Controversy

Have we as a community propagated Islam with full sincerity to those who are opposing Muslims and Islam?


The caricature controversy has thrown up a new challenge to the entire Muslim world. All Muslims are concerned about how far will this European-led ‘freedom of expression’ go in defiling the Prophet of Islam. Many Europeans remain adamant that they will persist with this caricature.


Since the February protests over the publication of the caricatures of the holy Prophet (Pbuh), the situation is deadlocked. Despite the expression of regret by some western leaders and the call for calm by some Muslim government and State heads, the conflict that erupted remains unresolved. Muslims worldwide reject the argument that freedom of expression grants the right to insult their Prophet.


Many western non-Muslims, from among the media, politicians and activists, are unwilling to have any limits set to their freedom of expression. European publications have still not completely stopped publishing the cartoons. One newspaper even published the controversial cartoon as late as February 10. In the USA reportedly, an online sale of T-shirts with caricatures of the Prophet had also begun.


While protests across four continents against the caricatures continue, the Muslim response has varied. The most publicised have been angry, and often violent sporadic street protests, calling for death, hangings and beheading, suicide bombings.


Such violence is neither civilised nor legal and goes against the teachings of Islam. Embassies have been burnt and about 30 people have died. But this is anger, personal and political, but yet no degree of outrage or anger can justify breaking the law of the land or behaving in an uncivilised manner. It is a hollow justification which dictates that the justification for my violence flows from an unjust action of another. No ends, motives and injustice can be the licence to opt for any means-be it killings or suicide bombings. Islam abhors this and forbids it.


Let us look at the Quran and Prophet Muhammad’s life (Pbuh) and see the guidance we get for such type of controversy.


If it had been Allah’s plan, they would not have taken false gods: but we made thee not one to watch over their doings, nor art thou set over them to dispose of their affairs. (6:107).


It is He Who has created you; and of you are some that are Unbelievers, and some that are Believers: and Allah sees well all that ye do. (64:2)


First, a Muslim must always remember that all their actions should be guided by what the Quran says. How can a Muslim just react? A Muslim must instead respond according to the guidance provided in the Quran and the life of the holy Prophet. The above Quranic verse teaches us that Allah is the judge and sustainer of the worlds. There are hundreds of ways to protest.


What used to be the Prophet’s reaction in such a situation? He never used to react. He would respond in a very positive and decent manner. Those who committed mischief, the Prophet prayed for them and strived further to propagate Islam with full sincerity. See what the Prophet prayed for, when he was tortured in Taif.


In Taif, the Prophet first met the chiefs and leaders of Thaqif whom he invited to accept Islam. They were, however, rude and discourteous in their treatment of the Prophet. Not being content with their insolent reply, they even stirred up some gangs of the town to harass him. These people followed the Prophet, abusing and throwing stones on him, until he was compelled to take refuge in an orchard. The Prophet consequently had to endure even more obstacles in Taif than he had to face in Makkah. These mischievous people on either side of the path threw stones at him until his feet were injured and smeared with blood. These oppressions grievously dejected the Prophet, whereby being in such a state of depression, a prayer citing his helplessness and pitiable condition and seeking the aid of God spontaneously came on his lips: “O Allah”, said the Prophet, “To Thee I complain of my weakness and humiliation before the people. Thou art the Most Merciful, the Lord of the weak and my Master. To whom wilt thou confide me? To one estranged, bearing ill will, or, an enemy given power over me? I seek refuge in the light of Thy countenance by which all darkness is dispelled and every affair of this world and the next is set right, lest Thy anger should descend upon me or Thy displeasure light upon me. I need only thy pleasure and satisfaction for only Thou enablest me to do good and evade the evil. There is no power and no might save in thee.”


The Lord then sent the angel of mountains who sought the Prophet’s permission to join together the two hills between which Taif was located but the Messenger of God replied, “No, I hope God will bring forth from their loins people who will worship God alone, associating nothing with Him.” (Muslim, Kitab-ul-Jihad).


Have we as a community propagated Islam with full sincerity to those who are opposing Muslims and Islam? Is our character a reflection of the teachings of the Quran and the Prophet? Are we as a community carrying forward the work of our beloved Prophet of being a benefactor of humanity?


Muslims are reacting without pondering over the Quranic verse: “O you who believe! If an evil-doer comes to you with a report, look carefully into it, lest you harm a people in ignorance, then be sorry for what you have done.” (49:6). By reacting without giving it a thought, Muslims are harming the cause of Islam.


As a community, Muslims must show restrain and before reacting, must first refer to the Quran and the life of Prophet Muhammed (Pbuh).

One has the right to protest, but right to protest should also be exercised peacefully. 


The cartoons published in Danish papers caricaturing the Prophet (Pbuh) has once again taken world of Islam by storm. There are demonstrations throughout Islamic world – some violent, some peaceful and in some cases like Afghanistan several people have been killed in very violent demonstrations. The Danish Government initially took stand that it is a matter of freedom of press and it cannot stop any paper from publishing such cartoons, as it cannot interfere with the freedom of press. When protests began, some European papers also published these cartoons sending the message that freedom of press is above everything else, even above religious sensibilities.


