Much ado about newspaper cartoons
Alright, it's official. We're stupid, hot-headed, arrogant and we want everyone to know about it. Huntingdon must be rubbing his hands with glee.
Let's get our priorities right. No boycotts, ambassadors recalled, or apologies demanded over illegal wars, extra-judicial detentions, deadly sanctions, etc. But let's go nuts over some cartoons in a newspaper. Smart.
Where's the nearest wall I can bang my head against.
Update, February 2, 12:30 PM: Protests over the cartoons have spread to other parts of the Muslim world. But a newspaper in Jordan has reprinted some of the cartoons, with a message to Muslims:
That's another side of getting our priorities right. The energy, concern, anger and action of the Muslim world almost always appear to be focussed outside, more specifically on the West as the root of all that plagues Islam and Muslims today.Jordanian independent tabloid al-Shihan reprinted three of the cartoons on Thursday, saying people should know what they were protesting about, AFP news agency reports.
"Muslims of the world be reasonable," wrote editor Jihad Momani.
"What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in Amman?"
How strong comparatively has been the condemnation, especially amongst the masses, for Al-Qaeda, for the London and Madrid bombers, for suicide attackers and hostage-takers in Iraq, all of who insult Islam by their actions many times more than these cartoons did? Why have there been no widespread protests, effigy-burning and the like for Osama bin Laden, Ayman Al-Zawahiri and Al-Zarqawi?*
*(except for one in Jordan in response to last year's Amman bombing)
Update, February 2, 10:15 PM: I feel as though perhaps I should temper my earlier rants and take a few steps back and look at the whole thing. A lot of the misunderstanding and escalation seems to be due to the vast cultural and sociological differences and the disconnect between Western European liberal societies and traditional, conservative Muslim countries.
Unlike Western audiences who are used to seeing Christian and Jewish elements and figures like Jesus or Moses not only being depicted in art, media, movies etc. but regularly being satirized, the majority of people in the Islamic world, religious or secular, are not comfortable (to say the least) depicting prophets through drawing, painting or role-playing. (Anyone who's seen The Message with Anthony Quinn would know what I'm talking about.) So imagine the level of emotion when the Prophet Muhammad is not only depicted but associated with terrorism.
Two more things.
First, many Muslims from many of these traditional societes do not understand the idea of freedom of expression (because their governments don't allow it), or if they do comprehend the notion, they don't think it means a carte blanche to say whatever one wants, especially when it comes to religion.
Secondly, many of these countries have autocratic governments who can make and change laws as they please and pretty much exercise control over everything should they choose to do so. So the idea that the Danish prime minister cannot "punish" the newspaper that published those cartoons is foreign to many, who might think he's making up some excuse and that he (and the Danish government) actually support the whole thing. Hence the whole boycott of Danish products.
Of course it doesn't help that there is already entrenched in the Islamic world the sentiment that the United States, and by extension the West, is anti-Islam, given the US foreign policy in the Middle East and the West's role in the creation (and support) of the state of Israel in Arab-Muslim Palestine.
To go over to the other side a bit, European societies do appear to have taken the idea of secularism too far. The hejab ban in France (and in certain provinces of some other Western European countries) is an example of the increasingly xenophobic attitude among Europeans. Svend White discusses this over on his blog, Akram's Razor:
In recent years, Denmark has been lurching rightward and turning increasingly hostile to Islam and Muslims (who now make up about 4% of the population). It is becoming distressingly commonplace to see headlines about prominent Danish figures openly expressing prejudice against Islam, and mainstream parties are working increasingly closely with hardline nationalist (and, of course, Muslim-baiting) parties that were once rightly viewed as beyond the pale. It's gotten so bad in Denmark--and I'm sorry to say so as someone whose maternal side of the family is there and who has long taken pride in Denmark's once enlightened policies--that a prominent pundit in neighboring Sweden declared Denmark the most xenophobic country in Europe.
25 comments:
Safiyyah wrote an excellent piece which was picked-up/submitted by alt.muslim
http://www.altmuslim.com/perm.php?id=1642_0_25_0_M
As you will see the discussion after the article quickly deteriorates.
--B
As I was reading about this newspaper fiasco I was wondering what you thought of it My suspiscions have been confirmed.
No offense to Muslims... but just when I think that Christian fundamentalists have taken the cake in terms of collective idiodicy, I read about this.
its normal to get upset and start acting crazy if you love Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessigns of God be upon him and all the messengers and prophets) more than your own mother and father, when someone says such things about him.
