C L O S E R – Cartoonesque Marking the Boundaries?
As I said earlier, the Cartoon row/controversy/rage/riot/jihad or whatever you want to call it, seems to have world divided in two. One camp the white knights of freedom of speech and on the other side the martyrs of islam. See for example the editorial of the British Telegraph:
The right to offend within the law remains crucial to our free speech. Muslims who choose to live in the West must accept that we, too, have a right to our values, and to live according to them. Muslims must accept the predominant mores of their adopted culture: and most do. One of these is the lack of censorship and the ready availability of material that some people find deeply offensive: anyone who wishes to see the cartoons can find them within a few clicks on the internet.
Those Muslims who cannot tolerate the openness and robustness of intellectual debate in the West have perhaps chosen to live in the wrong culture. We cannot put it better than the editorial in an Arab paper in which the cartoons briefly appeared yesterday (before all copies were suddenly withdrawn): “Muslims of the world, be reasonable.”
or the website of the British extremist Al Ghurabaa (the strangers) about the trinity of evil:
It is the height of ignominy and profanity in Europe today that when Muslim women act upon the revelation and try to cover their flesh they are being banned and when Muslims defend their brothers and sisters from attack around the world following the command of God they are rounded up and imprisoned, all under the pretext of ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’, whilst simultaneously so-called newspapers and magazines can insult Islam and the Messengers of God with impunity without any comeuppance.
Muslims take their ideology and belief very seriously and any insult to any Messengers and Prophets will never be tolerated, in fact the Messenger Muhammad (saw) said that we must love Allah (SWT) and his Messenger more than anyone else, including our parents and even ourselves. In light of this we will be holding a demonstration outside the Danish Embassy this Friday 3rd February 2006.
The Islamic verdict on individual or individuals who insult any Prophet needs to be passed by an Islamic Court and implemented by the Islamic State, rather than individuals carrying out the verdict themselves.
They refer to the demonstration last Friday. But then already the first cracks in this black and white picture become visible. MPACUK has called this demonstration a total disgrace.
We couldn’t believe our eyes. All across Britain’s screens were the members of Al – Mahajaroun with placards saying “Death to the infidel†and chanting, “7/7 is on its wayâ€.
The Mosque leaders hadn’t organised a peaceful march, lobbying day, letter-writing protest, in fact the Mosque leaders didn’t organise anything at all. The un-elected, trustees of the Mosques showed just how out of touch they were with the community at large once again. Leaving young Muslims wanting to do something, but not knowing what to do.
In the vacuum, al Mahajaroun stepped in. It was a deliberate attempt at hijacking legitimate Muslim anger, at the Islamaphobic cartoons in some European papers.
It seemed the group served one function alone, that of “rent-a-bogeyman” to prove Muslims were “unreasonable fanatics”. Just one example of how desperate they were to get onto the Media to promote their hate and demonise Muslim’s further, was highlighted by the fact that when the story broke they even camped outside the BBC – tell us that isn’t a deliberate ploy to get attention.
It was disgusting to see these Muslims spouting their evil, helping the cartoonists who demonised the Prophet PBUH by making non Muslims think we are all some crazed fanatics who want to “kill the infidel†and harm more people with another bombing in London. The group number no more then 50 people. But they harm two million with their Media stunts to get on the TV.
MPACUK condemn’s the message that was given on the march on Friday by ex members of al-Mahajaroun and demand the Media do not give more airtime to these fringe fanatics, than to mainstream views or at least tell the public how unrepresentative this group is! We also urge the Mosque leaders to have elections open to all Britain’s Muslims so that we ourselves can choose the leaders we want, and our youth can be employed to further the high ideals of Islam and mankind rather than be waylaid by anger and frustration that some groups prey on.
The same is done by the Muslim Council of Britain:
The Muslim Council of Britain is deeply concerned by the continuing refusal of several European newspapers to understand and acknowledge the immense hurt they have caused to Muslims the world over by printing gratuitously offensive caricatures of the blessed Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
“We reiterate our absolute condemnation of the decision to publish these images in Denmark and view their republication in other European countries as a deliberate and senseless act of provocation. Newspaper editors must exercise restraint and good judgement instead of adding to the increasingly xenophobic tone being adopted in parts of Europe against Muslims. These newspapers should apologise immediately for the harm they have caused,†said Sir Iqbal Sacranie, Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain.
