This may sound redundant at first glance, yet the need to clarify a number of things is explicit enough to make this entry come to life. Much has been said of late about some cartoons depicting the Prophet of Islam, Mohammad, in ways that offended the Islamic psyche worldwide.
Prophet Mohammad to Muslims is the guide that ushered light into their lives, by delivering the message of Divinity to peoples of all races and times. Understanding the reverence and respect Muslims have for their Prophet is essential in untangling this web of reactions. In addition to that, Muslims believe in all God’s messengers, therefore, to them, insulting one messenger means insulting all without exclusion. This leads to a sane deduction that, by transgressing over most Muslims’ sentiments with regards to their Prophet, the cartoons have the same impact as if they were depicting Jesus, or any other God-sent messenger – Jesus cited due to popularity, in offensive situations of your choice. While this may not stir difference in many people’s lives,denial can hardly be in place that it offends the religious.
This view, with what weight it possesses, should not be made light of. The manner in which Muslims and the Denmark or even the EU are reacting to this so-dubbed war of Free Speech vs. Religion, is debatable and arguments about it could go for hours on end. This is not my interest in this entry, you may wish to look elsewhere for this sort of argument.
The story, or the bits of it that have made it to my brain, has it that a Danish newspaper published the caricatures, which was a step that stirred a torrent of reactions by Danish Muslims. Some time later, a Norwegian newspaper published the same, or so I read, cartoons. This time, the torrent grew larger: Muslims around the world pledged to boycott Danish products, governments condemned the sacrilege and retrieved ambassadors, the Danish people -in polls- urged their leaders not to apologize, and just recently the EU took up the matter and made a not-so-subliminal economic threat to all countries who enact the boycott.
The issue at hand, if we are to dissect it, could boil down to a few questions: How far can one go with one’s right of Free Speech?. Rationality is in favor of Free Speech, but does it support it all the way? Are there no red lines that one ought to respect such as, say, the Holocaust, or Prophet Mohammad wearing a bomb-turban?
Stepping on either one of the two “odds” is dangerous. One is bound to get a decent amount of reactions, some wise, and most unwise, if one limits people’s freedom or if one lets it off the leash. I find it most amusing how most current trends, and so-dubbed-liberals-in-their-own-words, and kindly do not mistake this for an attack targeting a certain group of individuals (for any such a notion is a false claim), think it appropriate to mock the outrage that is taking the Muslim awareness by storm, and yet to overlook the simplicity of the situation that the caricatures did, in actual fact, insult someone respected by “some” people who happen to have a lot of family.
This sort of stand is severely insensitive and biased, for a simple and obvious reason, yet one that seems to allude a large number of the “liberals”. Should one claim to be liberal, then one acknowledges the rights of all people to express their differences, and one respects that. One ought not to bash some, those regarded as the retarded glitch in the face of civilization by one’s views, and spare their allegedly more-refined brethren.
If I were to look at matters from a personal point of view, I seem to find it difficult to digest to insult what a loner in Australia believes in. I may not know the person, and I may not be interested in learning much about the culture, but insulting beliefs that I know are thought very highly of is uncalled-for. This sort of conduct strikes me as being absolutely unprovoked and tremendously provocative.
Taken from Nas’ entry on the subject, this is one interesting bit of information.
” Bill Clinton warned of rising anti-Islamic prejudice, comparing it to historic anti-Semitism as he condemned the publishing of cartoons depicting Prophet Mohammed in a Danish newspaper.
So now what are we going to do?
Replace the anti-Semitic prejudice with anti-Islamic prejudice? he said at an economic conference in the Qatari capital of Doha.
In Europe, most of the struggles weve had in the past 50 years have been to fight prejudices against Jews, to fight against anti-Semitism, he said.
Clinton described as appalling the 12 cartoons published in a Danish newspaper in September depicting Prophet Mohammed and causing uproar in the Muslim world.
None of us are totally free of stereotypes about people of different races, different ethnic groups, and different religions
there was this appalling example in northern Europe, in Denmark
these totally outrageous cartoons against Islam, he said.”
An anonymous person left a comment on this entry, at precisely 1:39 AM. The comment itself is of value, yet the last sentence contradicts my Commenting Policy, therefore I resolved to publish it without the last sentence. This may not be the wisest step, yet credit should be given to the content of the comment.
Anonymous said:
Well, the cartoons were handled by the courts in Denmark, but they were not illegal and thus not punishable.
You would be surprised to learn that people are often fined or jailed in Denmark because they promote hate speech against jews, muslims or other minorities. Can I expect the same in your country, when someone talks about killing Danes, Swedes or Norwegians? I think not!
Last summer a radiostation was shut down immediately because it tried to promote the killing of Muslims.
Personally I am deeply offended by you burning our belowed Danish and Norwegian flags in your streets. We are a peace loving people and we do not believe in oppression of anyone based on their beliefs no matter what your socalled not-so-free media wants you to believe.
