TAGS
ON CAMPUS
STUDENT LIFE
OFF CAMPUS
EDUCATION

GOVERNMENT
MONEY
COOL
VARSITY BLUES
UTSU
ADMINISTRATION
BIOLOGY
ART
MUSIC
FOOD & DRINK
ELECTIONS
IN THE LAB
FACULTY
TECHNOLOGY
HEALTH
FILM
PROFILE
NUMBERS
INTERVIEW
LITERATURE
PSYCH
BRIEFS
THEATRE
LOVE & SEX
DESIGN
GENDER
ENVIRONMENT
LONG FORM
POP CULTURE
THE VARSITY
SPACE
LAW
PRO SPORTS
SIMCOE HALL
TORONTO
HUMAN RIGHTS
MISSISSAUGA
UTSU DEFEDERATION
FROSH
SCARBOROUGH
PHOTOGRAPHY
INFOGRAPHICS
FAITH
BEST OF 2012
GUIDES
LGBTQ
FASHION
RACE
DRUGS
ALUMNI
EUREKA
EDITORIAL
DANCE
SGRT
RELIGION
JOURNALISM
INTRAMURALS
JOB MARKET
COMMUTE
INVESTIGATIVE
PODCAST
University of Toronto's Student Newspaper Since 1880

What the world needs now is subtlety

An event hosted by the Muslim Students’ Association showed the right approach to the Innocence of Muslims controversy

By Wes Dutcher-Walls
Published: 9:15 pm, 30 September 2012
Vol CXXXIII, No. 05 under

There has been a desperate need for subtlety in the public discourse surrounding the worldwide controversy over the Innocence of Muslims video. Subtlety, though, has been in meager supply. The video itself, which is intentionally and idiotically unsubtle, neither deserves nor needs description. Any attentive person has seen the decidedly unsubtle reaction to it played out in chaos in the streets of cities around the world, amid the babble of commercial media,  the posturing of world leaders, and — far too infrequently — respectful and inclusive discourse in places of learning.

Luckily, there was a great deal of subtlety at the Muslim Students Association’s excellent event, called “#MuslimRage: Myths and Realities,” at Hart House last Tuesday. I won’t attempt as thorough and insightful a discussion as the one that took place there. However, the admirable example of groups like the MSA makes it worthwhile to think about just what subtlety might mean to us amidst the shouting, controversy, and hurt.

There is no need to be subtle in condemning The Innocence of Muslims as offensive, Islamaphobic, and lacking any intellectual or artistic value. Nor need there be any subtlety in understanding that producing it was an act of religious fanaticism. But when we consider the worldwide reaction to the film, subtlety should inform our approach.

First, subtlety might mean skepticism. At the MSA event, panelist professor Mohammed Fadel argued persuasively that those of us in the West, inundated as we are by commercial media, must be skeptical that the violent reaction to the video was as large-scale and endemic among Muslim populations as we’ve been led to believe. Fadel’s comparison of the anti-video demonstrations with even the smallest gatherings of the nascent Arab Spring, showed that the mobs at Western embassies and businesses were both relatively small and overwhelmingly male, unlike last year’s pro-democracy protests.

We should also question whether the violence that did occur was motivated by genuine feelings of religious insult. Fadel suggests that the violence may be less about the spontaneous and collective expression of anger about the video, and more about the manipulation of the population by extremist groups using the video as a pretext. If inciting violence and engineering protests can give fundamentalists the upper hand over secularists in the post-Arab Spring power struggles, then attacks on embassies and KFCs alike should be seen acts of political calculation, not genuine expression of resentment. In contrast Newsweek’s “Muslim Rage” cover story has a bad case of subtlety deficiency. It fails both to accurately portray the scale of the violence and to suggest that something more than spontaneous anger might be at play. However, that various #MuslimRage variations are trending on Twitter is encouraging — subtlety, expressed as irony, helps to counteract the bombast we so often see in the media.

In addition to skepticism, subtlety might mean respect and sensitivity. Perhaps the most meaningful moment of the MSA event was an audience member’s question about how Muslims can attempt to explain the sanctity and importance of the Prophet’s place at the centre of Islamic religious life to non-Muslims or non-believers. As a non-believer, I cannot comprehend this reverence. Thus, I can only affirm the right of Muslims worldwide to be upset and hurt. There is a subtle but key difference between respecting a religious practice or belief and respecting the right to such a practice or belief with security and dignity. This video, and other expressions of Islamophobia, can never be allowed to violate this right.

