of weeks, reading thru the Quran has alerted me to many ways in which the believer is asked to respond to Other. I mean here the other who refuses to believe.
The responses are varied. One of those is to be ready to take up arms. But this is not the only one, not even the dominant response.
There are equally many others. Two of these are very interesting. The first is to recognize that the unbeliever is under the impression that what he or she does is good. The phrase used is "tazyin a'malikum" which can be roughly and literally translated as "beautification of your deeds." The perception created is that the bad deed (in the eyes of the believer) appears beautiful and good to the doer. A second one is related but with the same effect. The heart of the unbeliever has been sealed (tubi'a). God has caused this.
There may be others. However, these two at least put the onus on the believer to take a stand in the situation. Condemnation is clear, but it is prefaced by a certain orientation. The other's misguidance is regarded as self-inflicted. Misguidance is given an aesthetic dimension, a beautification. The second option, of course, is that God has closed the path to good for the man. This perspective is again condemnatory from a believer's perspective. However, it lifts the blame even further from the Other. He or she is now firmly blocked from the Truth.
These values may be imporrtant for thinking about public spheres of competing perceptions and perceptions of Truth.
For now, I wonder if these perceptions of reprehensible behaviour have resonance in how Muslims respond to public insults (or perceived insults)? I have heard that US Muslims have the sense that they are under constant attack, under deep scrutiny.
More importantly, what do such responses offer for such a public? And how can this be contrasted by what Muslims actually feel today under the conditions of a modern public? If recognition is denied them by a public that is increasingly hostile, are they taking recourse to these kinds of perceptions?
No comments:
Post a Comment