AL-HUDA
Foundation, NJ U. S. A
Article 1: - Article 2: - Article 3: - Article 4: - Article 5: - Article 6: - Article 7: - Article 8: - Article 9: - Article 10: - Article 11: - Article 12:
Cartoon
Wars: The Challenge for Muslims in the West
By Jeremy Henzell Thomas
7 February 2006
The
furor over the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, and the acres
of newsprint and hours of air time expended on them raise many
complex issues.
I would like to focus on only one of them, because I believe it
be of such pressing importance that it trumps all the others at
this time. This is the problem of emotionalism and violence in
the name of Islam.
This does not mean that I do not believe that we must continue
to debate the many questions raised by this episode.
We still need to answer the following questions, amongst many
others:
What is the ideal balance between a “sacrosanct” freedom of
expression and sensitive regard for the equally sacrosanct
beliefs of others? To what extent should we require influential
people in civil society, whether in the state, a corporation or
a newspaper, to use language and deploy images more responsibly
than simply observing the bare minimum the law demands?
Can such a balance ever be achieved, given the degree of
generalized spiritual illiteracy and ignorance within
secularized Western media, or, indeed, vociferous anti-Muslim
bias in such media, whether secular or motivated by adherents of
other religions?
To what extent has the episode been deliberately engineered by
malicious people bent on fanning the flames of a wished-for
Clash of Civilizations between Islam and the West, yet
masquerading as brave defenders of a precious freedom?
Is there a connection between this episode and an underlying
rage provoked by perceptions of injustice, double standards and
hypocrisy in the treatment of Muslims by Western governments?
I do not disregard the pressing importance of all these
questions, some of which have been succinctly answered by Tariq
Ramadan in an interview in Switzerland last week with Nathan
Gardels, whose publication New Perspectives Quarterly is the
organ of the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions.
Professor Ramadan makes it clear that this is not a legal issue,
or an issue of rights. Free speech is a legally protected right
in Europe and no one, he says, should contest this. There are,
however, civic limits based on an understanding that free speech
should be used wisely so as not to provoke sensitivities,
particularly in hybrid, multicultural societies. He asks: Do I
go around insulting people just because I'm free to do it? No.
It is a matter of civic responsibility and wisdom not a question
of legality or rights.
Others have questioned whether the issue is really one of civic
responsibility, arguing instead that it is more a matter of
Muslim immaturity.
As Chair of FAIR in the aftermath of 9/11 I spoke out against
rising Islam phobia, so eloquently castigated by William
Dalrymple in an article in The Independent at that time as “the
brazen hostility, bordering on contempt, for the most cherished
principles of Islamic life and thought, reaching an apoplexy of
hate in the modern Western media who represent Islam as
intolerant of diversity, monolithic and war-mongering.”
Such “scribes of the new racism”, he continued, perpetrate
“idiotic stereotypes of Muslim behaviour and belief” and
“ludicrously unbalanced, inaccurate and one-sided” images of
Islam, even in our quality broadsheets. “Anti-Muslim racism”, he
concludes, “now seems in many ways to be replacing
anti-Semitism as the principal Western expression of bigotry
against ‘the other’.”
And yes, the publication of the cartoons can be seen as another
example of crass stereotyping, a particularly blatant, stupid
and useless provocation designed to inflame emotions rather than
initiate a sensible and reasoned debate about free speech or
integration.
And their re-publication is now nothing more than a deliberate
power struggle, a test of wills to see who will get the upper
hand.
As Tariq Ramadan asks, how does one imagine that the average
Muslim in Europe who opposes terrorism will react seeing the
Prophet Mohammed depicted with a bomb in his turban? These
cartoons are seen by average Muslims and not just radicals as a
transgression against something deeply sacred to them. What do
we want, he says - to polarize our world or build bridges?
That said, this is my plea: the way to combat such provocations,
the way to change hearts and minds and reframe perceptions about
Islam and Muslims is to exemplify the finest elements of the
Islamic tradition, not, please not, to play so witlessly into
the hands of detractors by exhibiting the very behaviors which
they ignorantly associate with all Muslims.