In light of the past weeks’ events, subtlety as sensitivity appears more indispensible than ever in the relationships between the West and the global Muslim community, neither of which — it is worth noting — are united in their attitudes, values, or aspirations. Ihsan Gardee, the executive director of the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations, noted in his remarks at the event that a key strategic goal of the Canadian Muslim community must be to combat the perception of Islam as synonymous with violence and fanaticism. To this I add that we must equally combat the confusion of mainstream Western cultural attitudes towards Islam or the Middle East with Islamophobia.

Examples of religious hatred will continue to appear and shake the delicate relationships between religions, states, and peoples. If we continue to build those relationships with subtlety, however, they will withstand disturbances far greater than a silly and amateurish video. We are lucky to have a university that encourages events and dialogue with just this subtlety as their aim.

  • Meriem

    great article! Really appreciated this overage of the event :)

  • Rameez

    Aside from good coverage, I must say–and I’ve never said this before–the author, Wes, is an exceptional writer. I look forward to more of your writing.

  • Sandro Pehar

    Wow. What an article. Let’s begin.

    “There has been a desperate need for subtlety in the public discourse surrounding the worldwide controversy over the Innocence of Muslims video.”

    Then …

    “There is no need to be subtle in condemning The Innocence of Muslims as offensive, Islamaphobic, and lacking any intellectual or artistic value. Nor need there be any subtlety in understanding that producing it was an act of religious fanaticism. But when we consider the worldwide reaction to the film, subtlety should inform our approach.”

    What are you talking about? I don’t understand all this subtle talk being interchanged all over this article. It seems that you’re deciding to be subtle at opportune moments. To be clear, you’re not even talking about the entire movie, which is probably going to be even cruder than the trailer, which is what ‘the world’ is talking about. Subtlety.

    2.

    “the West, inundated as we are by commercial media, must be skeptical that the violent reaction to the video was as large-scale and endemic among Muslim populations as we’ve been led to believe. ”

    Obviously this is no Arab Spring. But, this video pales in comparison to the atrocities committed by dictators in the mid-east which resulted in the Arab Spring. Is it not ridiculous to compare the hopeful protests of the Arab Spring where people fought for a better life against brutal regimes to these protests of hate and terror at someone exercising their fundamental freedoms, no matter how distasteful that exercise was? We don’t hold mass riots in the “western world” when the Westboro Baptist Church goes on a tirade!

    Another question about the scale of these protests is to examine how many countries participated in the protests. RT (commercial media? I’ll let you decide) in this video suggests that 30 countries have engaged in protests with 50 people being killed at the time of this video being produced (link > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_lr4KUwAKI). The breadth of the countries surpasses that of the Arab Spring where Wikipedia suggests only 18 countries took part (Link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring#Others).

    3.

    The real problem with the article is this paragraph.

    “We should also question whether the violence that did occur was motivated by genuine feelings of religious insult. Fadel suggests that the violence may be less about the spontaneous and collective expression of anger about the video, and more about the manipulation of the population by extremist groups using the video as a pretext.”

    If the religious insult is disingenuine, (which is highly speculative, mind you. Ascribing motivations other than the ones you see of a person’s subjective experience is very hard) then WHY are we talking about the Innocence of Muslims as a player in this twisted socio-political battle? If the religious insult is disingenuine then why are people proposing stifling free speech and reviewing blasphemy laws?

    This article goes on about the effects of Muslim Innocence and then suggests that it might not be Muslim Innocence’s fault, but rather the exploitation of the people by the political leaders to reach some sort of political ideology.

    Well then, how do they exploit the people? Religion? Religious beliefs? This isn’t the first time something like this has happened. If you remember Salman Rushdie’s book “Satanic Verses” a similar reaction happened. Salman Rushdie even said that in today’s political and social environment his book could probably not be published.

    The MSA event was a great forum and intelligent conversation. That is what should reign supreme in our world. But so should criticism. Religion specifically, is one of the only remaining human beliefs that is exempt from crucial criticism under the pretext of offensiveness or disrespect. Our regular discourse should have more “Let’s talk about how belief systems influence our world-view, politics and government and find out if those beliefs can stand up to the ethical and progressive environments we need to grow as a civilization,” and less “Stop it, you’re offending someone”/

    This video violated NO rights. It was made as a crude, uninformed criticism of the Islamic religion and to say that it violated the “right to such a practice or belief with security and dignity” is ridiculous. No one’s right to security or right to dignity was even threatened by this video. People chose to watch it. It was not thrust or forced upon anyone. This could have been a glimmer in D-Film history, but it wasn’t and that is what we must examine. It damn well offended people, but so what? We get offended everyday. It’s part of living in a society.

