If you happen to find yourself in Saudi Arabia driving down the highway toward Mecca, you will eventually encounter a big sign advising you that Mecca is for Muslims only. The other road is “obligatory for non Muslims.”
Penalty for taking the wrong road? Officially, there is “no set punishment for this offense,” though incarceration followed by a large fine and expulsion are not uncommon. One source of advice for travelers offers the friendly tip that non-Muslims avoid Mecca (and Medina, where similar restrictions apply) because “Severe punishment is given to the non-Muslims if they are caught inside Mecca.” The 19th-century traveler Richard Burton took the precaution of having himself circumcised before sneaking into the city in 1853 disguised as a Muslim pilgrim. Notwithstanding the lack of official sanctions, he wrote, “nothing could save a European detected by the populace, or one who after pilgrimage declared himself an unbeliever.”
Perhaps this seemed quaint and romantic in the 19th century. What I find remarkable is with what equanimity we–meaning we idolatrous Christian, Jewish, and atheistical Westerners–accept this prohibition. Imagine, if you will, that there was an analogous sign as you approached New York.
What wailing and gnashing of teeth there would be over that outrage! The lawsuits would pile up quicker than you can say “ACLU.” But why? The usual line is that, being a freedom-loving lot, we prefer let other people do what they like, even if what they like doing is curtailing the freedom of others–e.g., us, their own women, etc.–to travel where they like, when they like, with whom they like.
But hasn’t this asymmetry gone too far? I have no particular desire to go to Mecca–indeed, I would pay a tidy sum not to visit that locus of lunacy–but supposing I did wish to book the family into the Mecca Marquis for a spot of holiday fun and fanaticism? Why should that be forbidden? Because the Koran (9:28) says Christians and other low-lifes are “unclean”? Because Muslims regard the city as a sacred spot, bound up with the core beliefs of their religion, which we idolators do not share?
Well, couldn’t we with equal justice argue that New York (to say nothing of London, Paris, and dozens of other spots) are sacred to us idolatrous Westerners? Do they not, each in its distinctive way, epitomize some central aspect of our core beliefs, for example, the belief that one should be free to worship, or not worship, as one pleases? What city better sums up the untidy dynamism of modern democratic capitalism than New York? I do not say New York is beyond criticism, only that it embodies a way, indeed a philosophy, of life. Why should it welcome those whose fundamental outlook is not merely indifferent but ostentatiously hostile to everything that makes New York a lower-case mecca for enlightened secularists of all religions?
I sometimes ask my friends such questions. Most of them think I am just joshing. I’m not. I also ask them if they know, in rough numbers, how many Christian churches and Jewish temples there are in Saudi Arabia (to take one example)–just a ballpark figure, I tell them. Many are surprised when I tell them that the number is zero. Such institutions, and the symbols and documents that accompany them, are verboten. Yes, that’s right: Bibles, Crucifixes, the Star of David, and other such infidel religious paraphernalia are illegal there.
OK, then why are we so accommodating about Muslims’ building mosques, many of which are breeding grounds of Islamic extremism (more), in the West. As of 2004, there were more than 2000 mosques in the United States. I haven’t counted, but the number of mosques in Great Britain makes for an impressive, by which I mean long, list.
Tariq Ramadan, the Swiss-born Muslim activist and impresario, sent shivers of delight through Western liberals when he called for a “moratorium” on the application of Sharia law–you know, stoning adultrous women to death, cutting off the hands of thieves, executing apostates, that sort of thing–in places like Western Europe that were not (or not yet) fully under the sway of Islam. Good old Tariq, who by the way, is a grandson of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, neglected to mention exactly how long he thought his moratorium (”moratorium” n.: “a temporary reprieve or suspension”) should last: until next Tuesday? A year from Wednesday? But I would like to propose a different moratorium: a temporary reprieve or suspension of mosque building in the West until there are, say, 20 Christian churches and 20 temples in Saudi Arabia. That’s only a hundredth of the number of mosques there are in the U.S., but I don’t believe in making grandiose demands.