The MCB acknowledges the fundamental right of peoples of all faiths to freedom of speech and expression. This does not mean however that they should be free to create social unrest and instability. Neither should that freedom be abused to undermine national interests at home and abroad.
Inevitably some elements may seek to exploit this current crisis to provoke negative or extreme reactions among Muslims. The MCB urges fellow British Muslims to exercise the utmost restraint in the face of these provocations.
“There may be elements that would want to exploit the genuine sense of anguish and hurt among British Muslims about the manner in which the Prophet has been vilified to pursue their own mischievous agenda. We would caution all British Muslims to not allow themselves to be provoked. They should respond peacefully and with dignity at all times,†added Sir Iqbal.
Also on ‘the other side’ their are some blurred boundaries. Look for example at Gary Youngs opinion in the Guardian, referring to an incident with a cover of the New Statesman a while ago.
(in an article where Philip Hensher argues the opposite; that’s the way to do it):
In January 2002 the New Statesman published a front page displaying a shimmering golden Star of David impaling a union flag, with the words “A kosher conspiracy?” The cover was widely and rightly condemned as anti-semitic. It’s not difficult to see why. It played into vile stereotypes of money-grabbing Jewish cabals out to undermine the country they live in. Some put it down to a lapse of editorial judgment. But many saw it not as an aberration but part of a trend – one more broadside in an attack on Jews from the liberal left.
A group calling itself Action Against Anti-Semitism marched into the Statesman’s offices, demanding a printed apology. One eventually followed. The then editor, Peter Wilby, later confessed that he had not appreciated “the historic sensitivities” of Britain’s Jews. I do not remember talk of a clash of civilisations in which Jewish values were inconsistent with the western traditions of freedom of speech or democracy. Nor do I recall editors across Europe rushing to reprint the cover in solidarity.
Quite why the Muslim response to 12 cartoons printed by Jyllands-Posten last September should be treated differently is illuminating. There seems to be almost universal agreement that these cartoons are offensive. There should also be universal agreement that the paper has a right to publish them. When it comes to freedom of speech the liberal left should not sacrifice its values one inch to those who seek censorship on religious grounds, whether US evangelists, Irish Catholics or Danish Muslims.
But the right to freedom of speech equates to neither an obligation to offend nor a duty to be insensitive.
Also on the internet there is a lot of discussion that defies the strong boundaries between us and them. Read for example Opinionated Voice:
We were right to disagree with the cartoons, we were right to protest our disdain towards them. Although it is now time to move on, if the media did not start this row and then perpetuate it by reprinting the cartoons, things would not be as they are. But due to the actions of the extremist minority, this controversy has shifted to turn the focus of negativity back onto all Muslims, enabling even comparisons with Nazi’s to be made. Sunny at Pickled Politics suggests; “If all religions were companies, Islam would be the one with the worst public relations departmentâ€. However, if it was a company, Jyllands-Posten and the newspapers that followed it would have been sued for libel or defamation. Secondly, it is not the fault of Islam that the media generally tends to exclusively focus on the actions of the minority, without differentiating their representations from the majority, or proportionatly reporting on positive aspects of Islam and Muslims.
If we are to protest/take action, which at times may need/have to become intense, then the starting point should be against issues such as genocide in Sudan, war in East Africa, invasion of the Middle East, suicide bombings, global poverty, and those that distort Islam and the Muslim character, internally and externally. This obviously begins with education to combat the corruptability of the ‘blind faith’ that extremists exploit, and can be assisted by every Muslim reading/being read to and understanding the true meaning of the Qur’an in a language they understand.
The groupblog ‘Aqoul has several interesting stories. For example they ask themselves questions about the different forms of protests in different cities and countries.
Doesn’t anybody find it at least noteworthy that the Danish & Norwegian embassies were torched in – out of all places – Damascus? That there were only small demonstrations in Cairo? That there were almost no demonstrations at all in Iran? That the number of Muslim demonstrators in Europe was – given the overall numbers of Muslim inhabitants – ridiculously low?
