|
 Cartoon Controversy: Opinions and Comments of Muslim Parliamentarians and Scholars
By Dr. Mozammel Haque
The
Milli Gazette Online
10 February 2006
The cartoon images published in the
Danish national newspaper, the right-of-centre, Jyllands-Posten, on
30 September, 2005, depicting the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)
with a bomb on his turban with a lit fuse is insulting, provocative and
deeply offensive to Muslims. According to the Hadith, the sayings of the
prophet, all depictions of Muhammad (pbuh), however complimentary, are
idolatrous. As such, the image of the Prophet (pbuh) can not be depicted.
The cartoon images naturally hurt more than 1.3 billion Muslims all over
the world. Immediately in October 2005 Danish Muslims brought out
demonstrations and protested against it. The ambassadors of 11 Muslim
countries requested a meeting with the Danish Prime Minister to discuss
the matter, and were turned away. Many people in Denmark criticized the
government’s handling of the affair, particularly the Prime Minister’s
decision not to meet with the Islamic ambassadors in October 2005. On 20
December, 2005, twenty-two former Danish ambassadors sent an open letter
to the Prime Minister criticizing his decision not to open a dialogue with
the international representatives.
Muslim Anger and Distress
The anger has deepened in the first week of February after the
reprinting and republication of one or more of the cartoon images in seven
newspapers in Germany, Italy, France, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands
in solidarity with the Danish paper, Jyllands-Posten. Muslims
mounted vigorous protests and demonstrations throughout the Muslim world,
from London to Jakarta. Syria and Saudi Arabia have withdrawn their
ambassadors from Denmark in protest and Libya has closed its embassy in
Copenhagen altogether. Iran’s Foreign Ministry summoned the ambassador
of Austria, which holds the EU Presidency, to protest.
Leaders of Muslim countries also condemned the cartoons. The National
Parliament of Pakistan unanimously passed a resolution condemning the
offensive cartoon images. Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf said,
“I have been hurt, grieved and I am angry.” Egyptian President Hosni
Mubarak said the cartoons will fuel terrorism. A spokesman for President
Mubarak said: “The President warned of the near and long-term
repercussions of the campaign of insults against the noble Prophet.
Irresponsible management of these repercussions will provide further
excuses to the forces of radicalism and terrorism.”
President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan said: “Any insult to the Holy
Prophet (peace be upon him) is an insult to more than one billion Muslims
and an act like this must never be allowed to be repeated.” Mahmoud
Zahar, the leader of Hamas in Gaza, visited a group of Christian nuns and
clerics at the Holy Family School to reassure them and unequivocally
condemned the threats against foreign nationals. “We are not accepting
any aggression against foreign institutions whether EU or American or
against any group, foreign or Palestinian,” Dr. Zahar said.
Many Arab commentators called for boycotts of European goods. The Qatar
Sheikh Youssef al-Qaradawi said: “The least we have to do is boycott
those who offended us by not buying their products.” Consumers across
the Muslim world then boycott Danish dairy products. Across the Middle
East, Danish dairy produce has been boycotted by an estimated 50,000 shops
since Saudi Arabian Sheikhs asked shopkeepers to remove the items from
their shelves. The Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and the
Arab League have demanded that the United Nations impose international
sanctions upon Denmark.
Peter Mandelson, the EU Trade Commissioner, said that newspapers had been
deliberately provocative in republishing the drawings. Franco Frattini,
the EU Justice Commissioner, said that the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten
had been “imprudent” to publish the 12 cartoons. Publication was
wrong, he said, “even if the satire used was aimed at a distorted
interpretation of religion, such as that used by terrorists to recruit
young people, sometimes to the point of sending them into action as
suicide bombers”. Even Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General, was drawn
into the debate, saying that freedom of the press should not be an excuse
for insulting religions.
Cardinal Achille Silvestrini, a retired Vatican diplomat, told the Corriere
della Sera, an Italian newspaper, “Freedom of satire that offends
the feelings of others becomes an abuse, and here we are talking about
nothing less than the feelings of entire peoples who have seen their
supreme symbols affected.”