What could be better designed to confirm their biases and spread
them ever more widely amongst the community at large than ugly,
hostile, strident ranting and inflammatory banners threatening
violence and even demanding execution? Nothing could be better
calculated to offer the worst possible disservice to the Muslim
community and to wider perceptions of Islam than this. “Look,”
they will say, “didn’t we tell you that Muslims can never be
integrated into Europe?”
Not in their wildest dreams could Muslim-bashers have hoped for
more powerful verification of one of their more plausible
arguments: that the word “Islamophobia” is simply a label
manipulated by Muslims to repel just criticism of their own
attitudes and behaviour.
A correspondent in America makes the point that lacking real
leadership, a few hotheads, spewing self-defeating rhetoric can
easily get Muslims onto the streets to defend the Prophet
Muhammad, Islam or the Qur’an. Tales of Qur’ans being flushed
down toilets created a similar reaction that led to little more
than the deaths of Muslim rioters at the hands of Muslim police.
In the imbroglio of these “cartoon wars”, it is rampaging
Muslims, too, who have been shot and killed in Muslim countries.
Are these people so psychologically unaware that they do not
realize that they are being baited? Do they not realise that in
a desacralised Western society, religion is not sacred, but is
centre stage as the primary target of provocative and defamatory
attacks? It is a popular pastime to attack religion and to blame
religion for all of the world’s ills, even though it is easy to
show that religious violence has played a very minor role in the
tally of deaths in the history of human conflict. The way to
respond to ignorance is to try to enlighten it through superior
knowledge and fierce critical intelligence, not the fires of
emotionalism.
The people who knowingly provoke Muslim rage are hugely
entertained by religious people making fools of themselves, and
it serves their cause well to have yet more evidence that
religious people are all fanatics who are moved not by the
tangible injustices and crimes represented by world poverty,
social inequalities, political oppression, or the rape of the
environment, but only by pride, competitive aggression and hurt
feelings at the desecration of symbols which mean little or
nothing to the majority of people in a secularized society.
The Prophets never fought against anyone out of such personal
feelings. They fought to defend the true worth and dignity of
the human being, to establish justice and to save the weak and
oppressed from tyranny. The Prophet Muhammad’s enemies used to
throw garbage on him, and spit on him, and place the entrails of
animals on his back when he would bow to pray, but he never
struck out at them.
I am not at all suggesting that fanatical behavior is merely
immature, impolitic and ill-judged because it plays into the
hands of detractors.
I mean that it is utterly wrong and a disgrace to Islam, no
matter how much we may wish to pursue the valid questions that I
raised at the beginning of this article.
At a recent meeting in Washington DC dedicated to providing
authentic education about Islam and Muslims to the American
people, a Muslim journalist expressed the opinion that the only
thing that would force newspaper editors to moderate their
language (whether verbal or visual) was the threat of punitive
legal action.
I disagreed with him. Of course, legal action is a viable option
if laws exist to deal with a particular case, but legal action
is not “the only way”. The best and most lasting way to change
hearts and minds is not to compel and coerce, but to persuade
and enlighten others through the superiority of your arguments,
the fineness of your speech and the beauty of your character –
and, wherever possible, to find the convergence between the best
of the tradition you represent and the best of whatever
tradition or way of life is adhered to by others.
Tariq Ramadan puts this well: “Today’s most urgent task is to
bring together women and men from all backgrounds, from all
convictions and religions, in the name of the common universal
principles of the dignity of human beings and of the critical
spirit. To overcome the ideology of fear, to loosen the grip of
the emotions, requires a demanding critical intelligence and a
sense of the ethics of debate, of receptivity. Some will
identify these qualities with belief and spirituality, others
with their conscience alone. But each one will understand them
as the necessary, imperative qualities of his or her humanity."
One of the founding principles of Western civilization is
Plato’s affirmation that dialectic (the testing process of
critical enquiry through open exchange of ideas) is immeasurably
superior to rhetoric as a means of persuasion. It is because of
this that in the contemporary usage of all modern European
languages, the use of the word “rhetoric” almost invariably has
negative connotations.
We might legitimately say, of course, that this principle is
being abused by many people in the forefront of public life,
including politicians and journalists, and that manipulative
rhetoric, including the nakedly exploitative versions which
flourish in a spiritually vacuous consumer society, is more
deeply embedded in our culture than ever.
