> Muslim
sensitivity vs freedom of speech
San Diego, CA – The violent Muslim reactions to the cartoon
controversy involving the Prophet Mohammed, underscores the fact
that political turmoil can erupt any moment even in countries not
known for international disputes. Certainly, it is unthinkable for
Denmark and Norway – countries who made a national religion of not
being offensive to anyone – can be the focal point of Muslim rage.
Thus, the sight of the Danish and Norwegian embassies being burned
in Damascus — and Scandinavians in general being warned to leave
Islamic countries – belies the notion that nobody gets mad at
Denmark or Norway. Yet, death threats are now being hurled against
the Danes and Norwegians – and for that matter, other Europeans,
as though they were mad-dog friends of George W. Bush.
Though originally published by a minor Danish newspaper in
September 2005, the offensive cartoons continue to be reprinted in
several European countries. Consequently, Danish and Norwegian
embassies and consulates have been attacked in Syria, Lebanon,
Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Nigeria and Indonesia. In Damascus,
rioters set fire to the Danish and Norwegian missions, and in
Beirut the Danish Embassy was burned. Protests, some violent, also
have occurred in Bosnia and elsewhere.
The explosion in the Muslim world over this brouhaha has,
remarkably, been different than when Salman Rushdie published his
“Satanic Verses” in 1989. An Anglo-Indian novelist, Rushdie earned
the ire of Ayatollah Khomeini – condemned to death to be exact,
but nobody else – not even states was included – not Britain nor
India. Interestingly, the cartoon controversy is resonating in the
Islamic communities better than Osama bin Laden’s call for Jihad.
Paradoxically, the controversy is redefining the matrix of the
U.S. global war on terror (GWOT) and has set in motion alignments
within the Islamic world and within the West that appear to be in
flux in some very important ways.
But first, the debate over the cartoons: Is it blasphemy or a
freedom of speech exercise?
There is a prohibition in Islam against making images of the
Prophet Mohammed. There is also a prohibition against ridiculing
the Prophet. Thus, a cartoon that ridicules the Prophet violates
two fundamental rules simultaneously. Muslims around the world
were deeply offended by these cartoons.
Muslim rejection of the cartoons, however, does not derive from a
universalistic view that one should respect religions nor does it
derive from a secularist view that holds all religions in equal
indifference and requires “sensitivity” not on account of
theologies, but in order to avoid hurting anyone’s feelings. The
Muslim view is theological: The Prophet Mohammed is not to be
ridiculed or portrayed. But violating the sensibilities of other
religions is not taboo. Therefore, Muslims frequently, in action,
print and speech, do and say things about other religions —
Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism — that followers of these
religions would find defamatory. The West might call his
hypocritical, but the Muslim demand is honest and authentic: It is
for respect for Islam, not a general secular respect for all
beliefs as if they were all equal.
The response from the West, and from Europe in particular, has
been to frame the question as a matter of free speech. European
newspapers, wishing to show solidarity with the Danes, have
reprinted the cartoons, further infuriating the Muslims. European
liberalism has a more complex profile than Islamic rage over
insults. In many countries, it is illegal to incite racial hatred.
It is difficult to imagine that the defenders of these cartoons
would sit by quietly if a racially defamatory cartoon were
published.
In terms of the dialogue over the cartoons, there is enough to
amuse even the most jaded observers. The sight of Muslims arguing
the need for greater sensitivity among others, and of advocates of
laws against racial hatred demanding absolute free speech, is
truly marvelous to behold. There is, of course, one minor
difference between the two sides: The Muslims are threatening to
kill people who offend them and are literally burning embassies,
holding entire nations responsible for the actions of a few of
their citizens. The European liberals are merely making speeches.
They are not threatening to kill critics of the modern secular
state. That also distinguishes the Muslims from, say, Christians
in the United States who have been affronted by sensitive issues
such as abortion.
These are not trivial distinctions. But what is important is this:
The controversy over the cartoons involves issues so fundamental
to the two sides that neither can give in. The Muslims cannot
accept visual satire involving the Prophet. Nor can the Europeans
(or the Americans for that matter) accept that Muslims can, using
the threat of force, dictate what can be published. Core values
are at stake, and that translates into geopolitics.
In one sense, there is nothing new or interesting in intellectual
inconsistency or dishonesty. Nor is there anything new about
radical Muslims threatening to kill people who offend them. What
is new is the breadth of the Muslim response and the fact that it
is directed obsessively not against the United States, but against
European states.
One of the primary features of the U.S.GWOT has been that each
side has tried to divide the other along a pre-existing fault
line. For the United States, in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the
manipulation of Sunni-Shiite tensions has been evident. For the
bin Laden followers, and even more for non-jihadist Muslims caught
up in the war, the tension between the United States and Europe
has been a critical fault line to manipulate. It is significant,
then, that the cartoon affair threatens to overwhelm both the
Euro-American split and the Sunni-Shiite split. It is,
paradoxically, an affair that unifies as well as divides.
