Cartoon Controversy: Cannon of “Free Speech” versus “Sword of Jihadism”

Polarization is Fuelling Extremism and Hindering the Spread of Democratic Values


Najah Kadhim*


The publication of the infamous cartoons about the Holy Prophet (pbuh) in a
Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, and their republication in other European
media have been a setback for the spread of free speech and democratic values in
the Muslim world. They have also been a serious obstacle to the attempts to
narrow the gap between the West and Muslim society.

In a world of tension, instability and globalization, the need for a univision,
a building of bridges between people and a strengthening of common human values
is of the utmost importance. Instead, the row generated in the aftermath of the
publi­cation of the cartoons has done exactly the opposite and has been hijacked
by the extremists on both sides. Reductionism, stereotyping, generalization and
simplifi­cation, as well as claims to the “absolute truth” have become firmly
entrenched in their minds.

The radicals in the secularist camp have used the power of the media to whip up
the argument to promote emotional venom in defence of “free speech”. Their
action has been matched by militant Muslims, who have used the power of religion
to mobilize mass gatherings around the world and thus trigger waves of emotions,
violence and sloganeering against non-Muslims.

It is imperative that the wise, reasonable and moderate majority of both camps,
who believe in the common good of humanity, step in to isolate the Muslim and
non-Muslim radicals, restore the debate to a constructive dialogue, and prevent
any further damage to intercommunal relations.

The Secular Radicals
In the 1890s, the French newspaper La Libre Parole [Free Speech] ran a series of
articles and crude cartoons commissioned by its editor, Edouard Drumout, about
what it saw as the dominance of Jews in Europe in general and France in
particular. The campaign reached fever pitch in 1894, when Alfred Dreyfus, a
French artillery officer, was put on trial for treason, an event that split
French society.

Europe has had a unique history of turning on its minorities, culminating in the
greatest violence known to humankind, when 62 million people were slaughtered
during the Second World War. The Holocaust was Hitler’s attempt to exterminate
the Jews, who comprised the majority of the victims, though many other groups
were also put to death, including the Roma, Slavs, Greeks, and even Germans who
opposed the Nazi regime.

It is Europe’s history of intolerance, cultural singularity, racism and double
standards against minorities and the powerless, which worries Muslims and other
observers, who fear a repeat of these events. Indeed, there have already been
depressing developments in the early years of the twenty-first century with talk
of “exit strategy” and “the future of Muslims in Europe”. There is also the fear
of Islam and Muslims in the minds of some non-Muslims, who practise various
forms of bigotry against them. It is their anxiety about losing their power to
the influence of Islamic culture, which could explain the reaction of the
secularists to the affair of the cartoons in Jyllands-Posten.

The Danish newspaper, which had commissioned the cartoons, had fully anticipated
Muslim reaction, yet decided to go ahead with their publication. According to
the Guardian, it was the same newspaper that, in April 2003, rejected
unsolicited cartoons about the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The editors decided
that the readers of Jyllands-Posten would not find the cartoons amusing and
their publication might well provoke an outcry.

The Danish episode, the republication of the cartoons in various European media,
the picture of the Prophet on a T-shirt worn by Roberto Calderoli at the Italian
Embassy in Libya (who has since been forced to resign), the reference to the
Prophet as a terrorist by the American Reverends Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson
in 2004: all these events have caused the Muslim community to regard the affair
as a deliberate insult. What has really stirred up Muslim emotions is not only
the pejorative depiction of the Prophet but also that the cartoons were designed
to humiliate and polarize Muslims and remind them that they are clearly Europe’s
latest “Other”. It is a blunt double standard applied by radicals belonging to a
civilized and secular society, where people of different backgrounds and faiths
are supposed to be treated equally and without injustice or gross violation of
their rights. Should one expect the principle of “freedom of speech” to be
extended to child pornography or jokes about mentally handicapped people or
obscene telephone calls, or the many other examples that been mentioned since
the beginning of this crisis?

Superficially, it is indeed a double standard. A closer analysis, however,
reveals it to be a barefaced show of power. It is clearly a form of domination
with a thin and flimsy veneer of something called “freedom of speech”. Its
adherents claim for it a sanctity that is not allowed to the Other. It can
invade the divinity of the Other at will with a fully muscled attack to preserve
its own sanctity. It claims the right to set its own standard and apply its own
criteria, yet that right is not granted to the Other.