There is some truth in this, because fewer and fewer people are
intellectually, emotionally and spiritually literate enough to
understand the vocabulary which would enable them to fathom the
depths to which they are conditioned and manipulated – and this
applies no less to those religionists of any faith who are
ignorant of the spiritual principles underlying their faith and
incapable of civilized discussion or tolerant acceptance of
diversity.
We can wag our fingers at the decline in the intelligence and
refinement of public discourse, which many see as a symptom of
wider civilisational decline, but the fact is that we live in a
society which still at its best honors open dialogue as an
indispensable process in the advancement of human knowledge and
the betterment of human societies.
This very privilege rests not only on the legacy of the Greeks,
but also on the legacy of Muslims themselves to Western
civilisation. As Muhammad Asad eloquently explains in the
Foreword to his monumental The Message of the Qur’an, it was the
Qur’anic “insistence on consciousness and knowledge” which
“engendered among its followers a spirit of intellectual
curiosity and independent inquiry, ultimately resulting in that
splendid era of learning and scientific research which
distinguished the world of Islam at the height of its cultural
vigor.” That same spirit penetrated the medieval Western mind,
giving rise in due course to the Renaissance of learning in the
West and ultimately, as Muhammad Asad writes, to “the age of
science in which we are now living.”
Yes, that “age of science” has brought with it many negative
consequences, just as the “age of freedom” presents us with many
difficult choices which test qualities of leadership and
character, and call on our innate ability to discriminate
between what truly liberates the human spirit and what enslaves
it through selfish libertarianism.
Yet I have absolutely no doubt that if I had to choose between
living under an authoritarian religious theocracy and a Western
democracy, I would choose the latter without hesitation.
I would do so because I believe that many of the humane
principles which should govern the conduct of civic society in
the West (even if open to abuse) are actually more in tune with
the spirit of authentic Qur’anic teachings than the oppressive
human formulations imposed on citizens in the name of Islam in
some Muslim lands.
A letter to the Washington Post claims that the demonstrations
are “understandable”, because “Muslims are fed up with the
double standards, the constant attacks on Islam and their
virtual exclusion from mainstream debate.”
But it is in this “exclusion” where the challenge lies.
Exclusion can be imposed by others through the double standards,
hostility and discrimination which emanate from ignorance,
prejudice, bigotry, or downright malice, but exclusion can also
be self-imposed through the very same vices. The wisdom given to
us in the Islamic revelation is not the exclusive,
inward-looking and parochial property of Muslims, to be
jealously defended and set apart from all other formulations, or
retreated into as a sullen refuge for a victimized minority, but
is a universal gift to all mankind.
Muslims need to offer this gift with an open hand for the
benefit of the wider community. Islam has something precious to
give to the West again. It once gave to the West an intellectual
enlightenment. It can now offer the greater prize of spiritual
enlightenment, and by so doing it can restore to the West the
connection between the intellect and the spirit which Western
science, despite its achievements, lost sight of. It can help
to feed the unconscious spiritual hunger of so many people in
our society.
This vital task can only be accomplished by a new breed of
ambassadors who can find the points of convergence between the
best of all traditions. It needs people of emotional maturity,
psychological insight, social intelligence, communicative
competence and inter-cultural sensitivity, many of whom will
have a background not in those occupations traditionally valued
by Muslims, such as engineering, medicine, computer science and
law, but in the Humanities. It needs people of aesthetic
awareness and creativity who can bring to light the beauty of
Islam. It needs articulate people who can express the essential,
universal principles of the faith in nuanced language divested
of cultural baggage. It needs people able to enter into
dialogue and to deploy critical intelligence for the advancement
of human knowledge.
And it needs people with good manners.
It is only the provision of such well-rounded people through a
new vision of education which will reframe perceptions of Islam
and provide the counterbalance to the poverty of fanaticism.
With God’s Grace, perhaps they can also help to restore a sense
of the sacred to our culture, and by so doing awaken more widely
in the hearts and minds of our citizens an aversion for the
desecration of the sacred.
---------------------------
CARTOON CONTROVERSY IS NOT A MATTER OF FREE SPEECH,
BUT CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY
NPQ (New Perspectives Quarterly)
02-02-2006
An
Interview with Tariq Ramadan
Nathan Gardels: What is your response to the challenge to
European Muslims presented by a number of European papers
republishing defamatory cartoons from a Danish daily (Jyllands-Posten)
of the Prophet Mohammed?