A very analytical and precise entry Tololy, but I think we are again in the same dilemma you mentioned about the right to express ideas without offending others, as you mentione din your “censored” version of the comment by Anonymous. You have opted to stop publishing one sentence, and I think this might be considered another kind of censorship. If the sentence does not have vulgar language, please publish it. I have participated in the boycott campaign myself even though I am not a religious person, in fact I am almost athiest but this is a matter of cultural respect. However, some of the muslim responses were wrong, especially the burning of the Danish flags, since this is another direct insult to a whole people who may not share the views of their Queen and ruling party press.
I’m not surprised 7ajeh tololy :-)
Anonymous, We aren’t against Danish people nor the Norwegians, but we are against the government because they didn’t react.
as for burning your flag, your flag is just political and national symbol that you love and you hate to see it burned.
At the same time, Mohamed is our prophet and he’s our symbol that we love and we hate to see insults against him.
Anonymous person,
Allow me to say that I, too, am deeply offended by the burning of Danish flags in some streets. I do not exactly tolerate that. It should also be clear to you, as well as everyone else reading this, that I respect all peoples regardless of nationality, religion, or color.
This settled, I am not sure what media you are referring to as our “not-so-free media”, and what message is it that you believe it delivered to “us”. I would appreciate an elaboration.
I am starting this reply with the Homeric last-first style, mainly because you make quite an argument in your last passage.So kindly bear with me.
On to quotes, you say: “Well, the cartoons were handled by the courts in Denmark, but they were not illegal and thus not punishable.” That may well be true, I thank you for the information that I heard elsewhere. This could be linked to my post when I posed the question “How far can one go with one’s right of Free Speech?”.
Then you say: “You would be surprised to learn that people are often fined or jailed in Denmark because they promote hate speech against jews, muslims or other minorities. Can I expect the same in your country, when someone talks about killing Danes, Swedes or Norwegians? I think not!”
I am positive everyone in Denmark and elsewhere value this effort put forward by your government to protect people of various religions. Can you expect the same in my country? I am afraid I do not have an answer for this question, and to speak of something I do not know is an error. Yet the interesting bit, I find, is the negotiable link between this point and my post.
I feel an explanation is due. Your comment contained a certain word in the very last sentence of it, thus rendering it impossible to publish in my blog, in accordance with my Commenting Policy. That “F***” word is prohibited, so far as the Policy stands.
Now to get a bit into the happenings here, I am afraid you misunderstood me or possibly failed to see the sense in my entry. Perhaps you were taken in a stir of emotion, like most Arabs tend to act, and thus found yourself eager to express some points, regardless of relevance to topic.
What I attempted to discuss in my entry is not the burning of flags in the streets, or the “so-dubbed war of Free Speech vs. Religion”, or even “the manner in which Muslims and the Denmark or even the EU are reacting to it”. I made those remarks explicitly available in my entry, kindly refer to it for proof. Having said this, I do not see how some of the points you make are relevant.
I am mainly interested in explaining that most Muslims did take offence, and in wondering whether or no Free Speech has a limitation, or call it, a red line. In addition to these two major notions, I commented on the self-acclaimed liberals who acknowledge someone’s right and ignore another’s.
Your comments are welcome, and you are welcome in Tololy’s Box. I sincerely hope I made the ambiguity a bit less problematic.
Batir Wardam,
Such a lovely comment you made. As explained above, I did not publish the last sentence because it contained the F word. Not that it is a taboo, but I do not tolerate misuse of language in my blog. Some may argue that this is not misuse of language; in my blog, it is.
I could not care less if someone shares an idea of mine or objects to it, this would not stop me from publishing a comment. Yet I do ask of people, so kindly, to stick to the Commenting Policy situated in the sidebar under “The Box”. No rules equals havoc, and I will not have it that some people may get offended from such linguistic expressions. Certainly I would not treat some readers with preference to others, I clearly remember an incident where a frequent rader posted something similar and the comment was not divulged until the word was removed. The purpose of this is to try, as best as possible, not to offend anyone or to lessen the value of the thoughts in an argument. Needless to say, very few people would like to have others think they were raised in a barn of some sort.
I agree with you that some reactions were wrong and too extreme. The best solution is balanced argument, one in which all parties involved fully respect their foils’ due rights and beliefs.
Jad,
I do not think the government can do much about it. An apology has been called for, we will see how that comes about. What I am concerned with is people’s attitudes when they do enjoy the freedom to express themselves, and how they use, or abuse, this right.
I can not fathom any of what is happening.
If all of this is a ‘consequence’ of freedom well
and doesn’t that defeat its purpose?
I am seriously stuttering, absolutely flabbergasted.
I can’t say a thing.