This is a display of power, no more and no less. In the past, the cannon of fire
was used to invade and physically colonize Muslim lands en masse by means of
military might. Today, it is psychological colonialism using the cannon of “free
speech” from the European arsenal of media power. The Other has to be confined 
to the Western way of thinking and the Western mentality and mind settings
dimension to qualify for membership of the “free speech” club and satisfy the
European power formula. Formerly, it was the enslavement of the land; today, it
is the enslavement of the mind.

Another manifestation of this power is the persistence of some Western media
personnel and politicians in using the _expression “Islamic terrorism”, implying
that Islam and terrorism are synonymous and, therefore, every Muslim is a
potential terrorist. This has created a situation in which no followers of other
faiths have had to endure such extreme alienation or suffer abuse by this power
so regularly. The feeble excuse given by the users of this _expression is that
all the terror groups in the Muslim world use the words “Islam” or “Islamic” as
part of their group names (despite the fact that the largest group is called
al‑Qa‘idah).

One might well ask if it is fair to attach such a description to a religion with
more than 1.3 billions adherents, simply because of the behaviour of a tiny
minority of militants. When Muslims hear the _expression “Islamic terrorism”, it
not only angers them consciously, but also implants feelings of frustration and
uneasiness in their subconscious. The antagonism that is provoked inclines
Muslims to be unreceptive to Western ideas or even to resist them, to encourage
extremism or the belief in the “war” of the West versus Islam. Is this not the
first step to the polarization of or the creation of tension between the two
camps? Are the Western media and politicians really unaware of the psychological
and social implications for Muslims when they refer to “Islamic terrorism”? Is
this _expression used by design or by accident? To me, the former looks more
plausible than the latter.

Even if this is the way for the Western media to deal with Muslims in distant
lands, it is certainly not, as the ideals and principles of freedom and
secularism suggest, the way to deal with Europe’s minorities, when more than
half of their members have been born and bred in Europe. Just because the Other
happens to be connected with the European historical subconscious about Islam or
is influenced by its geographical proximity to the Muslim world or its cultural
extension, it does not mean that European Muslims should be dehumanized.

We constantly hear of Europe’s belief in integration and of some governments
even following the path to multiculturalism. The reality, however, indicates
that even in politics, where pluralism can be seen in action, the homogenous
culture creates its own controversies and has to negotiate a long and bumpy road
to multiculturalism. There are still more challenges in the social and cultural
fields. Any minority culture that is understood according to its own merits and
on its own terms will produce constructive changes and modifications with a
positive reflection on society as a whole. When the dominant society uses a show
of force in any form to impose a set of values or rules, the result is changes
and modifications which are distorted and deformed and which push the minority
group to the margins of society.

Minorities will always be on the defensive, and their response to events will be
reactive rather than proactive. The reality of multiculturalism today is,
frankly speaking, little more than multicolourism. Western society has become
somewhat blind to the colour of the skin, yet no real power, no matter how
little, has been conceded. The West has still not reached the level of
inclusiveness that would be expected in a modern and mature civilization of the
twenty-first century. In practice, Europe is still culturucentric, in other
words, a complete monoculture continues to dominate others.

Furthermore, are not the Europeans ardent believers in human rights? Belief in a
faith and its sanctity is a human right. The violation of that right means that
the freedom to express its divinity and beliefs has been denied. Have human
rights not been enshrined by the United Nations and have somehow become blended
smoothly with local culture to produce global values? India and Japan are two
examples of this phenomenon. So, why do we so often hear about the
“incompatibility” of “Western values” with Islam? Although it is true that these
values originated in Europe, which deserves the credit for their humanity, yet
their propagation throughout the world since the end of the Second World War has
enabled them to develop a global identity and character.

However, the radical secularists continue to remind the Other that Western
values must be imposed, as pure western, because they are superior to anything
else. In reaction, the radical Muslims and the tyrannical rulers of the Muslim
countries hinder the establishment of the direct and indirect influences that
accompany the spread of these values. The fact that these values are promoted by
Western secularists (interpreted by the Other as Big Brother), generates from
the Other a type and level of resistance and violence resonant of the colonial
period. Indeed, following the row over the cartoons, there have been signs of
the strengthening of forces opposed to democracy and human rights in the Muslim
countries.

