Ian Boyne
THE ISLAMIC world has been in rage for the past couple of weeks with a number of people killed and property destroyed, as a result of the publication of 12 cartoons which unfavourably depict Prophet Muhammad and the Islamic religion.
A number of prominent international figures, including United States President George W. Bush, former President Bill Clinton, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Anan, have commented on the growing violence and anger in the Muslim world and among Muslims in Europe.
At issue is the matter of free speech, freedom of the press, religious and cultural sensitivity and the clash of values.
REPRINTING CARTOONS
In September last year, a Danish right-wing paper, Jyllands-Posten, published the cartoons, one of which showed Prophet Muhammad with a bomb on top of his head, rather than a turban. But it received little publicity until some irate Muslims found it and began circulating it.
It was only recently that the cartoons have been reprinted in Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Switzerland Hungary, New Zealand, Ukraine and Jordan. In the United States, only the Philadelphia Inquirer has reprinted them
All the big U.S. media, including the influential New York Times which boast 'all the news that's fit to print', have reported on the issue but have not reprinted the offending cartoons. The British Broadcasting Services has also refused to publish the cartoons.
But on that ultimate bastion of free expression and democracy, the Internet, one can find the photos, though hackers have been at work.
European embassies have been set ablaze in some Middle Eastern countries, and this has proven to be yet another flashpoint in the continuing cultural and ideological war between the Muslim world and the West.
CRITICAL ISSUES
Islamic tradition not only forbids offensive representation of Prophet Muhammad may peace be upon his soul but any representation at all. Neither Allah nor his Prophet must be represented pictorially or graphically. That he was represented in a negative has only added fuel to a blazing fire.
How far should the press go in respecting the scruples and traditions of religious groups?
How much power should we allow religious folk in a secular, pluralistic society? And where does this so-called 'respect for religion' end?
When is criticism of a religion 'in good taste', and who determines these things the religious zealots? These are all critical issues.
In a joint statement issued on Wednesday by the U.N. Secretary-General, some key figures from the European Union, as well as a prominent pan-Islamic body which criticised the cartoons for their offensive nature, the leaders said, "We believe freedom of the press entails responsibility and discretion and should respect the beliefs and tenets of all religions," while deploring the violence associated with the protests.
COWARDLY EDITORIAL
The New York Times, in what some would see as a cowardly editorial on Tuesday, says "The New York Times and much of the rest of the nation's news media have reported on the cartoons but have refrained from showing them. That seems a reasonable choice for news organisations that usually refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols, especially since the cartoons are easy to describe in words."
Britain's' Sunday Times put it well: "Islam is protected by an invisible blasphemy law. It is called fear," says columnist Jasper Gerard.
But lest you are too eager to pounce on the Muslims and use this incident as another weapon in the battle to show that Islam is inherently intolerant, bigoted, fanatical and disrespectful of free speech, bear in mind that free speech is also under attack in the West. The so-called 'hate speech' laws particularly strong in Europe, pose a potentially serious problem for free expression.
A pastor was thrown in jail in Scandinavia for saying that homosexuality was an abomination, as the Bible explicitly calls it (whatever is our belief about homosexuality or the Bible). In many campuses of the United States merely opposing homosexuality and saying it is an ungodly and unhealthy lifestyle is deemed hate speech. Expressing right-wing views ñ not necessarily outlandish views--is labelled "hate speech" by many of society's guardians who are eager to protect certain minorities from "emotional pain" and "prejudice".
Because of the over-reaction to the threat of terrorism by the American and British Governments, an atmosphere has been fostered and legislation enacted to restrict free speech. Free speech is under threat all over the world as we move toward an Orwellian Order.
The West has to be careful about hypocrisy. For while Western journalists talk self-righteously and haughtily about free speech and freedom of the Press, as the Muslim Council of Britain was quoted in the Christian Science Monitor on Wednesday as saying, "Most of Europe would not dare mock the Holocaust, and rightly so". Last year the Catholic Church won a court injunction in France against a company wanting to put out a fashion ad based on the Last Supper. The judge, in granting the injunction to the church, said the ad was "a gratuitous intrusion on people's innermost beliefs". So why shouldn't an "innermost belief" like the ban on pictorially portraying the Prophet not be respected?
And it was revealed on Wednesday that the same paper which published the cartoons in violation of Islamic sensitivities refused to publish some satirical cartoons on Jesus' resurrection. The Editor reportedly said readers would find them offensive. But, in a globalised world of instant communication and Internet penetration, an editor can't be just concerned about the effects on the readers at home, some would say.
In countries like Germany, France and Austria, Holocaust denial is a crime. But last week a French court threw out an application for an injunction against a satirical publication that planned to print the twelve cartoons. Said the editor of the publication : "Criticising religion is legitimate in a state of law and must remain so". I completely agree with him.
The Union of Islamic Organisations of France, however,countered that "one cannot insult a religion". Why should people not have the freedom to insult a religion if they believe its beliefs are absurd, backward and inimical to people's interest? What is fundamentally at stake is a clash of values. The values of free speech, free expression, the right to dissent and to publicise ones dissent against the totalitarian view which says only one way, the True Path, must have expression.
The atheist Sam Harris, in his highly polemical rant against religion 'The End of Faith' shows why in his view religion is not only wrong and absurd in many ways but very dangerous. The spirit of intolerance, bigotry and arrogance is embedded in many a religious heart and is at times inseparable from religious devotion. We should not give in to the tyrannical dictates of Fundamentalists, whether of the Islamic, Christian or Communist stripe (Cuba still maintains its denial of civil liberties and freedom of expression under its secular Fundamentalist Communist ideology, which is as dangerous as Islamic and Christian Fundamentalism)
I do a television programme, Religious Hardtalk, which exposes people to a variety of religious perspectives and which critiques many common-held beliefs and doctrines of mainstream Christianity. If it were left to some religious people, that programme would be banned from television so that the people would not be "confused" or "disturbed" by these revolutionary, "Satanic" ideas. These are the same people who would condemn the Muslims for their "extremism" and "fanaticism", not realising that they are exhibiting the same spirit.
But all True Believers adamantly assert their right to believe the One Truth, while denying others the right to aggressively proclaim theirs. I am afraid of the Theocrats. Will religion advance or hold back progress in the 21st Century? Is it largely a force of reaction and backwardness or a force for progress and advancement? The realities we are witnessing in the religious world are not encouraging and they are not limited to the Muslim world.
What makes Islam particularly disturbing is the willingness of many Muslims to employ force and violence to enforce their views and to vent their rage. Many Christians have the same spirit of intolerance and bigotry but they have a less militant theology so they would only lobby to deny you your freedom of expression. They won't kill you or burn your buildings as many Muslims are prepared to do (Though not all Muslims believe in violence, I hasten to add).
Harvard's Samuel Huntington wrote years ago about "the clash of civilizations". The right to dissent, to criticise all views, including sacrosanct religious ones, is a fundamental right, not just a bourgeois right.
As a Danish student at Georgetown University wrote in the Los Angeles Times on Tuesday: "At issue is whether two cultures can co-exist if Muslims refuse to accept one of the basic tenets of liberalism: The right of others to express their views, however offensive, without the threat of violent reprisal. The Muslims who torched embassies and the Governments that did not condemn them have shown themselves incapable of understanding what pluralistic societies are all about". Precisely. That the hypocrisy is not confined to any one religion or region is entirely besides the point.
* Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist. You can reach him at ianboyne1@yahoo.com .
