ISLAM : THE SILENCE OF THE ARTS

The arts are increasingly censoring themselves when it comes to Islam, writes Peter Whittle

The arts establishment in Britain makes much of its role as a keeper of the flame of free speech and creative expression. So at a time when, in the country as a whole, it seems that the penny might finally be dropping as to the extent of the threat we face from Islamist radicalism, what have the arts got to say about what is, without question, the most important issue facing us?

The answer is - virtually nothing. The creative intelligentsia has plenty to say about the evils of Bush, America and the Iraq war; there is a veritable explosion of new 'protest' art, and Brian De Palma's new film, Redacted, which is heavily critical of the US military, has just won the Silver Bear award at the Venice Film Festival. Artists, playwrights and directors continue, predictably, to fetishize these issues, while either quietly hoping that the problem posed by Islamist extremism will go away, or, increasingly, actively censoring itself, at the very time when it should be doing what it prides itself on: speaking out.

In June, London's Royal Court Theatre, ironically the home of the original Angry Young Men, cancelled a planned reading of Aristophanes 'sex strike' play, Lysistrata. This new adaptation was set in Muslim heaven - and had to be written under a pseudonym.

Originally a ticketed event, the reading was first scaled down to a private one. And then, in what was obviously an act of self-censorship, it was scrapped altogether. Our supposedly 'fearless, provocative and challenging' theatre has been reduced to this.

Fears over security are of course understandable - the Royal Court is just a five minute walk from the Danish Embassy, which witnessed protesters chanting death threats during the controversy over the cartoons of Mohammed.

But more importantly, the signal given out on such occasions is that when there is the possibility that there really will be consequences to what is written, performed or painted, the arts will cave in.

Unfortunately the creative community has real form here. The crisis which followed the publication of Rushdie's The Satanic Verses back in 1989 was a high water-mark in the assault on freedom of expression - years before Iraq, or 9/11, or 7/7.

Then, the reaction of much of the establishment to scenes of demonstrations and book-burning was utterly craven. Lord Dacre, the historian, went so far to say that he 'would not shed a tear if some British Muslims, deploring Mr. Rushdie's manners, were to waylay him in a dark street and seek to improve them.'

Extremists realized that our will to defend our values on these matters was weak, and so could be pushed further and further, which is exactly what has happened, both here and in Europe.

Five years ago the Dutch maverick filmmaker Theo Van Gogh was beheaded in broad daylight on an Amsterdam street by a Muslim extremist, who had taken exception to Submission, a 12-minute film the director had made which was critical of the treatment of women in Islam.

There were no significant expressions of outrage from Britain's creative figures and institutions. Instead, they gushed over George Clooney and his 'brave' and utterly risk-free stands on Bush and the supposed evils of big business.

Submission has barely been seen since outside the internet. To European eyes, used to an artistic tradition of ridicule and self-criticism especially when it comes to religion, it is mild stuff.

But its potency is such that when we at The New Culture Forum were considering screening the film to a private audience last year, we had to think long and hard. In the end we went ahead, but did not publicise it beforehand and employed some tough security on the night.

There were no incidents, but our caution could be excused when you take into account the serious confusion there is now about what can and cannot be said, even in the broadest terms, about Islam.

For far too long, the response of the cultural establishment to this question has been to duck it. When the Mohammed cartoons were not reproduced in the British media, Channel 4 debated whether or not freedom of speech was threatened, concluded it was not, and then with spectacular absurdity refrained from showing the cartoons for fear of causing offence.

Before this, London's Barbican Centre cut pieces out of its production of Tamburlaine the Great for fear of offending Muslims. Last year, threats were made to the Berlin Opera over a depiction of Mohammed in its production of Idomeneo. Filming of Monica Ali's bestseller Brick Lane was moved from London's East End after the film company gave in to protests from activists.

The BBC drama Spooks drew criticism from some Muslim groups in its first series for portraying radicalisation in a Mosque. It subsequently went out of its way to depict terrorist threats coming from any quarter other than Islam. And only last month, a plot-line in the hospital series Casualty, which involved an attack by Muslim extremists, was changed and animal rights activists were substituted.

Speaking to me some months ago, Ramin Gray, the Associate Director at the Royal Court said that it was important for the arts not to be provocative for the sake of it, nor commit an act of self-censorship. But what if a play came to the theatre which in some ways was very critical of Islam, or depicted Mohammed? Would it be put on? It's a debate which he said the theatre was actively having.

'You would think twice, if you were honest,' he said. 'You'd have to take the play on its individual merits, but given the time we're in, it's very hard, because you'd worry that if you cause offence then the whole enterprise would become buried in a sea of controversy. It does make you tread carefully.' It would seem that that is what the theatre has decided to do this time.

And what of the playwrights themselves? Did they feel inhibited? 'They do, I can say that,' he said. 'There is a group of writers, not a large group, but a group who've said to me that they feel they can't write openly about what they feel is maybe the most important topic facing our society at the moment, and we've talked about strategies for getting round that.'

Sensitivity on the issue extends to all imagery now. Gray was the co-director of Alastair Beaton's recent satirical play, King of Hearts, which featured an heir to the British throne falling in love with a Muslim. 'We had a pretty complex discussion about the poster image,' he says, 'where I felt people were being overly sensitive and cautious about possibly giving offence to the Muslim community, which I found quite shocking actually.'

The point is often made that a show like Jerry Springer: The Opera is acceptable because it was written by people from within the Christian culture.