Philosophically speaking, the West in general, and Europe in particular, do not
believe in the absolute in theory or in practice. Since the Enlightenment, the
work and reasoning of European philosophers have focused on the relativism that
has effectively shaped modernism and postmodernism. The use of “freedom of
speech” in an absolute manner without any limits or conditions is contrary to
European tradition and represents serious contradictions in the thinking and
practice of its societies.

The publication of the photographs depicting American soldiers abusing prisoners
in Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad and the video film of British soldiers beating
Iraqi civilians in Basrah have fuelled an already volatile situation and
provided the radicals with the polarization and the collision course which they
have wanted and which has been implied by their behaviour.

Muslim Militancy
The “clash of civilizations”, an interpretation favoured by some non-Muslims,
also has many supporters among Muslims.

The cartoon affair has proved that Muslims are extremely vulnerable to attack by
the media. This is a weakness that is easily exploited and makes the behaviour
of Muslims clearly predictable. The level of violence was again expressed in
various forms and colours, thus showing the militant Muslims to be no better
than their radical counterparts among the non-Muslims. It was especially
depressing to see Muslims resorting to violent tactics that included storming
and setting fire to embassies, broadcasting offensive slogans, and generally
creating an emotional frenzy.

What the militant Muslims have shown is their intolerance of the intolerance
expressed by some of the European media. This is, of course, a contradiction,
for they were trying to rectify one mistake with another mistake. As the saying
goes: “Two wrongs do not make a right.” The Holy Qur’an teaches a basic
principle that one injustice cannot be treated with another injustice.

The intelligentsia, which normally plays an important role in any mature society
by supplying ideas, the bloodline of social activity, has failed miserably in
the Arab and Muslim worlds. As intellectuals, they ought to provide the basic
models of morality that have the courage to speak the truth. What the world has
witnessed as events in the Middle East have unfolded, is that the majority of
intellectuals have paid lip service to the masses, fearful of antagonizing them,
even when they have been behaving in an irresponsible manner.

Meanwhile, the storming and burning down of diplomatic missions, contrary to
international law, seem to have been part of a political agenda. How else could
people behave in this way in countries where there is a fear throughout society
of initiating any kind of action, especially in the political arena? We should
not forget the oppressive regimes of these countries and their effective and
repressive security apparatus that has full control of events. The violence also
indicates the presence of extremist social forces outside the government domain,
which still hold sway in the Muslim world.

What is more worrying, though they number only a handful, is that militant
Muslims are resorting to violence in European countries. In early February 2006,
a bunch of hooligans took the centre stage during a demonstration in London,
bran­dishing banners inciting murder and using extremely offensive language.
This demon­s­tration in particular did incalculable damage to the Muslim cause
and destroyed whatever sympathy was formerly felt by many non-Muslims around the
world for Muslims and their legitimate concern about the degrading cartoons.
Indeed, it has since overshadowed the original complaints and reinforced the
argument by the radical secularists that Muslims are incapable of accepting free
speech.

Muslims complain about the double standards of the secularists, yet Muslims also
forget the equally double standards applied from time to time in Muslim society,
as well as its apathy and indifference towards the sufferings of other people.
Examples are the countless murders and kidnappings of civilians – Christians,
Jews and others – who happen to be Western and in the wrong place at the very
wrong time. Christians and Jews are also constantly referred to as the “enemy”.
Even native Christians in the Arab world were frightened in the aftermath of the
infamous cartoon episode.  Nigerian Christians were the target of violent attack
by their Muslim fellow citizens, who also set fire to churches during yet
another public protest against the cartoons.

Racist remarks and graphic anti-Jewish representations are a frequent
occur­rence, no effort being made to distinguish between Judaism as a religion
and the policies of the Israeli government. This kind of behaviour is a clear
violation of the basic principle of the Qur’an that the Christians and Jews are
also People of the Book. It is also contrary to the practice of the Prophet and
his Successors, who pioneered the differentiation between combatants and
civilians in their military campaigns. They were instructed not to kill women,
children and the elderly, nor to destroy forests, crops, animals and buildings.
This respect for people and property was applied to both believers and
unbelievers. One should remember the Prophet’s kind treatment of the Jews, even
when some of the Jewish tribes in Madinah sided with the Quraysh in the latter’s
campaign to destroy him. There are numerous other examples that are well
documented in Islamic and non-Islamic sources, highlighting how far removed is
the behaviour of the militant Muslims from the practice of the Prophet.