In the United Kingdom
The situation in the United Kingdom is different. Shortly before the
protest began, the British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, attacked the
media outlets that had republished the images. “There is freedom of
speech, we all respect that - but there is not an obligation to insult or
to be gratuitously inflammatory, and I believe that the re-publication of
these cartoons has been unnecessary, it has been insensitive, it has been
disrespectful and it has been wrong,” he told reporters.
Mr. Straw also said, “What we also have to remember is that there are
taboos in every religion. It is not the case that there is open season in
respect of all aspects of Christian rights and rituals in the name of free
speech, nor is it the case that there is open season in respect of the
rights and rituals for the Jewish religion, the Hindu religion, the Sikh
religion, and it should not be the case in respect of the Islamic religion
either. So we have to be very careful about showing proper respect in this
situation.”
No British newspaper has yet published a cartoon. UK broadcasters,
including the BBC and Channel 4, have shown brief glimpses of the images. The
Spectator magazine briefly published them on its website, but they
were removed last night. Hundreds of British Muslims gathered outside the
Danish embassy in London to vent their anger over Danish cartoons
depicting the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).
I interviewed Lord Nazir Ahmed of Rotherham and Lord Adam Patel of
Blackburn, Peers of the House of Lords; Sir Iqbal Sacranie, Secretary
General of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) and Zia Uddin Sardar,
writer of many books on Islam, columnist and broadcaster on these
offensive cartoon images of the Prophet (pbuh).
Opinions and Comments of Muslim
Parliamentarians and Scholars
Lord Nazir Ahmed of Rotherham, said, “Freedom of _expression and
freedom of the press have to be balanced with responsibility.” Lord
Ahmed also added, “I think if we are to defend our freedom of speech and
the right of a free press, then we have got to ask if insulting cartoons
or articles in any way help to promote intellectual or civilized
discussion. After all, as I understand it, a civilization is a cultural
entity, guided by certain basic principles, rules and morals, which
include mutual respect.”
Lord Ahmed also said, “Freedom does not mean we can just walk up to
someone and insult them in their face and expect no reaction. That is not
civilised behaviour; it would be Wild West anarchy.”
Lord Ahmed also acknowledged “There is confusion and debate is the way
to clear it up and create a more harmonious society, but we must do so
within the constraints of civilised behaviour.”
Lord Patel said, “I am absolutely disappointed and disgusted that in the
name of freedom of _expression, Western media, apart from UK media, are
going against the feelings of the entire Muslim world. It is totally
unacceptable in the name of freedom. They don’t consider their own
responsibility to respect the feelings of other faith communities. It is
totally disrespectful and not acceptable by any good thinking people of
the world.”
Sir Iqbal said, “Freedom of _expression can never be absolute. It always
goes hand in hand with responsibility. In the same way we respect freedom
of _expression we should not allow freedom to abuse and vilify in a
civilized society.” Sir Iqbal also said, “There is a deliberate
attempt from certain mischievous quarters to provoke Muslim community so
that they can respond with emotions and thereby giving the opportunity for
the same elements to attack the Muslim community and Islam as being
intolerant.”
Zia Sardar observed, “This is a very deliberate attempt to insult
Muslims. They have gone out of their way to commission cartoons and paint
all the Muslims with colour violent. This is not an issue of exercise of
freedom of _expression but an exercise in power. They want to show that
with their power they can do whatever they want to do and to demonstrate
the powerlessness of Muslims. They want to show how powerless Muslims
really are.”
While writing an article entitled “A ‘Freedom’ whose home is the
jungle” in The Independent on Sunday, 5th of February
2006, Zia Sardar wrote, “On one side, we have liberal extremists
defending “freedom of _expression” as a sacred and absolute territory.
The right to offend is advanced as the essential liberty of a secular
society. On the other side, we have bearded and masked men protesting
against the outrage in the language of absolute fanaticism….Both are
cast in the language of extremism and violence.”
Sardar also wrote, “The choice of so many newspapers across Europe to
republish the cartoons is definitely a gauntlet directed at all Muslims.
It is a practical demonstration of President Bush’s diktat that you are
either with us or against us – accept what we do or and join
civilization; object and be categorized as barbarians.”