And Nicholas Hytner, director of the National Theatre, has proclaimed that he would not put on a play attacking Islam unless it was by a Muslim. This is a position which, while being the logical conclusion of identity politics, is certainly not, in practise, a giant stand for artistic freedom of speech.

Nor does it guarantee freedom from threats: Salman Rushdie was, after all, a Muslim. Besides which, the bar of what is offensive can be set very low indeed.

The playwright Richard Bean agreed to have part of his play, Up on Roof, re-written in the aftermath of the Danish cartoons protests. 'I wasn't saying anything contentious about Mohammed,' he says. 'A character was Muslim and so inevitably the name Mohammed came up.' Both the Hull Truck Theatre and the actors were jittery, so three uses of the word where taken out, and the character was made a Rastafarian instead.

The days when the Lord Chamberlaine's office could censor you now seem rather quaint, he says; what we face today is both self-censorship and the threat of violence. Also there is, according to Bean, a natural selection process which goes on in the theatre, with the old guard of the Left refusing to see this as an issue at all. For them, Muslims are an oppressed people.

'There's only one enemy in the world for them,' he says,' and that is powerful white people, i.e., America and Britain, and everything that's wrong with the world is the fault of imperialism. And you see this in their plays.'

Whether it is misplaced cultural sensitivity, political agendas or a simple fear of reprisal which is leading to artistic self-censorship, it can said with some certainty that a critique of Islam is unlikely to be coming to a theatre, cinema or gallery near you any time soon. And we can also be sure that, so far as Islamists are concerned, there will never not be a 'sensitive time.'

Posted in login to post comments

Submitted by dominichilton on Tue, 2007-09-18 10:36.

Ibnez (not verified) | Wed, 2007-09-19 14:42

It's the same in academe: the normal, accepted biblical critical tools used on the biblical texts for 200 years with profit are banned when it comes to the far far cruder Koran and its evident dependence on non Islamic sources in the Old and New Testaments. Even Oxbridge allows Islam to be taught as a religion with this exclusion zone, preventing any sort of criticism at all. Lots of departments are springing up, funded by Gulf States, teaching Islam wholly uncritically.
This is intellectually capitulating to the dark ages, fear of violence is distorting truth, and preventing any sort of liberalising of Islam, which roots back to this 'infallible' text dictated directly by Allah onto Muhammed's hard disc then to the faithful then implemented in the unfortunate world.

wilko (not verified) | Sun, 2007-09-30 11:18

"Even Oxbridge allows Islam to be taught as a religion with this exclusion zone, preventing any sort of criticism at all."

I am sorry but this is just factually incorrect. I studied Theology at Cambridge (graduating about five years ago) and I spent two year studying Islam under Tim Winter - a western convert to Islam. We used all the same tools of textual criticism on the Quran as we would on the bible, and we tackeld issues like Jihad and the role of women in Islamic societies. the approach was serious engaged and critical. Unsurprisingly the debates we had conformed neither to the image of fear-filled kowtowing to Islam beloved by the right, nor was it inherently islamophobic. It was,(Shock! horror!)much more about trying to engage with the facts of Islamic religion and society that actually exist behind all of the media bluster on either side.

BigIb (not verified) | Thu, 2007-09-20 13:12

An interesting piece of history worth noting, not censoring:

After a military victory by Mohammed over a tribe of Jews, they were sentenced to death, their women and children to be sold as slaves. “ The sentence was carried out; the prisoners were led out in batches, beheaded on the edge of a trench which had been dug in the market place, and thrown in. The execution of some 800 men occupied the whole day and went on far into the night. Only one Jew abjured his religion to save his life. The rest, after prayer and reading of the scriptures, went calmly to their death..”

From Islam by Alfred Guillaume, Penguin Books 1954 (1969) pp 47-48

Gaddiel (not verified) | Mon, 2008-10-27 21:59

There are lots of departments are springing up, funded by Gulf States, teaching Islam uncritically. After a military victory by Mohammed over a tribe of Jews, they were sentenced to death, their women and children to be sold as slaves. “ The sentence was carried out; the prisoners were led out in batches, beheaded on the edge of a trench which had been dug in the market place, and thrown in. The execution of some 800 men occupied the whole day and went on far into the night. Only one Jew abjured his religion to save his life. The rest, after prayer and reading of the scriptures, went calmly to their death..” - I have read this, and it is really touching.

Essay (not verified) | Thu, 2009-08-06 04:52

Islam is peace. The followers are more all over the world and there is a scientific reason for every thing they do.

club penguin cheats (not verified) | Sat, 2009-08-29 12:31

Even Oxbridge allows Islam to be taught as a religion with this exclusion zone, preventing any sort of criticism at all. Lots of departments are springing up, funded by Gulf States, teaching Islam wholly uncritically.

Online University (not verified) | Wed, 2009-10-21 05:31

Also there is, according to Bean, a natural selection process which goes on in the theatre, with the old guard of the Left refusing to see this as an issue at all. For them, Muslims are an oppressed people.

SEO (not verified) | Wed, 2009-12-09 06:14

How does Islamic culture exist in Pakistan?

Gifts Pakistan (not verified) | Wed, 2009-12-30 19:03

The Islamic culture provide full peace and and as a proof you can watch number videos on you tube of non muslims who converted in Islam,but in Pakistan Islamic culture is also in its good shape.

nice nfl jersey (not verified) | Sat, 2010-01-16 13:40

Also there is, according to Bean, a natural selection process which goes on in the theatre, with the old guard of the Left refusing to see this as an issue at all. For them, Muslims are an oppressed people.