The violence inflicted on innocent non-Muslims, including women and children,
has become the unique trademark of the terrorist groups originating in the
Muslim world. Their methods of killing are devoid of any feelings of remorse or
humanity, for the concept of perfection is part of their psychological makeup.
Because they believe that they are God’s purest representatives on this earth,
they assume that they can act as they please with impunity.

The imposition of an unquestionable truth means that there is no allowance for
any variable or any new or formerly unknown concept, since all the decisions
have been taken and all the problems solved according to a rigid code of conduct
and ideology. There is no room for the middle ground, for extremists find it
difficult to adapt to change – especially when it affects their culture – and to
absorb new ideas. Their resistance leads to violence, the intensity of which
increases with the level of change that is taking place in society.

Before long, and as expected according to the physical law (though it is
difficult to apply the physical law of solid matter to the fluidity of social
behaviour, yet the comparison is a useful way of explaining the phenomenon), the
momentum of the killing culture and the inertia of fellow Muslims to halt it
have been affecting innocent Muslims themselves. Sometimes, the vengeance has
been fiercer, more blood spilt and the number of victims greater than for
non-Muslims.

Soft targets, as witnessed daily in Iraq and from time to time in Saudi Arabia,
Egypt and elsewhere, as well as the events in Bali, Madrid, London and New York,
are the professional and preferred methods of the terrorists.  Also their other
true specialism is the attack on cultural and holy places of Muslims and
non-Muslims.  In addition, there is the revival of particularly horrible ancient
methods, such as beheading, a physically and psychologi­cally cruel and inhumane
way of killing a person. The terrorists are not only causing death, but also
employing a means of torture that reflects the level of their hatred and anger.
Thanks to the violence of the Jihadists, Neo-Salafi and other groups, the name
and image of Islam have been well and truly blackened. This situation has
provided the ammunition for some Western media personnel and politicians to
portray the religion as encouraging terrorism, and Prophet Muhammad and every
Muslim as congenital terrorists.

Double standards are manifested in the abusive treatment of minorities in the
Arab and Muslim worlds, frequently those of the same religion, such as the Kurds
and black Africans. Another example is the almost total silence of Muslim
society and its leaders concerning the destruction of the places connected with
Prophet Muhammad and the early period of Islamic history in Saudi Arabia. His
birthplace has been converted into a library. The battlegrounds of Madinah, such
as Uhud, are now covered with concrete.

During the past 50 years, the holy cities of Mecca and Medina have suffered
incalculable violence. More than 300 historical sites have been levelled
systema­ti­cally, only a few historic buildings remain in Mecca, and these are
about to be demolished.[1]



“We are witnessing the last few moments of the history of Mecca,” says Sami
Angawi, a Saudi expert on the Islamic architecture of the Holy City.[2]



The Way Forward
On the one hand, there are the radical secularists, who regard Islam as the
threat to their power at home and abroad. In the minds of some of them, Islam
has replaced the Soviet Union as the latest political enemy, which needs to be
dealt with, as they believe, with provocation, polarization and confrontation.
On the other hand, there are the radical Muslims, whose insecurity and hatred
find _expression in their wicked use of Islam or the violence of the sword of
jihadism as their first and last resort to confront non-Muslims, especially
secularists in the West. Their strategy is to provoke the Western secularists
into increasing their attacks on Muslims so that new young recruits will be
attracted to the ranks of the radical groups to fight under the “banner of
Islam”. There is no doubt that the photographs depicting the abuse of Iraqi
prisoners by American soldiers and the video film showing British soldiers
beating Iraqi youths inflame Muslim militancy and complicate the implementation
of democracy, when the bearers (Coalition forces) of “humane” Western values
show themselves to be no better than the dictators leading the Muslim reaction.

