[Catherine is working on a long piece about the use of animals in art (the short answer: don't), prompted partly by the Nilsen article I refer to below. But before too much time passed, I wanted to pull out a small part of the piece, then add my own thoughts.]
by Jerome du Bois and Catherine King
Three weeks ago, on July 17, Richard Nilsen published a review of a show of animal art out at ASU. I am going to ignore almost all of its clichés and clunky metaphors --the two ends of a telescope, the two sides of a door-- to zero in on one disingenuous quotation. I'll frame it, though:
But whether the animals are symbolic or not, they also make us see them --as we come in the door or go out --either as kindred spirits, beings like us but in different form, or the opposite: beings that make us face the ineffable otherness of the world.
But there are more dichotomies, and more art to express them. Even if we see them as ourselves in fur or feathers, we have to ask: Are they similar to us because they are like us, or because we are like them? Are they people, too, or are we also animals?
"There is not an animal on the earth, nor a flying creature on two wings, but they are people like unto you," it says in the Quran.
Whatever silly, empty questions and phrases Nilsen wants to chew on, like old dry bones in a cave --"the ineffable otherness of the world," like a stoned sophomore staring at the wheeling stars-- these are his business; but what is this shit with quoting the Quran?
This was Catherine's response:
"No, not the Quran!" I wailed. Richard Nilsen is gratuitously quoting the Arabic evil book which tells Islamists to go and kill Jews and infidels where they find them. Richard Nilsen is gratuitously quoting the Arabic evil book which tells Islamists to circumcise females and take multiple wives by force and then do anything they want to the females under the cover of their stinking Sharia. Richard Nilsen is gratuitously quoting the Arabic evil book which tells Islamists to commit Taqiyya and Jihad, seek the Caliphate and make the Umma real. Richard Nilsen is gratuitously quoting the Arabic evil book which tells Islamists that they alone are pure and should take over the world by a releasing a flood of blood.
Sure, Richard Nilsen, you just go ahead if you think it's appropriate to apply anything in the Koran to real animals when you know damn well that Muslims are always going around calling Jews "Dogs, apes and pigs," and meaning it as the foulest insult. It is part of their vocabulary and mindset. But you, Richard Nilsen, just passed on it. Dogs, apes and pigs are noble, amazing creatures.
In Afghanistan the Quranic fundamentalists declare that the birds should shut up and stop singing. You already knew that, Richard Nilsen, yet you still chose to quote the Quran. Why did you make that inappropriate decision? Jerome thinks that you may have gotten some kind of directive from your editor to be a little Muslim-friendly in these uncomfortable times. Were you being a dhimmi, Richard Nilsen, or do you think your readers should seriously take the Arabic evil book as wisdom?
We don't seriously expect a response, but we must ask the questions. Now I'll add my own thoughts.
Let's quote it again:
"There is not an animal on the earth, nor a flying creature on two wings, but they are people like unto you," it says in the Quran.
What about a four-winged creature, like a dragonfly? Aren't dragonflies people too?
Seriously: First, the megalomaniacal Arab Muslims insist that Arabic --woo-woo, the magic language-- is the only language for the Quran. These would be the "it" Nilsen blithely refers to in his squib. So his translation itself is . . . impure, it must be said. Eeeww. This is the religion, remember, that dictates how to blow your nose and which foot to place first into the bathroom. I've looked up this phrase on the internet, and another English translation replaces a crucial noun, in my opinion:
There is not an animal on the earth, nor a flying creature on two wings, but they are communities like unto you.
That's a little more palatable, even arguable in limited cases, but . . .
But this is all quibbling. I want to know why Richard Nilsen quotes the fooking Quran in the first place. It is made of blood and bile and hatred, of murder and theft and deception --all of it as religious policy. As I've challenged before, "Quote me the beautiful Quran verse." He might as well quote from The Protocols of The Elders of Zion, or The Turner Diaries.
Why quote the Quran? The act itself stinks of dhimmitude; it hints of reportorial or editorial bowing and scraping to some projected or imagined --or desperately needed-- Muslim demographic. Have there been memos or meetings about Muslim-friendly story plants? Helpful pamphlets of quotes from the Quran, handily divided by category? For example:
"Animals."
I've written about Arabs, Muslims, and dogs before. In this brief post, an American imam tells a follower in California to starve a dog who won't go away.
But why did Richard Nilsen quote the Quran in an Phoenix newspaper article about an animal art exhibition? It's just not in his nature. He is a Western man. Why not Shakespeare or Hopkins or even Paloma Blanca?
Also, if he read all the handy handouts, or did some minimal research, he would know: because Muslims don't really like most animals --impure! impure!-- they are unlikely to read about, much less attend, such an exhibition. The editors may be trying to reach Muslims, but they are more likely giving in to pressure to expose their wider, non-Muslim readership to more Islam.
We're all for exposing Islam. That's why we have the sidebar I SLAM ISLAM.
As for animals, they are not "ineffably other;" they are not parts of ourselves, or toys, or symbols; they are themselves, and should be studied, scientifically, on their own terms. Instead of quoting the Arabic evil book, Nilsen could have referred to Temple Grandin, who says the worst thing you can do to an animal is make it afraid.
Posted by Jerome at August 11, 2005 08:50 AM | TrackBack