Again, when I mention this idea to friends, many just chuckle, thinking I am not in earnest. Why shouldn’t I be? “Oh, well, we aren’t a country like Saudi Arabia. We believe in freedom of religion,” etc., etc. Precisely. Because we believe in freedom of religion, we must be on guard against those activities which, unchecked, would spell the abolition of freedom. “There is,” said G.K. Chesterton, “a thought that stops thought. That is the only thought that ought to be stopped.” Freedom–religious, economic, social–is a marvelous thing. And that is why ideologies bent on using and abusing freedom in order to destroy freedom must be carefully scrutinized and, at times, curtailed.
Unfortunately, the West’s response, increasingly, has been a long preemptive cringe. Just last week, the BBC reported that a story based on the Three Little Pigs was turned down by the government for an award because the subject matter could “offend Muslims.” Note well: the report didn’t specify any actual Muslims complaining about the porcine fairy tale. Those denying the award already knew how an offended Muslim acted–who can forget the conflagration that followed the publication of those cartoons of Mohammad? No, instead of vigilance, supine resignation is the order of the day. Better capitulate now and get all that unpleasantness out of the way. It is a habit that breeds first apathy and then contempt, including self-contempt. The tonic of offending and being offended is part of the price we pay for living in a free, secular society. Those who pretend that their sensibilities are too delicate to withstand the affronts of ordinary daily life are not asking for religious freedom: they are aiming to abolish it. That must end, and soon.
PJM Home
The New Criterion
The Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages Art
Lives of the Mind: The Use and Abuse of Intelligence from Hegel to Wodehouse
Art’s Prospect: The Challenge of Tradition in an Age of Celebrity
Experiments Against Reality: The Fate of Culture in the Postmodern Age
Tenured Radicals, NEW, EXPANDED EDITION FALL 2008! How Politics has Corrupted our Higher Education
Counterpoints: 25 Years of The New Criterion on Culture and the Arts
The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America
Against the Idols of the Age
Lengthened Shadows: America and Its Institutions in the Twenty-First Century
The Survival of Culture: Permanent Values in a Virtual Age
Physics and Politics, by Walter Bagehot, edited with an
Introduction by Roger Kimball
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
36 Comments
1. Letalis Maximus, Esq.:Look, in support of the Danes I buy a six-pack of Carlsberg (sometimes Elephant) every single time I go to the liquor store. What more do you want from me, already?
Jan 28, 2008 - 11:20 am 2. Joseph McNulty:We are allowing “freedom of religion” even if it means the end of “freedom of any religion” except Islam. Read Bin Laden and Zawahiri. They are not men “who have hijacked a historic faith,” they are hyper-orthodox Muslims. To paraphrase Zolzinitsyn, radical Islam is “Islam practiced by experts.” We ignore this at our peril. It can be said that there are many “moderate” Muslims, but there is no “moderate” Islam.
Jan 28, 2008 - 11:21 am 3. Doc:Amen!
Jan 28, 2008 - 11:22 am 4. Michael Sheldon:Similarly, compare the number of immigrants and refugees that Western nations accept versus those welcomed to Islamic ones. Insisting on a “right of return” seems, at a minimum, shabby, from countries who have expelled so many “infidels,” at the same time emigrating en masse to the lands of opportunity.
Jan 28, 2008 - 11:32 am 5. ZZMike:About “The 3 Little Pigs”: at least one Muslim comentator in England noted that there’s nothing in the Koran about reading about pigs, only about eating them.
The British have – to use one of their own expressions – gone all wobbly.
Jan 28, 2008 - 11:37 am 6. paul beezley:After the “president” of China, the butcher of Tienanmen himself was allowed to visit Independence Hall – because he’s a great fan of US History – I don’t think we can ever declare anything in this country as sacred. If that wasn’t, then what is? I will never forget that desecration.
Jan 28, 2008 - 11:59 am 7. Gene:We are in catch 22 situation. If we fight the same way they fight us, we lose our freedoms, if we don’t fight we lose our freedoms. Yikes, what to do? Thomas Jefferson said; “Give me libery or death”. I say that actions speak louder than words, the Muslim faith wants to take liberty from all. We must fight and hopefully get our full liberty back when the fight is won.