These are the people who need to be isolated by the rational majority of Muslims
and non-Muslims, who believe in the sanctity of human life, and encouraged to
engage in constructive debate. Muslims in the Muslim world and Muslim minorities
in the West in particular, need to engage themselves and their communities in
soul-searching questioning to enable them to argue and articulate their anger in
other ways whenever they face pressing challenges. They need to create a more
dynamic relationship with one another and learn to pursue a dialogue in various
forms such as the written and spoken word, film, art, etc.

Interfaith dialogue is certainly an important path to pursue, for the common aim
of all religions is humanity, truth and love. This type of dialogue should not
be restricted to spiritual matters but examine social and cultural aspects too.

Muslims need new ideas and modern material and mental tools to equip them for
influential civic participation, which is important for the Muslim community and
society in general. Muslim education should include knowledge of one’s rights
and duties as well as an understanding of citizenship in a modern society. The
Muslim community should make sophisticated use of the media to project a fair
represen­tation of its members and should seek to understand the laws of the
country so as to protect their rights and beliefs.

Muslims need to be more committed to making a greater contribution to the
well-being of the society in which they live. The way forward during this
difficult period is not resentment, withdrawal and the highly charged emotion
that have isolated them in their own communities. Instead, Muslims should use
their brains, their knowledge, their creativity and other rational tools to seek
a place at the heart of society so that they can serve themselves and others,
regardless of the religion, race or background of the others. That is the
essence of the Islamic message.

It is equally important to project a modern, innovative way of reading and
interpreting Islam. It is necessary to begin with the Qur’an. Its emphasis on
dialogue should be noted, as well as the way in which it formulates questions
and references to multifaith societies. A significant reminder of the human
dimension is how the Qur’an addresses the Prophet: “We sent you but as a mercy
to the world.” More than 170 verses address humankind as “O people…”. Numerous
verses refer to “Bani Adam” or the followers of Adam, in other words, humankind.

There are famous examples of the Prophet’s tolerance and kindness. He cared for
a lady when she fell ill, despite the fact that it had formerly been her habit
to throw rubbish at him whenever he passed by her home. He also visited a Jewish
man when he became ill. These examples and many more should be highlighted and
disseminated to both Muslims and non-Muslims.

From the Western point of view, a minority is defined not numerically, but by
the level of its power and how far others make decisions for it. By granting a
small proportion of the power available, an effective leadership could be
created. The result would be social cohesion instead of tension and division
among the members of society. Thus would be laid the foundation of the harmony
and dynamism that are necessary to bring out the best in people, regardless of
their background. In this way, everyone is in a position to make a creative
contribution to enable the society to compete effectively with other parts of
the world in a global market. Indeed, a good relationship with the Muslim
community in the West could help the Western nations to build the urgently
needed bridges with the Arab and Muslim worlds and narrow the gap of mistrust
and dislike between the two communities.

Non-Muslims need to be educated about the immense Muslim contribution to world
civilization. An awareness campaign should be initiated to inform Muslims of
their rights and duties as citizens in the West as well to convince Western
non-Mus­lims that the presence of people from different backgrounds benefits and
enriches a society. People need to learn true tolerance of those who are
different, which means the ability to hold a discussion with those whose views
may be difficult to accept. There is clearly no real dialogue with those who
share the same outlook on life.

Non-Muslims are asked to give the Muslims the respect that they deserve. Mutual
respect at individual and community level promotes mutual understanding with its
psychological and emotional implications, which finally lead to mental matu­rity
and tolerance. Respect also encourages responsiveness, interaction and mutual
participation, which is vital for innovation and creativity in a society in this
age of rapidly expanding information and knowledge.

Clear condemnation of the cartoons about Prophet Muhammad was not forth­coming
from the moderate non-Muslims, and this is necessary for peace and social
cohesion. It is important, too, for the truthfulness and transparency of Western
society, that the moderate Muslims are asked to condemn loudly the acts of
violence by Muslim militants.

The West is divided over how to deal with Islam, as are the Muslims over how to
interact with the West. It is the role of the majority and every responsible
person on both sides to acknowledge and repair the rift, and thus prevent the
already polarized situation from escalating to a dangerous level. They should
search for effective ways to reinvigorate the dialogue and thus avoid the
“dialogue of the deaf”, which has governed intercommunal relations so far.


*Najah Kadhim is the Executive Director of IFID and a Senior University
Lecturer, London, England.