“What’s right for me is compulsory for you!” At least, that’s what it is beginning to feel like. It seems that some Muslims are trying to insist that their views are given way to when they come into contact with another viewpoint. There doesn’t seem to be much room for accommodation to the wishes of the larger community. Two stories from the past week illustrate this.
The first is, perhaps, the most serious in that it concerns health. I am acutely aware of two things. First, my age means that I am almost certainly likely to be going into hospital sometime within the next 20 years. Secondly, although the UK has a free health service, there is a risk of catching an infection while staying in hospital. The Health Service is making efforts to reduce and eliminate infection rates, but being in hospital is something I would much rather avoid until absolutely necessary. I have already written about the fact that the doctor treating me might literally believe that the earth was formed 10,000 years ago - see America - The Soft Target - (assuming I ever got to see a doctor - this happens in medical soap operas, but apparently rarely in real life). However, if he or she were good, I would be willing to tolerate this slight quirk. But what would seem unacceptable to me would be the knowledge that my health might be being put at risk because of his or her religious faith.
Women students in several English hospitals have refused to roll up their sleeves to scrub up before surgery or treating patients because Islam dictates that baring the forearm is immodest behaviour. This contravenes new Department of Health guidelines that stipulate all doctors must be bare below the elbows in order to combat the spread of potentially lethal infections such as MRSA and Clostridium difficile. Universities including Liverpool, Leicester, Sheffield and Birmingham have reported students objecting to the guidelines. Several people are concerned that the ethical basis of the medical profession that puts the need of the patient before personal belief or prejudice is being eroded, especially as students are trained with tax-payers’ money and have a duty of care to their patients that these objections ignore.
The second issue concerns knowledge. Over 100,000 people worldwide have signed a Web-based petition asking Wikipedia to remove all depictions of the Prophet from its English-language entry, viewable here. “I request all brothers and sisters to sign this petitions so we can tell Wikipedia to respect the religion and remove the illustrations,” the creator of the petition at The Petition Site asks.
“Islamic teaching has traditionally discouraged representation of humans, particularly Muhammad, but that doesn’t mean it’s nonexistent,” Notre Dame history professor Paul M. Cobb told the New York Times. “Some of the most beautiful images in Islamic art are manuscript images of Muhammad.” All four images on the English-language Wikipedia page are rather lovely Persian and Ottoman miniatures from the 14th through 16th centuries. The two later ones depict Muhammad’s face as covered by a white veil, but the earlier pair show his full face. The idea of imposing a ban on all depictions of people, particularly Muhammad, dates to the 20th century.
A Frequently Asked Questions page explains the site’s polite but firm refusal to remove the images: “Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with the goal of representing all topics from a neutral point of view, Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group.”
I know it is fashionable to knock Wikipedia as sometimes being unreliable, but I personally like it, and I support its stance. Muslims do not have to look at the page concerned, and I feel outraged that they should seek to censor what I can see. That is my job, not theirs.
If you feel so inclined you can sign a counter-petition about this. Click HERE.
Without wishing to come across as a pessimist - my sunny disposition is well known in those exclusive circles wherein I generally move
- my forecast is that things will get a lot worse before they get better.
Whether or not it is linked to the new assertiveness of atheists, religions around the world are adopting a more aggressive stance. Believers are suddenly discovering new ways to be offended and things they absolutely must protest about despite not having ever protested about them before.
We atheists regard this as stupid when not disingenuous and deliberately provocative but I rather think we are stuck with it until the world of religion recovers something like its senses. But I won’t be holding my breath.
What should we do about it? Well, the first thing we should not do about it is panic and think this marks “the end of the world as we know it”. Irritating and tiring as it may be, we have to keep on plugging away as these backward thinkers, putting the case of logic and science and humanity, banning from the workplace idiots who sign up to do jobs and then refuse to do them.
The furore over the Archwizard of Cant’s ill-advised remarks on sharia show that there are still plenty of sensible people out there. The civilized world is not about to collapse under a blanket of obscurantism. The only danger is that the government and other authorities will, out of fear or ill-advised concepts of tolerance, fail to be firm about maintaining proper standards in education, health care and the professions. It is up to all of us to see that they are kept on their toes.
It is not only the religious who have a right to protest.
SilverTiger
You wrote: It is not only the religious who have a right to protest.
Amen, and Amen!
I do not know of my own profession in heath care to allow the above practice you describe to go on.
Particulary as we have many more of us from over seas.
The welfare of the patient and the best practice given is first and foremost in my own professional body’s code.
I like Wikipedia too and only learnt of its exsistence last year- when My academic adviser recommended it to me.
I don’t believe any one group should hold sway as to how Wikipedia presents its information whether by words or illustrations.
ps: I personally have loved Persian art from a young age and like very much the picture illustrated.