Tariq Ramadan: There are three things we have to bear in mind.
First, it is against Islamic principles to represent in imagery
not only Mohammed, but all the prophets of Islam. This is a
clear prohibition.
Second, in the Muslim world, we are not used to laughing at
religion, our own or anybody else's. This is far from our
understanding. For that reason, these cartoons are seen, by
average Muslims and not just radicals, as a transgression
against something sacred, a provocation against Islam.
Third, Muslims must understand that laughing at religion is a
part of the broader culture in which they live in Europe, going
back to Voltaire.
Cynicism, irony and indeed blasphemy are part of the culture.
When you live in such an environment as a Muslim, it is really
important to be able to take a critical distance and not react
so emotionally. You need to hold to your Islamic principles, but
be wise enough not to overreact to provocation.
For Muslim majority countries to react emotionally to these
cartoons (with boycotts) is to nurture the extremists on the
other side, making it a test of wills. On one side, the
extremists argue that, "See, we told you, the West is against
Islam," and on the other side they say, "See, Muslims can't be
integrated into Europe, and they are destroying our values by
not accepting what we stand for." This way of opening a debate
on emotional grounds is, in fact, a way of closing the door on
rational discourse.
What we need now on both sides is an understanding that this is
not a legal issue, or an issue of rights. Free speech is a right
in Europe and legally protected. No one should contest this. At
the same time, there should be an understanding that the
complexion of European society has changed with immigrants
from diverse cultures. Because of that, there should be
sensitivity to Muslims and others living in Europe.
Gardels: Did publishing these cartoons go beyond the limits of
free speech?
Ramadan: There are no legal limits to free speech, but there
are civic limits. In any society, there is a civic understanding
that free speech should be used wisely so not as to provoke
sensitivities, particularly in hybrid, multicultural societies
we see in the world today. It is a matter of civic
responsibility and wisdom, not a question of legality or
rights. In that context, I think it was unwise to publish these
cartoons, because it is the wrong way to start a debate about
integration because it inflames emotions, not courts reason. It
is a useless provocation.
How does one imagine that the average Muslim in Europe who
opposes terrorism will react seeing the Prophet Mohammed
depicted with a bomb in his turban?
Publishing these cartoons is a very stupid way to address the
issue of freedom of speech.
Gardels: Why do you think so many European papers feel obliged
to republish these cartoons?
Ramadan: Now it is a power struggle. Who will have the final
word? Who is right? Who will have the upper hand? If it was
stupid in the first place to publish these cartoons in Denmark,
it is even more emotionally stupid to do it now. What do we
want, to polarize our world or build bridges?
Look, let's have a true debate about the future of our society.
Muslims have to understand there is free speech in Europe, and
that is that. On the other side, there needs to be an
understanding that sensitive issues must be addressed with
wisdom and prudence, not provocation. Just because you have the
legal right to do something doesn't mean you have to do it. You
have to understand the people around you. Do I go around
insulting people just because I'm free to do it? No. It's
called civic responsibility.
Gardels: In defending its publication of the cartoons, an
editorial in the German daily Die Welt said, "The protests from
Muslims would be taken more seriously if they were less
hypocritical. When Syrian television showed drama documentaries
in prime time depicting rabbis as cannibals, the imams were
quiet. "What do you say to that?
Ramadan: Die Welt is not wrong to say this. We Muslims must be
self-critical. At the same time, hypocrisy in the Arab world
doesn't justify insulting Muslims in return. Your teacher
should not be the wrongdoings of others, but your own
principles.
Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of Hassan al-Banna, founder of the
Muslim Brotherhood, is a philosopher and leading spokesman for
Muslims in Europe. Famously, the U.S. has denied him a visa to
come to American to teach at the University of Notre Dame. His
most recent book is "Western Muslims and the Future of Islam"
(Oxford University Press, 2003). He spoke with Nathan Gardels
from Switzerland on Thursday.
DISCLAIMER:
All material published by Al-Huda.com / And the Message Continues is the sole responsibility of its author's).
The opinions and/or assertions contained therein do not necessarily reflect the editorial views of this site,
nor of Al-Huda and its officers.