    “When you are offended at any man’s fault, turn to yourself and study your own failings. Then you will forget your anger. – Epicitetus

  • Wes Dutcher-Walls

    Mr. Pehar,
    Thanks very much and for reading and for your response. I admit that the article wasn’t my best work, and I regret that I didn’t spend more time or thought when faced with the chance to reflect publicly on this issue. (I agree that there are some inconsistencies — including the remark about subtlety not being needed with regards to the video. That was my attempt to sound dramatic and principled in the context of an article all about subtlety.) That said, remember that there is a great deal of editorial discretion involved here and at all publications; certain ellisions and changes are made which may obscure arguments. Because of this, I’ll offer some remarks in an attempt to clarify.
    First, check out Ross Douthat’s piece “It’s Not About the Video” in the NY Times. He says it better than I can, and draws the same very useful comparison you do with the “Satanic Verses” controversy and hysteria. For the record, I concur with your (implied) outrage at the fact that religious sensitivity has grown to the extent that Rushdie doubts he’d be able to publish the book today.
    Second, I fully agree with you that we cannot exempt religion and religious claims from the critical reason we apply in all other spheres of human experience, and that no one should expect us to do so. As non-believer, I hold that religious beliefs are singularly unable to weather incredulity and skepticism, and that if free inquiry were allowed in all cases, things would be very different. In my discussion of Islam’s reverence for the Prophet, when I said I cannot comprehend it I was certainly not implying that I want to comprehend it or that I respect it. As with Christians’ reverence for Christ, the sancitity of the Prophet for Muslims rests on the internal logic of a given religion — the two are coextensive. More generally, respect for religious belief itself (devoid of content) is, or at least should be, coextensive with that portion of humanity that is itself religious. Put bluntly, it seems odd that one should have or show respect–or be asked to have or show respect–for a belief or claim he or she believes false.
    Here’s where clarity (subtlety?) is truly needed. As a non-believer, I cannot and will not have or show respect for any religious belief. However, as a realist, I know that nothing I can do will change the minds of any but the most lukewarm believers. Finally, as a citizen of a liberal democracy, I affirm that believers have the right (yes, the right) to belief and practice with security and dignity, just as I (and the video’s producer, and Mr. Rushdie) have right to say whatever insulting or offensive thing I want about a religion provided I do not violate THEIR right.
    It’s bizarre to think of the video as having violated rights, I agree. And who’s to say whether it has or will? My understanding of hate speech jurisprudence (perhaps inaccurate) is that if a statement is seen as an incitement towards the violation of the right to religious freedom (with safety and security), its claim on the right to freedom of expression becomes void and it becomes prosecutable. Of course, these determinations will be subjective and very much in “grey area,” even if they do occur in U.S. federal court or some other official context. The idea of the video’s producer going unpunished seems wrong to me, and Prof. Fadel suggested at the event that a fraud charge (for misleading the actors) may be one avenue. So, if the video is taken down or the producer charged, it at least should be because of a hate speech crime, NOT because of the feelings of religious insult to which every Muslim is entitled but which themselves do not violate anyone’s rights. I think we basically agree about these things.
    In any case, I am sincerely appreciative of your response. It’s nice to know that people are reading my work.
    Regards,
    Wes Dutcher-Walls

  • Sandro Pehar

    Thank you for the Awesome reply Wes.

    That cleared up a lot of disdain I had for the article, but I still contend that the article itself should have contained your nuanced and further critical analysis that you put in the reply.

    Although, I am satisfied and I greatly appreciate you writing back to me. In any case, great coverage and thank you again.

    Peace and Love
    SP

  • Dan

    I have a lot to say about this article, but I want to keep
    it to two main points. I apologize in advance for the length. With all due
    respect to the author, I found this article to be morally questionable and
    severely mechanically flawed.

    “There is no need to be subtle in condemning The Innocence of Muslims as
    offensive, Islamaphobic, and lacking any intellectual or artistic value. Nor
    need there be any subtlety in understanding that producing it was an act of
    religious fanaticism. But when we consider the worldwide reaction to the film,
    subtlety should inform our approach.”

    What incredible moral reasoning. The making of a film, as campy, offensive, and
    second-rate as it was, is not a comparable action to fire-bombing an embassy
    and killing ambassadors. Why should we grant them the benefit of the doubt? If
    you are willing to grant nuance to people who destroy buildings and maim
    innocent people, one must also try to grant it to those who commit far lesser
    crimes. Mr. Nakoula, the maker of the film, was an Egyptian Coptic Christian
    who had suffered under persecution of Christians in Egypt, and one might say
    has ample reason to be angry with Muslim extremists. His implied dislike of all
    Muslims is still not correct, but if the authour is willing to grant
    understanding to one group of people, it is ridiculous to ignore the other
    side. This fact is not revealed about Mr. Nakoula anywhere in the article,
    which is a major omission for an article of this kind, and done either out of
    ignorance or a deliberate deceiving of the readers. This inherently pushes a
    disgusting double standard.

