Islamophobia : Silencing the Critics

Iran doesn't like criticism. It doesn't matter if the criticism happens to be couched in the form of a cartoon. In this case an animated black and white film titled Persepolis - the story a girl growing up during the 1979 Islamic revolution. Criticism, even of an indirect artistic sort is liable to be subject to censure if Iranian authorities have any say in it.

Thailand has bowed to Iranian pressure and agreed to withdraw Persepolis from the Bangkok Film Festival. The festival director, Chattan Kunjara na Ayudhya, was summoned to the Iranian embassy and went along with the Iranian request for the film to be withdrawn; a film that won a jury prize at Cannes and has been widely lauded by film reviewers.

There is nothing about the content of Persepolis that is abusive or defamatory in any overt sense. It explores the challenges faced by a Teheran based family that lived during the era of the shah. When the Islamic revolution took place the family welcomed the overthrow of a dictator, only to find that other dictators in clerical garb had taken his place. Even though this was in fact the experience of many middle class Iranian families at that time, Iran only wants to hear uncritical praise of the "glorious Islamic revolution".

Being critical of a religion doesn't make an artist "phobic" by implication. Salman Rushdie described the term 'Islamophobic' as a "wretched concept", which indeed it is because it infers that criticism of Islam is at root malicious and perhaps even an occasion for criminal charges. What a privilege - to be beyond criticism. Even God himself doesn't enjoy this level of immunity.

How many other religions have been honored with such protectionism? The destruction of Buddhist statuary by Islamists doesn't qualify as 'Buddhophobia'. Art works such as Piss Christ that features a crucifix dunked in urine and the elephant dung portrait of Mary don't merit media-sanctified phobic status either. Criticism is mainly objectified as 'phobic' when an artist strays onto territory that is Islamic.

Western literature includes works that engage in harsh criticism of church and society. Jonathan Swift's work is a celebrated example of this. Nowadays when the individual artist takes issue with aspects of Islam, he or she is less likely to be seen as "insightful" or "thought provoking" as "insensitive and insulting" and may even end up on some imam's fatwa-of-the-day list ... destined to be burned in effigy in perpetuity for the crime of exercising critical faculties.

There is a difference between legitimate criticism and bigotry. Slurs directed against Muslims are unacceptable in societies attempting to promote harmonious co-existence. The right to worship as one sees fit has to be protected. However when extremists use the cover of religion in order to promote a politicized agenda that threatens to put a damper on free speech, the artist has a right to respond - not only to those who use Islam as a cover for their agenda, but also to those who use the vehicle of Christianity in order to further an extremist ideology.

The UK based actor Rowan Atkinson has had a few insightful things to say on Islamophobia and related concerns ...

"To criticize a person for their race is manifestly irrational and ridiculous but to criticize their religion, that is a right... A law which attempts to say you can criticize and ridicule ideas as long as they are not religious ideas is a very peculiar law indeed."