“Freedom of _expression has now become a precursor to the banality of
evil. In other words, Muslims are being set up for the next holocaust.”
Sardar said and added, “In a civilized society, freedom always comes
with responsibility. In many European countries, free speech does not
extend to the denial of holocaust. Indeed, anyone denying even the methods
by which Jews were put to death by the Nazis can end up in jail. We are
not free to glorify child pornography. We are not even free to drive on
the road the way we want to drive.”
Referring to Nick Griffin’s free _expression, Sardar asked, “Am I the
only one who can hear in his words the echoes of Germany in the 30s? Are
the Danish cartoons not merely Griffin’s words in graphic form?”
Sardar concluded by saying, “Prejudice is not a basis for defending
liberty. Ridiculing those whose liberties are most under threat is only
adding fuel to wildfires our politics at home and abroad have unleashed.
We all need to learn how to become firefighters, not arsonists.”
Writing an article “Cartoon Conflicts” in The Guardian on
Monday, 6 February, 2006, Tariq Ramadan, visiting fellow at St Antony’s
College, Oxford University and senior research fellow at the Lokahi
Foundation, in London, “We are facing an incredible simplification, a
gross polarisation: apparently a clash of civilisations, a confrontation
between principles, with defenders, in one corner, of inalienable freedom
of speech and, in the other, of the inviolable sacred sphere.”
Professor Ramadan urged to “create a space for serious, open, in-depth
debate and peaceful dialogue” and said, “This is not the predicted
clash of civilisations.”
“Instead of being obsessed with laws and rights - approaching a
tyrannical right to say anything - would it not be more prudent to call
upon citizens to exercise their right to freedom of _expression
responsibly and to take into account the diverse sensitivities that
compose our pluralistic contemporary societies?” asked Professor Ramadan
and added, “It is more about nurturing a sense of civic responsibility
than about imposing legislation: Muslim citizens are not asking for more
censorship but for more respect. One cannot impose mutual respect by means
of legislation; rather one teaches it in the name of a free, responsible
and reasonable common citizenship.”
Professor Ramadan advised: “We are at a crossroads. The time has come
for women and men who reject this dangerous division of people into two
worlds to start building bridges based on common values. They must assert
the inalienable right to freedom of _expression and, at the same time,
demand measured exercise of it. We need to promote an open, self-critical
approach, to repudiate exclusive truths and narrow-minded, binary visions
of the world.”
Conclusions
In conclusion, I would like to quote two advices: one to the
non-Muslims and another to Muslims. Jamaal Zaraboza wrote in his article
“Reflections on Hatred,” “I think all in the world can agree that
mutual understanding, mutual respect, peace and justice certainly will
never result from defamation, ridicule and insult. Therefore, there is no
real benefit from defaming or denigrating the Prophet Muhammad (peace and
blessings of Allah be upon him) in a manner like the recent political
cartoons in Europe. The only result that one can expect from such
practices is more hatred, violence and fear. At the same time, we have to
call upon all interested parties to show restraint and to consider what
ramifications anything that they say or do might have. Muslim scholars
should take the lead, as they have done in the past, to stress to the
Muslims that the actions of the non-Muslims should never anger them so
much that it leads them to do something that contradicts the Law of
Islam.”
Essam Ahmed Mudeer, a leading Dawah worker and a columnist with the Al-Bilad
newspaper in Saudi Arabia, said, “This (the publication of cartoons) was
a calculated move to incite anger within the Muslim community and
unfortunately, our response has been quite typical and predictable, as
always.”
“Not all Danes hate Islam, those who profess hatred against Islam and
Muslims are a minority. …The right response from our side would be to
turn the tables on the hatred-mongers, Mudeer said. He said that the
Muslims should do away their conventional typical, stupid method of
responding to such controversies. “We should confront the attacks on
Islam, the way the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) did,” Mudeer
said and added,” The Muslims should take the message of the Holy
Qur’an to the drawing rooms of the Danes. Don’t beg for respect, Islam
is a faith which commands respect.” (Saudi Gazette, 4/2/2006)
|