    Aside from this, the author throughout the essays institutes
    a great deal more moral responsibility on the maker of the film than those who
    react to it. I find this deeply troubling. Mr. Nakoula’s crime was that he
    deceived his actors by handing them a script and then dubbing something else
    over their lines. His actors have now sued him over this. However, he has to
    right to freedom of speech, and broke no laws simply by making an anti-Muslim
    film. Anyone who believes in any ideology or religion needs to take the offence,
    or at least express discontent in a civil manner. There are all sorts of things
    which offend me, but I have never wished death or injury to anyone who does
    such a thing. Neither should anyone else.

    As the author says in the article, there might be some
    elements of the mob which look to do this for political purposes. But the
    problem with this is that over-and-over again there are instances of thousands
    if not tens of thousands of Muslims going out on to the streets in various
    different Muslim countries over similar portrayals or depictions of Mohammad. This
    is not an isolated incident. Think of Salman Rushdie, the Jyllands-Posten
    cartoons, or even the fanaticism today where a Buddhist temple was ransacked by
    Muslim extremists after an image was shown of a burning Qu’ran. It is very
    intellectually dishonest to think there is not a large degree of religious
    offence that is taken. It would be akin to saying that Christians who shoot up
    abortion doctors do it strictly for political purposes, or religious Zionists
    who settle on demolished land in the Palestinian Territories don’t do it for
    the same reasons. The author has all his work ahead of him if he wishes to show
    this.

    Some of the above paragraphs are obviously laced with a difference in views,
    but if it were just that, this response would have been much shorter. The most
    glaring mechanical error is that you overuse and misuse the word
    “subtle.” Here is the definition of subtlety that I found with a
    quick Google search:

    1) So delicate or precise as to be difficult to analyze or describe.

    2) Delicately complex and understated.

    The word subtlety is used again and again where words like “nuance”,
    “tact”, or “understanding” should be in its place. Just to
    take examples from your first paragraph, it would have made much more sense had
    you said “Critical thinking (subtlety), however, has been in meager
    supply”, or “The video itself, which is lacking in any nuance or
    fair-mindedness (instead of intentionally and idiotically unsubtle)” would
    have made more sense. You used the word subtle three times in the first
    paragraph alone. There was no need for this.

    The authour also tries to redefine the word at a number of points. “First,
    subtlety might mean skepticism.” I think I know what you were trying to
    say, but what is wrong with saying “First, we need to be skeptical about
    the motives for the attackers”? Subtlety does not mean skepticism. “Subtlety
    as sensitivity”. Again, being sensitive does not mean to be subtle. Sensitivity
    deals with the ability for people to feel emotions and empathize with others; subtlety
    has nothing to do with that. “We need to be more sensitive” makes
    much more sense. Most appallingly, I read “subtlety, expressed as irony”
    in regards to the #MuslimRage bit. Why not, “the use of the term #MuslimRage is
    a witty expression of irony?” or something of this nature. Something as
    precious and magnificent as irony deserves to not be redefined

    The impression that one gets from reading this article is that a nuanced
    defence of Islam and the reaction to this film is equated with
    “subtlety.” There is a much clearer and less redundant way to express
    the point, as I have already demonstrated. I have a feeling that the authour
    was trying to run a theme throughout this article and trying to be fancy. That
    can be done well, but the way he uses it doesn’t work.

    • Wes Dutcher-Walls

      Dan,

      Almost all your criticisms are valid, there are certainly some problems here. However, read my comment on this page from earlier today — a clarified and more complete statement of my views which I admit does contradict the article in some places. Thanks very much for reading.

      Wes

      • Dan

        I thank you very much for the reply Wes. Your kindness has made me feel a little guilty that my response was as critical and direct as it was. I wish you the best of luck.

    • Hardy Weinberg

      I feel Dan brings up some important issues surrounding the recent (sometimes) violent protests around this film. I should note that I do support non violent protest for whatever reason. Many of these points were addressed at that meeting, quite well, which unfortunately could not all be presented in this article.

      Wes, if possible, not sure if a recorded version will be posted or has been posted (I know they were ustreaming it), but posting the video of the event would put your article into context. Unfortunately, the article is about an event (the discussion at Hart House) which is also about a current event (The protests in the middle east). Posting a video would greatly help in understanding the discussion and perhaps answer a lot of questions people have about the protests.