Jan 28, 2008 - 11:59 am 8. Robert Arvanitis:Mr. Kimball:
We cannot deny rights to US citizens who happen to be Muslim. But it would be a salutary exercise in cultural self-confidence to impose restrictions on foreign nationals of benighted countries, especially their diplomats. Tell the Middle Eastern politicos they can come to the UN, but not shop on Fifth Avenue. They can visit the State Department, but can only use narrow back roads to get there from Dulles…
Best regards
Jan 28, 2008 - 12:06 pm 9. FL:How will this work, exactly? There’ll be a federal agency in charge of all construction of places of worship? We’ll rework all the zoning laws?
Jan 28, 2008 - 12:15 pm 10. ronbo:I seem to remember reading, many years ago, that Mont Blanc created a separate line of products for sale to Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries. It appeared that the company’s six-pointed star logo could be taken um, the wrong way.
Jan 28, 2008 - 12:26 pm 11. coolpapa:Gene -
“Thomas Jefferson said; “Give me libery or death”.”
Uh, I think that was Patrick Henry.
Jan 28, 2008 - 12:51 pm 12. Charlie (Colorado):Roger, do you suppose the reason we take this with more equanimity here is because Saudi Arabia is, like, a whole ‘nother country? One we don’t actually control?
Jan 28, 2008 - 12:57 pm 13. Radar:FL: “How will this work, exactly?”
The problem isn’t that implementing such a rule would be difficult, it is coming to some public understanding about what are the limits of religious tolerance. Are we going to tolerate a religion that requires that non-adherents modify their behavior according to that religion?
If the government is going to punish people when they offend someone’s religious sensibilities then our entire society is going to be beholden to most sensitive religious group in our midst. That doesn’t sound like freedom to me.
I don’t think we are there yet in the US, but look at the HRC proceedings in Canada for a glimpse of where we could be headed.
Jan 28, 2008 - 1:06 pm 14. shockcorridor:Gene, come on, man. That was Patrick Henry, not Jefferson.
Jan 28, 2008 - 1:08 pm 15. Dennis:Reciprocity in matters of personal and religious liberty should be the basis for our relationships and diplomacy with Muslim-majority nations. Enough of kow-towing to their demands for freedom in our countries while denying basic liberties to Christians and Jews and other non-Muslims on theirs.
Ronbo’s comment makes me want to display my Mont Blanc fountain pen prominently. I’d never noticed the similarity between the snowflake and the Star of david before!
Jan 28, 2008 - 1:12 pm 16. John:Umm, did you say the British government was going to grant an award to a story based on the Three Little Pigs?
Radical Islam ain’t the only thing to rail against in this story!
Jan 28, 2008 - 1:40 pm 17. icq2day2:Your proposal could never be enforced, as we are not going to have police stopping every car going into NYC to ask about Muslims (as Mecca does). However, what if we used visas? That is, for every tourist visa issued to an American to visit Saudi, we issue one tourist visa for a Saudi to come here. Same for religious pilgrimages, missionary work, engineering work (that one is difficult, we have a lot of people making a lot of money helping the Saudis pump oil), shopping, diplomacy (again a difficult one, as we agreed to host the UN), etc. Cut the visa limitations as finely as you like, and make each 100% reciprocal. Do you suppose the right to fill our mosques with trained Wahabi imams is worth allowing us to send them an equal number of evangelical missionaries?
Jan 28, 2008 - 1:44 pm 18. FL:Apart from being legally weird, the mosque moratorium has a deeper problem. The relationship between the Saudi government and Islam is *not* like the relationship between the Vatican and Catholicism; it’s not like Riyadh is capital of the transnational community of Muslims. The vast majority of people who would be affected by some weird banning of mosque construction have no tie to the Saudi government. Imagine I tried to settle my grievances with Southern Baptists in Alabama by being mean to Lutherans in Wisconsin and you have an inkling of how silly this is.
Jan 28, 2008 - 1:48 pm 19. AG:The vast majority of mosques in the US and other countries are built and maintained with Saudi funds.