I cannot answer all those questions. But the main issue at hand – that the protests have ALSO to be understood in their local/regional contexts – seems to be more important than most, if not all, of the commentators so far have realized. And at least in the region about which I do know a bit, the picture is a very complex one.
They also try to offer some backgrounds of the issue.
Well, “Islam” is a concept, not a agent. Thus it’s not “Islam” that forbids anything, but the (human) authorities on Islamic law. And, it’s not the “depiction of the religion’s founder Muhammad” that is forbidden, but either the depiction of any of God’s creatures (but particularly humans) OR the slander of a prophet – be it Muhammad or Moses or Jesus or Abraham, etc. Slandering a prophet would, however not fall under something like “slander” or “hate crime”, but actually be seen as “kufr”, i.e. unbelief/apostasy, as the assertion that a prophet was anything but a noble man . Of course, that only applies to Muslims. There is no provisio in Islamic law how to deal with non-Muslims who disparage a prophet, as they already are unbelievers. Also, the legal authorities in the Muslim world are quite unanimous in their verdict(s) that Muslims living in non-Muslim polities (i.e., states) should adhere to the law of the one in which they reside or travel.
Yet, after the ignorance on the side of newspapers and politicians, the next step could have been filing a complaint in a court of law. Denmark may have a very liberal press/media law, but it might also have laws that forbid incitement to racial/ethnic/etc. hatred. The outraged Muslims in Denmark did not go that path. The bolstering of the file of the 12 images with other, more hateful images (in some cases of unknown provenance) can be seen as an attempt to stir up emotions.
After having seen the cartoons (on – where else? – the very well written & researched wikipedia article) I would judge some of them as racist and meriting legal action against them. I would also sign a letter of complaint to the editor of Jyllands-Posten, who may be allowed by Danish law to post such material (after all, a few years ago the German authorities could not get a neo-Nazi radio station in southern Denmark be closed down, since Nazi propaganda was at that time not illegal in Denmark), because I think that they are propagating a picture of Muhammad (& Muslims in general) that is racist.
In the end, it’s a question of method & tone, as well as one of very patient explanation to the “West” why those cartoons are similar to the ones the anti-semites printed in the early 20th century. Of course, that would open the door for “well, since we’re on that subject – what about the racist anti-Jewish cartoons in Arab/Iranian/Pakistani/etc. newspapers?” arguments …
Anybody up for opening a “Non-Violent Struggle Center” in, say, Ramallah?
They also engage in a debate on Cartoons, Manufactured Outrage, Tolerance & Dissent
Now the, some further thoughts on this entire fiasco:
First, sadly the proliferation of idiocy about this shows no signs of abating. The prime reason here, in my opinion, is that it plays into the hands of the Salafi types who generally disapprove of relations with non-Muslims on principle, and are, in my experience, always seeking levers to blow up stories of how awful ‘infidel’ X are to the Muslims, etc.
In other words, typical ethnic separatist style pot stirring, any excuse. Builds their agenda for return to their mythical purified past, with the story of how awfully ‘oppressed’ their religious confreres are at the hands of the infidel, etc. A pack of exagerations, and often lies, but typical.
This sort of behaviour, deliberate fanning of separatist and anti-Euro/Xian feeling in the community (which is being hosted by the very people the Salafistes love to hate) is at once dangerous and hypocritical (as is the overdone reaction by many Muslims in the MENA region who are quite happy to repeat the most prejudiced nonsense about others – the enduring human – I do stress human – trait of navel gazing hypocrisy). While I have been banging on about the importance of discrimination against the immigrant Muslim communities in Europe, particularly France, the flip side of the coin is the anti-integrationist hypocritical lying agitprop of the Salafiste seperatists that want to prevent ‘Europeanisation’ of these communities. These people are as much a problem as the bigots on the other side of the equation. Mirror bigots, as it were.
On Pickled Politics Sunny gives a overview of the different voices in the debate: the dilemma that ‘free speech’ presents us:
If all religions were companies, Islam would be the one with the worst public relations department.