Even though its not necessarily the *right* reaction to have.... it does show that we do have some feelings left inside, that we don't just sit there and not get upset when someone says something bad about someone we love and respect.
please see: http://tinyurl.com/cjoks
--A :)
Peter, I do understand why Muslims have been offended by these cartoons. It's very different for Muslims to see something like this, compared to say Christians who might be "used to" seeing Jesus Christ being satirized in Western liberal society.
However, the reactions we've been seeing are completely out of line. Abdullah, I don't think it's normal at all to start acting crazy if you love the Prophet. Getting upset and acting crazy are two different things entirely. I don't have to boycott companies that are in no way associated with the newspaper in question to show that I'm offended. This actually sounds pretty abnormal to me.
Something similar happened some months ago when reports of the Quran being desecrated at Guantanamo Bay made the rounds. A number of people - Muslims, if you will - lost their lives in violent protests that resulted. Was it worth the loss of those lives? As a Muslim, do you think the value of the Quran or the honour of the Prophet were tarnished in any way by these incidents?
If someone now comes to me and says that they think Muslims are unreasonable people that are prone to violence and disproportionality, should I tell them yes, but it's normal?
Saira, his response was not to ignore such things. Read about Abu 'Afk if you like, and other such individuals who insulted Prophet Muhammad.
Ali, Assalam alaikum :)
Thanks for the reply. I guess its not "normal" but its "understandable"?
I'm of two minds on this issue.
On the one hand, I agree that some of the reaction may have been unnecessary and perhaps uncalled for.
On the other hand, when I took a look at those cartoons (and I don't know how many of you have actually seen the cartoons), I felt a surge of anger and madness rush through me.
Yes, at times, the Prophet ignored insults against him. And at other times he ordered the assassinations of poets who wrote against him. Omar(ra) was ready to draw his sword against anyone who insulted or went against the authority of the Prophet. Does this mean we should go kill people? No. But I see nothing wrong with feeling anger to this degree.
Omair Q: The Prophet(SAW) sending an assasin to kill a poet does not legitimize hostage taking, rioting in the streets and boycotting cheese and butter cookies.
Bilal,
My point in mentioning the assasinations of poets was not to equate it with hostage-taking, rioting, etc.
Saira said the Prophet's "motto" was to ignore insults made against him and to not react with violence. And I said, yes, sometimes he ignored them, and at other times he reacted with force. I'm simply replying to what she said. I'm not saying that we should go react violently over this issue.
True, some of the reactions may have been "out of line", so let's do something that's not out of line. Because all we do is blog about these issues and then sit and criticize those that have done something, albeit unwisely. We talk a lot..... and that's pretty much all we do. So until we get up off our asses and do something that's "in line", maybe we shouldn't talk so much.
Here are my two cents on the issue … I do agree with the common sentiment being expressed by the comments in this post with respect to the over-reaction from the Muslim world.
What has not been discussed is the fact that all the European governments are not speaking out against these newspapers as they hide behind the veil of “the freedom of speech”. I think, if there was a satire cartoon run depicting something offensive about another religion than Islam, there would be condemnation by every government around the world. However, the fact that it is Muslims who are on the end of this has resulted in silence across Europe. Typically running satire cartoons in a newspaper is used to poke fun in a tasteful way, but these cartoon intent was to offend and cause controversy. At the end of all of this, it will just further divide Muslims in Europe.
Dear Saira
assalam alaikum
again, I'm with Omair.. I wasn't justifying the actions of Muslims, I was simply correcting your statement. :)
Khalas
Abdullah
an update from BBC: http://tinyurl.com/cgpvj
There's a lot of talk of how shameful the Muslim reaction is. But where's the logic in the reaction of the European media? Where's the logic in flaming the fires? They're not teaching the Muslim world anything about freedom of speech. This is so 'in-your-face' and arrogant that it cannot possibly be constructive and healthy for the East-West dialogue.
Personally, I don't think their 'free press' - which isn't truly free anyways - is anything to be proud of. In fact, pride should be removed from the equation - it leads to division. Bottom line - neither side of the debate is following the ideals they espouse. Nothing new and nothing that will improve in my opinion.
Strange. A couple of comments did not appear on the blog. So I'm posting them again.
The first one is from me:
About giving examples from the life of the Prophet, I'm personally wary of using specific, highly contextualized incidents and extrapolating them ad hoc (which is what we're doing here) to modern day situations.
I think for lay Muslims the best thing would be to consider and focus on the principles and general values the Prophet Muhammad exemplifies for us, instead of applying his behaviour and reactions in a specific circumstance as we see fit in other situations.
Yes perhaps the European media's mistake in publishing those cartoons and subsequent unconcerned (or arrogant, if you will) attitude hasn't received as much attention here in the West as the contentious response of the Muslim world.