Jan 28, 2008 - 2:17 pm 20. Gene:Sorry for the slip of the mind. I know it was Patrick Henry’s quote, was thinking too hard of the the way we got our liberties and of the many people who fought to get it for us. It is us in today’s world that have to hold it though.
Jan 28, 2008 - 2:22 pm 21. FL:AG: “The vast majority of mosques in the US…”
How much is a vast majority, and what percentage of funding is sufficient for the truth of “built and maintained”? Yes, the Saudis export a lot of money, but I’m pretty skeptical of your comment. Is there a source for this?
Jan 28, 2008 - 2:26 pm 22. Nancy Reyes:Yup. No churches in Saudi.
But if some of your friends say, well after all, few Saudi citizens are Christian, just remind them that the Vatican estimates there are a million Christians living in Saudi: Including 900thousands Filipinos (80% Catholic) and 600thousand Keralan Indians, not to mention Lebanese, Africans, and others.
And their bigotry is not limited to Christians…the Shiite Saudis aren’t allowed a mosque either.
Jan 28, 2008 - 2:50 pm 23. Brian (Washington, D.C.):We actually did formerly have a policy like this, for the USSR. Since westerners were barred from much of the Soviet Union, and our diplomats operated under various restrictions, we had an office in the State Department that forbade a more or less equal percentage of the US to Soviet diplomats, and imposed on them whatever restrictions our diplomats were subject to.
I’ve long thought something parallel was due the Saudis, although I agree that we cannot (and should not) restrict US Muslims from building their own mosques. But Saudi-sponsored construction seems fair game.
Jan 28, 2008 - 2:51 pm 24. JayBee:Mont Blanc is sold in Dubai. I have two pens purchased there.
Jan 28, 2008 - 2:55 pm 25. Hoosierlen:We all know it’s about oil and the enormous wealth it has produced. Without that, we wouldn’t give a rip. If we don’t develop alternative sources of energy soon, those camel drivers will end up owning us, mosques or not.
Jan 28, 2008 - 5:00 pm 26. Mary Baine Campbell:Roger, my old adversary from Bennington College! I happened upon this column when directed to “Pajamas-Media” by an e-mail from the AFA (I like to keep tabs on the lunatic fringe–you never know when they’ll be knocking at your door!)
I’d have stolen away without comment but I found the first turn in your argument so odd: Plattsburgh is not as far as I know a holy city (unless the proximity of nuclear missile silos makes it so). You needed to look at another holy city for your counter-example of glorious freedom among western democracies. That would be Jerusalem, where I recently recently visited some Israeli friends: unapproachable (for luxuries like food) from its Palestinian suburb-hamlets, and surrounded by wide, smooth highways that only Jews can legally travel on.
That’s holy cities for you. Now, and through all time. Lucky us in the USA, we don’t HAVE a holy city! Even Plattsburg, praise the Lord, is just another burg.
For auld lang syne,
Jan 28, 2008 - 5:37 pm 27. Mitch:Mary Campbell
I propose that Boston be declared a holy city, with infidels and New Yorkers banned under pain of fine and imprisonment. Any such unclean person caught within the sacred confines of the Holy of Holies, Fenway Park, will be torn limb from limb by the outraged faithful for his sacrilege.
Jan 28, 2008 - 6:03 pm 28. EntropyIncreases:Mary, what portion of Jerusalem is off limits to non-Jews? I do not remember any, but I have never been. But I remember some areas in Jerusalem that are mostly off limits to non-Muslims.
What streets? Neighborhoods? Or any other demographic demarcation?
Thanks.
Jan 28, 2008 - 6:34 pm 29. Grace:I’ve been thinking about this type of thing. As a Christian and a conservative, I get to hear many fellow believers express understandable outrage at the hideous double-standards that exist in this country where political correctness is concerned. A Christian or Jew is supposed to sit idly by with a beatific smile on their face as every aspect of their religion they regard as sacred is ridiculed by the culture that it helped to shape. For extra credit, you can “be a good sport” and toss in some witty blasphemies of your own. On the other hand, we all to understand the religion of those who have oppressed “people of the Book” for centuries; we have to be aware to the kind of bloated sensibilities that would put out a global hit contract on cartoonists.