Thank you for your post.
i find it very distressing that we fight and argue over religion which for all practical purposes is ”a way of life” i strongly believe that the essence of all religions has to be love for god and love for one another. there can be no law or religion above that.
did god differentiate in the colour of our blood or the shapes of our body or the colour of our skin based on our religion??????
THINK GUYS AND GALS….
atleast as the educated lot we have to start viewing things with a different perspective and maybe even ignore the insensitive, selfish riot-provoking madcaps in every region. we r provoked into mindless fury only if we react. but if we choose not to react to such thoughtless remarks or provocations THE WORLD WILL DEFINITELY BE A BETTER PLACE TO LIVE IN.
IN ANY CASE THE DIGNITY OR THE DIVINITY OF NEITHER PROPHET MOHAMMED (P.B.U.H.) NOR JESUS OR ANYBODY ELSE IS NOT GOING TO BE affected BY THE SENSELESS REMARKS OF SOME EVEN.
IF WE R NOT GOING TO GROW UP wars r’nt going to cease and not much can be hoped for in future either.
A very level and balanced entry this is Tololy .. applaude to you :D
I agree with you .. level argument is the answer and an apology is called for .. as for boycotting Danish products, bringing the governments in the equation and burning flags in the streets .. I see these attempts and acts as means to increase animosity and stir blind rage in both parties’ minds and hearts .. This is not the way our prophet answered those who insulted him .. I am offended deeply by the cartoons, however; the reaction that the majority is adopting is just that; a reaction .. full of emotional combat .. I would prefer a response that is level and strong enough with content to make those who challenged the most sacred issues feel that what they did was not an act of freedom of speech, rather was a blind ridicule that is bound to get such attention and anger ..
I agree with you about the policy :D
Maybe the concept of freedom of speech should have its limits, but then is it truly free speech? With free speech, we will often have to deal with misjudgement, the crossing of red lines, etc. This is the beauty (or the curse, depending on how you look at it) of the concept.
Perhaps the cartoons did cross a line, this is true. That being said, however, I think the response to these cartoons on the part of some Muslims has been blown out of all proportion, especially given the rampant, overt anti-Semitism in many Muslim countries, where cartoons such as these – depicting Jews in all the various stereotypical possibilities – are often the norm. I am quite sure, Tololy, that you and others do not find this an acceptable practice, but why do so many other Muslims think it is? How can these people expect such respect for Islam when they show such disrespect for Judaism and other religions?
I think that many people in the West are not exposed to the good of Islam, and only to those Muslims who claim to perform such heinous acts in the name of their religion. They see the disdain shown towards people of other religions and cultures, and then watch incredulously as these very same individuals cry foul when acts are perpetrated against themselves.
Again, I’m not saying that it was right to publish these pictures, which were most likely published precisely in order to provoke a certain type of reaction, to “prove” something to the rest of the world, whatever. Poor taste, indeed. Respect for religions must work in all directions, however.
A very thought-provoking post, Tololy, as usual. :-)
This is a good post toloy. I think that Muslims arround the World have the right to express their anger, however, the question is, can a Danish cartoonist draw a similar insulting caricature of Jesus Christ and get it away with it? Probably yes, we are talking about a secular state where less than 10% of the total population calim to be religious.
Just a small question – where is it stated that these cartoons are a depiction of Mohammed? Is this a fact, or an assumption?
I think that the way that you are expressing your distatste for the cartoons is appropriate…I feel that for myself there are many things in the world that I could find offensive…but I choose to not put myself in a position where I am offended of things I can not control…I feel that to be offended by something gives the offendor some control over your emotions…In that way it is best to discuss (as you have) the innaccuracies of such a message.
Tololy’s box has once more been tagged.Check out my blog!
Issam – yes, there is a long tradition of Jesus being in cartoons – Moses too, often. In other forms of art as well.
Some of these are insulting, some only making other points. Sometimes there are protests
In the case of the current cartoons, the ones I’ve seen were mostly complimentary – at least one drew upon the Muslim tradition of illustrating the Muslim prophet. You do know such things exist? Especially in Turkey and Iran.
I saw these cartoons back in September, the one cartoon I saw that might cause offence, I took to be a comment on the mis-use of Islam by terrorists, not an attack on Islam.
For Europeans, the irony is that the publisher wanted to show that Islam wasn’t about terrorism, and that it was possible to write about it, illustrate it, without crazed jihadis threatening terror. And of course they have been proved wrong. But the over-reaction just adds fuel to those who say Muslims cannot be accomodated in the west. It will also encourage those hostile to Muslims to create and circulate more cartoons, knowing that it gets a reaction.
There must have been a better way to handle this.
For the cynical, there is also the spectacle of Qurans and Mosques (and Muslims) being blown up in Pakistan without the Muslim world protesting. This suggests that Arab governments use the cartoons as a safe way of distracting their people from real problems in their region.