However, I feel that I personally would rather be self-critical before I lay blame on the outside. Had the Muslim world's reaction not been unreasonable and disproportionate, I would be more comfortable criticizing the media's attitude and laying blame on them. But here Muslims have just shown they are the way they're stereotyped.
The issue here is lost credibility. We talk about Islam being the religion of peace and how the majority of Muslims are against the kind of terrorism we see certain Muslim groups taking part in. But if we respond to an issue like this through flag-burning and cries like "Death to Denmark" (I'm ignoring stupidity like boycotting Danish butter cookies and Lego blocks), someone looking from the outside can justifiably ask: where's the "peace" part?
And if the Muslim response is to be considered understandable, I think we have a lot of problems of our own to fix before we can point fingers at others.
--
Posted by Ali to Ali Writes... at 2/03/2006 11:35:36 PM
And the second one from omair q.
Flipping channels just now, I came to CNN's 'In the Money'. They were talking about the economic impact of boycotting Danish products in the Middle East. When referring to the cartoons, the host kept saying "cartoons depicting the Prophet Elijah Muhammad" (Elijah Muhammad was the founder of the Nation of Islam in the United States). And none of the guests on the show were correcting him either. I am shocked at how little some American journalists know, and how stupid some of them are.
--
Posted by omair q to Ali Writes... at 2/04/2006 01:17:37 PM
after seeing on the news the burning buildings.. i feel very sad.. and i understand much better what you guys mean .. subhanAllah..
abdullah
Thanks for your comments N.V., and I'm glad you like this blog. Hope you can continue to contribute in the future.
i really liked this one: http://tinyurl.com/9wzeu
Abu Adam,
That is a great article outlining the feelings and reasons why Muslims are outraged about the cartoons.
But I see there are no comments about all of the voilence that has taken place in the name of "fighting back".
For me, that part is much more important to address. As I said in my last long-winded post, I will always protect freedom of speech, and I will always respect ANYONES right to worship who they want to - but I will never agree with voilence in the name of any God - no matter what the circumstance.
As the old saying goes, voilence is not the answer.
I agree. The article might have been dead on about the inequalities in European societies and the vulnerable position Muslims find themselves in over there. However, it is not sufficient end it there, leaving us with how principled Islam is compared to European secular law.
By not discussing the violence that Muslims have been showing in different parts of the Islamic world, he fails to see that the same criticism that he applies to Europe applies to Muslims as well. There are principles in Islam about acting with dignity and showing civilized behaviour (just as there are laws in Europe against hate speech - he cites some of them), but these principles were not followed by Muslims in their response. So why only talk about Europeans not implementing their hate speech laws fairly?
In my original post, I mentioned how the anger of the Muslim world is generally always focussed outside, but hardly do we find self-criticism and admitting of our own mistakes and problems. This article is no different.
So the editor of Jyllands-Posten, the newspaper that first printed the offensive cartoons of the Prophet, refused some years ago to print cartoons of Jesus on the grounds that he thought they were "offensive and would cause an outcry." One word: Hypocrisy. In one situation it's freedom of speech and in another it's offensive material. This just strengthens my conviction that the cartoons were published solely to offend Muslims and as an affront to Islam.
http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1703500,00.html
Omair,
With respect, if the cartoons were published to offend Muslims, is reacting in the ways that have occured then justified?
I agree with standing up for your rights - but this is getting out of control! Innocent people are being killed - people who had NOTHING to do with the printing of the paper - people who were killed because they were the same nationality.
Do you think that Muhammad would condone this? By killing innocent people who had nothing to do with the printing of the cartoon?
I don't think so.
Be strong in your convictions - but also be open to the idea that sometimes, things go too far.
- N.V.
Anonymous,
What makes you think I'm justifying the violent reactions of some Muslims? Did I say that? All I'm talking about is the hypocrisy of the newspaper.
Yes, things have gone too far in terms of what some Muslims are doing. But in my mind, things went too far right off the bat with the printing of the cartoons.
And no, the Prophet would not at all condone the violent reactions of some Muslims.
You see, that's the problem.
All people are mentioning is the actions of the newspaper....and not the massive overreaction by the Muslims.
Things might have gone too far right off the bat, but two wrongs do not make a right.
- N.V.
I'd have to disagree there. I think much of the attention has been towards the violence, deaths and other reactions amongst Muslims, both in the Islamic world and in Europe plus North America.
However, now that hopefully things appear to be subsiding, I hope that everyone can look at the bigger picture in terms of what all this indicates for the nature and boundaries of the interaction between secularism and religion and the East and West.
Post a Comment