The original moral high-ground has been lost to the noise made by the gunmen, rampaging mobs and hysterical nutters.
And then there is the important point Munira Mirza makes at Spiked-Online:
Press freedom is the foundation of a free society. People don’t always like what they hear or see – if it challenges their cherished beliefs, it can hurt. It might also be dangerous, as the experiences of Theo van Gogh, the murdered Dutch filmmaker and journalists operating in repressive societies such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and China, demonstrate. It might also be expensive, as Danish producers and manufacturers are discovering with the boycott of their goods. But no matter the price, the principle must be defended. Unless we stand up for freedom of speech, we are unable to engage freely and hold belief systems – of all kinds – to account. Unfortunately, too many politicians and journalists are unwilling to make this stand, wanting above all a quiet (and safe) life.
Censorship in the West bolsters the moral authority of leaders in the Middle East to censor their own citizens. Indeed, the religious leaders in Saudi Arabia and Palestine have been opportunistic in using the story as a way of galvanising support and reinforcing the view that only they can protect Muslims from victimisation. Counter to the claims of unelected ‘community leaders’, Muslims do not benefit from censorship. In Denmark, large numbers of moderate Muslims have sought to oppose the stranglehold of extremist Muslim lobby groups who claim to represent them. In Arhus, they have organised counter-demonstrations. One Muslim city councillor who was involved said: ‘There is a large group of Muslims in this city who want to live in a secular society and adhere to the principle that religion is an issue between them and God and not something that should involve society.’ (2) It turns out that those sympathetic lefty anti-racists who believe censorship will protect Muslims are actually missing the point. Many Muslims want the same freedoms as everyone else to debate, criticise and challenge their religion.
Meanwhile Yusuf on Indigo Jo also noticed the extremist-take-over at the above mentioned demonstration where was at.
This afternoon, after jumu’ah, there was a demonstration outside the Danish embassy in Sloane Street, London, which was supposed to follow a march from the “Central Mosque” near Regent’s Park. I got to the embassy around 2:15pm, to find a collection of what one might call “the usual suspects” outside the embassy: men in kefiyyehs, brandishing black and white flags, with hostile expressions on their faces and yelling stupid slogans. (They had women there as well, although they were markedly less noisy.) Having arrived from the Sloane Square direction, I decided on arrival that I was going over to the other side and joining the media.
There, I set about telling various journalists, and some who were not journalists, that the core of the people across the road were in fact “serial demonstrators” who have a history of attending other people’s demonstrations, shouting slogans largely unrelated to the issue at hand, and casting a bad light over both Islam itself and the demonstration. So, last year the media reported that a demonstration had taken place outside Grosvenor Square at which former Guantanamo detainee Martin Mubanga spoke and violent anti-American slogans were chanted ([1], [2]). I later discovered that the demo had been crashed by people the organisers said were al-Muhajiroun. And I suspect that the same was true here.
The Standard also showed a picture of a young boy holding a banner with the words “EUROPE You’ll Come Crawling When Mujahideen come” (the rest was below the bottom of the picture, but you get the message). One of the earlier arrivals presented his own banner to some of the cameras, and it read that they would defend Jesus (‘alaihi as-salaam) as readily as Muhammad (sall’ Allahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), or words to that effect. The Standard obviously had so much room (they had to fit in the picture of the masked men in Gaza), but let’s see if someone else finds room for that picture. Cage Prisoners and Stop Political Terror, the people behind most of the recent demonstrations, make no reference to this demo or the issue behind it on their websites.
[Note by me: No, but the Al Ghurabaa did, see above]
It looks as if many Muslims are angry about what they see as double standards. The reference the cartoons of Jesus that were rejected by the Jylland Posten of course is often made. There was also this cartoon with a naked PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan and naked Danish Prime Minister Andres Fogh Rasmussen watching PKK’s Roj TV TV in bed together.
In reply to the cartoon, Denmark showed no tolerance with dailies complaining about the Turkish reaction, daily Hurriyet claimed.
For another good overview go to Mediawatchwatch.org.uk