Indonesians are contending with a new edition of Playboy magazine specifically created for the conservative country. Some Muslims call the images pornographic, the editors have been threatened with physical force, and vendors carrying the magazine are worried about repercussions within their communities.
A 40-year-old housewife, Maya, disapproved. "Surely it is against the new anti-pornography law," she said.
Condemnation also came from Chamammah Soeratno, head of the women's wing of major Muslim moderate group Muhammadiyah.
"Everyone knows it's a pornographic magazine. The first edition may not have any nudity. That's a very clever move by the publishers," she told Reuters.
Indonesia's parliament is debating a law to significantly tighten control of media as well as public behavior in an effort to reduce what its proponents see as pornography.
On the surface, conservative Muslim factions are angry over the supposedly explicit images, and this controversy is framed by Playboy which represents a specific American-sexual identity that pisses off conservative Muslims. But the images in this first issue are far tamer than Islamic erotic art, and the Indonesian Playboy is no more explicit than other gentlemens magazines.
Indonesia has many magazines on news stands that go further than the new Playboy in the sexual content of their articles and at least as far in their pictures.
In fact, magazine and newspaper agent Azis, 41, told Reuters Playboy was not different enough from an existing upscale Indonesian men's magazine, Matra.
But even months ago the Playboy image and its Western origin had sparked protests at the mere news of plans for the Indonesian edition, despite promises of a tame version.
It is obviously not an issue of pornography and religion, though militant groups are framing the debate along religious lines. It is a push against Americanized versions of sexuality, and the American culture industry in general, to maintain control over domestically produced erotica and sexual identity in Indonesia for economic and not religious reasons.
Publishing Playboy in the muslim world smacks of cultural imperialism to me, and I'm sure that's exactly how it feels to many people over there. It's just a shame that the don't feel able to say that, and instead try to justify something (that needs no justification) with religious rhetoric.
It is questionable as to whether or not it is right to Publish Playboy in the muslim world, That having been said, we are all part of a burgeoning global culture. I'd prefer to stabalize the American industrial economy instead of sending jobs to the Asian continent. (That's another conversation.) But I can't stop it. No one can now. A lot of the Asian continent would prefer we stop polluting their cultures with our own. I just do not think we stand a ghost of a chance of stopping the ebb and flow of money, media, cultural change on a large scale like this anymore. The world itself is just getting too small.
Indonesia needs to get with the program and start recognizing that whether it be the Christian Bible, a newspaper reporting facts in an uncensored manner or a tame version of Playboy, people have the RIGHT to view such material.
Muslims certainly have the right to dictate what other Muslims can or cannot do (if you voluntarily join a religion, then you have to play by their rules. Otherwise, leave.). But by the same token, they have absolutely NO right to dictate what non-Muslims can or cannot read/watch/listen to.
If you are Christian, Jewish, Muslim or whatever: mind your own fucking business and tend to your bretheren instead.
You may say its "emperializing" but its not like this is being handed out to every man, woman and child in Indonesia. Its a damn magazine, next to all the other magazines. if its "too American" and actually clashes with the culture, it won't be very successful. If Playboy can't make money with it, it won't be around for long.
Just as an aside, I think its really easy for American media to cast every "muslim" nation as being completely of the conservative muslim mindset. I'm sure there are millions of "Muslims" who are dissaffected and dissatisfied with the state religion. I mean, come on, how many people were raised catholic and then had a change of heart?
Being muslim has little to do with whether you're an asshole to women, and against their rights. Take Dubai for example. Almost, if not all, of the elites that run it are amoral, and pay only lip service to the Muslim religion. They promote the fact that they are essentially a rich businessman's dream come true, with magnificent condos, well stocked bars, and a booming sex industry. This has not ended up with women being any better off than they were before.
Even if Indonesia see's a more sexually libertine attitude amongst its men, that doens't portend any susbtantial changes for women. It just changes the form of their oppression from religious to secular.
I don't see the act of making something available as imperialism. Making it the Only thing available would be. They still have a choice. It's freedom of choice that they feel is the real threat. Always has been.
And as far as using religion as justification.... Well mankind has always commited atrocities in the name of God, or whomever Deity one puts faith in.
Semyaza's point about Muslims not having the right to dictate what non-Muslims can or can not do is certainly not recognized by Islam. Very brief reading of the Koran, almost anywhere you open it at random, will show that submission to Allah is the only thing anybody has an actual right to do. Conversions were made with the sword, and the Koran contains numerous defenses of the fact that entire villages were destroyed because they would not submit to Islam. 'Rights' are a political concept quite alien to Muslim thought, at least that part of it that is rooted in the central document of the religion, the Koran. The idea that the Muslim state would not have the right to repress something viewed as an offense to God would just be scoffed at and ignored.
I am glad when I read about almost anything that annoys the Islamo-fascists, even something as relatively meaningless as Playboy magazine in the 21st century. I think we should be more realistic about the true nature of this religion. Theocracy & repression are central to Islam in a way they simply are not in Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, or Hinduism. Those Muslims who recognize a cultural threat from the West are correct. And they represent a threat to us as well.
I know which side I am on. I wish Playboy weren't the standard bearer in this instance, but I can live with it.
Christopher
Portland, OR
November 2002
APR 07, 2006 06:01 PM