It’s very tempting to try and insist on some kind of draconian measures like the example given here. It would, at least, be an attempt toward fairness. But the obsession with fairness seems like the exclusive territory of the angry left, and they fail to notice how often attempts at equality just end up in other unfairness.
I admit that I find the argument that we HAVE to tolerate the intolerable because we’re enlightened and no one else is to be … well, not even cold comfort. It’s patronizing, at least, and ludicrous at most. We’re so enlightened that we’re dooming our culture to extinction without raising a finger? Lucky us.
I suppose I think the real answer has to lie in the direction of just trying to raise the level of common sense and intelligence worldwide. I haven’t a clue how to do that, but then … hey, I’m just a commenter. The serious solutions can come from other blogposts.
Jan 28, 2008 - 10:16 pm 30. Fen:We all know it’s about oil and the enormous wealth it has produced.
No.
Its about the triangle of 1) rogue nation states like Iran 2) exploiting WMD proliferation for 3) anonymous and untracable attacks against the West using terror orgs as proxies.
I’m sitting out the conflict for now. Its pointless to expend energy until the Left loses cities like Paris and New York. Maybe then they’ll understand the threat.
Jan 28, 2008 - 10:53 pm 31. Bengeshti:What’s remarkable about the signs is that, it follows one of the pillars of Islam which guides the believers to do their duty: “Amr bil ma’aroof”(promotion of virtue)and “nah’y min monker”(prevention of vice)
The promotion of virtue thing dictates never to allow Najess(unclean) Jews and Christians to venture into the clean places reserved for followers of Islam only. No dogs, Jews or Christians allowed! you might say. That’s the religion of peace for you.
Jan 29, 2008 - 2:59 am 32. hungry dave:To Mary Baine Campbell:
Perhaps your opinions on Jerusalem were formed long before you “recently visited”. There are many Arab Muslims who walk the streets of Jerusalem, many of them citizens of Israel. In fact, in the Old City, the largest “quarter” of the city is the Muslim quarter. A single Jew walking the streets of the Muslim quarter had better be packing some serious heat or else he would be almost certainly in mortal danger. An Arab Muslim can stroll through the Jewish quarter without a care in the world or fear of any attack. That is the truth. And yes, I have seen that with my own lyin’ eyes.
The real “apartheid” areas of the Holy Land are those occupied by Muslims (even Christian Arabs are mostly unwelcome and have mostly abandoned the West Bank). These are the areas that “peace” talkers so cavalierly foresee as Judenrein, while blathering about a “right of return” for Arabs to Jewish Israel.
Forget about a non-muslim road in NYC. Imagine if that were really true in Jerusalem. It wouldn’t just be the ACLU and the like lobbing lawsuits. Every NGO on the planet would be linking arms with Islamist countries and the other dictatorships to get a binding resolution of condemnation in the UN, with the EU members shaking their heads and tut-tutting with their fingers. And the Saudis, standing beneath their own apartheid signs would be leading the chorus of the Useful Idiot Choir and peeing their burkas silly in laughter.
Jan 29, 2008 - 8:47 am 33. Daniel Crandall:“Imagine if that were really true in Jerusalem. … Every NGO on the planet would be linking arms with Islamist countries and the other dictatorships to get a binding resolution of condemnation in the UN …”
You don’t have to imagine this. This is what the UN does to Israel on an all to regular basis.
Jan 29, 2008 - 1:12 pm 34. Phil Howerton:If you fly into Saudi Arabia and have a Bible on you or in your luggage, they will take it from you at the airport and destroy it.
Jan 29, 2008 - 5:40 pm 35. fox:If I say that the prophet mohammed sucks, is that hate speech? Just asking. Is it hateful if I don’t capitlize his name?
Jan 29, 2008 - 7:25 pm 36. Ever wonder if a non muslim or Jew can visit Mecca? « Acriticalchristian1971’s Weblog:[...] http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2008/01/28/reciprocity_an_idea_whose_time/ [...]
Jan 4, 2009 - 5:22 pm