Myanmar between Woolwich and Al-Aqsa 1: interfaith hatred
[ by Charles Cameron — in which jihadis take on Jews, Christians, Muslims and Buddhists, quite an interfaith haul for hatred ]
Aaron Zelin at Jihadology posted an hour-long video entitled Woolwich Attack a week or so ago, and I found it particularly interesting on two accounts: first, that it makes a multi-faith attack that includes Buddhism in its catalogue of enemies of Islam, and second, that it uses an innovative feature of modern digital typography. Here, I’ll concentrate on the first. Here’s the video’s title:
Christianity as a target is well represented in the form of Dr Justin Welby, the recently-appointed Archbishop of Canterbury:
Notice also the lower of these two screengrabs, this one showing Ayman al-Zawahiri (left) berating a leading Muslim spokesman in the UK, Ibrahim Mogra of the Muslim Council of Britain (right), for speaking at the same event as the Archbishop. The damning subtitle suggests he’s one of those “who issue Fatwas according to the school of thought of the head of the Church of England”.
It wasn’t the attack on Christians or fellow Muslims that caught my eye, though, but the unexpected presence of the monk Wirathu, the rhetorical leader of Myanmar’s recent Buddhist rioting against Burmese Muslims. I’d seen his face on Time magazine and elsewhere, but it came as a bit of a shock here in a jihadist video — I’d filed him and his 969 movement under “Buddhism” rather than “Islam” in my mental listing of violent movements with religious underpinnings.
Finally, no invitation to jihad these days is complete without its mention of the al-Aqsa mosque and Jerusalem — and it is here that Judaism comes in for attack. Consider these two screengrabs:
The video closes, significantly, with a long shot of the Dome of the Rock through a window…
Yesterday my friend William Benzon made a post titled On Describing a Painting which began:
Harvard art historian Jennifer Roberts bills her article thus: The Power of Patience: Teaching students the value of deceleration and immersive attention. OK. But I take a different lesson from it, one about one of my current hobby horses: description. Roberts focuses on an 18th Century painting by John Singleton Copley, A Boy with a Flying Squirrel. Her point is that the more you look at the painting, the more you notice and hence the more you can note in a written description. She asks her students to spend a full three hours with a single painting.
Of her own experience with that painting she observes:
It took me nine minutes to notice that the shape of the boy’s ear precisely echoes that of the ruff along the squirrel’s belly—and that Copley was making some kind of connection between the animal and the human body and the sensory capacities of each. It was 21 minutes before I registered the fact that the fingers holding the chain exactly span the diameter of the water glass beneath them. It took a good 45 minutes before I realized that the seemingly random folds and wrinkles in the background curtain are actually perfect copies of the shapes of the boy’s ear and eye, as if Copley had imagined those sensory organs distributing or imprinting themselves on the surface behind him. And so on.
She begins her next paragraph: “What this exercise shows students is that just because you have looked at something doesn’t mean that you have seen it.”
Looking at that final screengrab with this in mind, I see a close correlation between the golden Dome that focuses our attention on the Noble Sanctuary / Temple Mount, and the round, yellow-gold keffiyeh of the jihadist observing it through his window — “making some kind of connection between” them, to echo the words of Harvard’s Elizabeth Cary Agassiz Professor of the Humanities…
It’s a skilled and meaning-filled use of the medium.
In my second post in this series, I’ll point to a significant development in graphics and technology introduced in this video.
October 26th, 2013 at 4:33 am
Do you think the murderous fanatic and tedious, pedantic bore that is Dr. Zawahiri is simply ignorant of the fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury is not the Head of the Church of England or is he avoiding mentioning Queen Elizabeth II for some reason?
October 26th, 2013 at 5:34 pm
Ooh, nice catch, Zen. I’d missed that point entirely.
Technically, the Queen is Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and the Archbishop of Canterbury is the Primate of All England — a title which bears no relation to Darwin’s speculations about his ancestral line AFAIK. Technically, a little surfing tells me, Henry VIII was the first and only Head of the Church of England, with the restored Oath of Acvcession under Elizabeth I preferring the term Governor.
I suspect Zawahiri is ignorant of the niceties, and has a bias against the very idea of a female religious authority in any case. But that’s pure suspectulation on my part in any case. : )
We live and learn!