When Salman Rushdie had published his novel Satanic Verses, that time too there were violent protests in many Muslim countries and Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa to kill Rushdie and even declared an award on his head. That time too, the European nations had invoked human rights and freedom of opinion to defend Salman Rushdie for his insulting remarks against Islam and the Prophet and his wives.


Is it really a matter of freedom of opinion or something else, which is not spelt out? If one examines things closely, it will become obvious that there is much more than freedom of press or even freedom of conscience. It is a multi layered and multi-causal phenomenon. It would be really simplistic to reduce it to freedom of press though it might appear to be so. 


One cannot deny that throughout western world, there is tension between westerners and Muslims. In every European country, Muslims are seen as not only outsiders, but also as a menace, a threat, to their values and their culture. In many countries, this tension is quite palpable and in some countries it remains subdued. The fact is that for the Western world, pluralism is a very new phenomenon and they are finding it very hard to digest it. Their democracy has been monolingual, mono-religious and mono-cultural.


As far as political democracy is concerned, it is well established, but freedom of opinion and differences of opinion are confined merely to political sphere and within the frame- work of mono-religious and mono-cultural situation. For Asians, on the other hand, pluralism has been the way of life. They have lived and co-existed with different religions harmoniously. Even in the absence of political democracy, tolerance towards other religions and cultures has been their way of life. We do not find bloodshed in Asian countries between followers of different religions throughout medieval ages.


In the West, on the other hand, though there has been political democracy and tolerance for political differences, its record on religious and cultural tolerance has not been very glorious. Since political democracy demands tolerance and freedom of opinion, they tried to apply it to religious and cultural field too, but I am afraid, not with very great success. Below the skin they remain mono-religious and mono-cultural.


There is one more dimension to this problem. West has never been very comfortable with Islam and Muslims. It was always seen as a religion of the alien, and hostile alien, at that. France with all its democratic and secular values interpreted secularism within a very narrow French framework it became very uncomfortable with hijab worn by school girls and at last the Central Government banned it. How the hijab worn by schoolgirls could be a threat to French secularism, we fail to understand.


In fact hijab was only a symbol. Behind it, they saw Islam as a threat. In all European countries, Muslims are recent migrants and are perceived as double threat – as migrant and as Muslim. All migrants make natives uncomfortable and more so if they belong to a religion or culture perceived to be hostile. Prof. Huntington of Harvard had given vent to the western feelings when he wrote Clash of Civilizations.


Western countries were compelled to allow Asian and African migrants as they were experiencing acute shortage of human-power after Second World War, but once migration reached saturation point and economic downturn began, tensions began to surface and in many countries racial riots broke out.


There is yet another factor: these Asian and African migrants soon realised they are condemned to remain on margins of western society. They do not get opportunities for better and well paid jobs and their children, out of frustration, take to drug or crime or to violence, further reinforcing the images of a violent outsider. Since there is so much hostility between Western Christians and migrant Muslims, it erupts in different ways. The recent cartoons and caricature of the Prophet should also be seen in this light. The events of 9/11 have only aggravated the whole situation. Be it Salman Rushdie affair or the cartoons published in the Newspaper of Denmark, it is part of the same phenomenon. Deep prejudices against Islam and Muslims spring up in different forms and are defended in the name of press freedom.


The Muslim intelligentsia also needs to cultivate more tolerance. Well one has the right to protest, but right to protest should also be exercised peacefully. As there are some limitations to right to freedom of press, there are certain well-defined limitations to right to protest in democracy. The Muslim intelligentsia and leaders should reflect deeply as to why their demonstrations tend to be violent? Are they not playing in the hands of those leaders who have their political agenda?


If Islam is a religion of peace and it indeed is, why Muslims tend to be so violent? Let us realise that no one can live in this multi-religious world on one’s own terms. It was not becoming for Muslims to tear flags of Denmark or set to fire their embassies or become so violent while demonstrating that police be compelled to fire and kill demonstrators. This leads to more fury and more violence.


A silent and peaceful demonstration is far more telling than a violent one. Since these demonstrations are on religious issue, the demonstrations should also be held with religious dignity and religious values. 


According to the Qur’an, a believer is one who restrains his anger and pardons.What kind of believers are we, that we always talk of killing and punishing rather than restraining and pardoning. It hardly brings any glory to Islam and Muslims. 


Modern world values education, understanding, tolerance and co-existence. We were given these virtues by the Quran more than 1400 years ago. But we never studied the Quran and when we studied, we did so to fight our sectarian battles against each other. 


We need to re-visit the Qur’an and reflect upon its ethical teachings far more seriously. It is not our dogmas, which will make us acceptable in the world, but it is the Quranic ethics which will. The world will judge us not by our dogmas, but by our morality and ethics.

(The writer can be reached at csss@mtnl.net.in)

We could have asked the Danish and other newspapers to allow us to introduce our Prophet (Pbuh) to their audience the way we see him.


The detestable cartoon portrayals of Muhammad , Prophet of Islam (peace be upon him) by Danish and later by Norwegian, French, German and many other European newspapers is nothing less than emotional torture and intellectual terrorism.


In the name of freedom of speech, the most sophisticated professional class of European print media organisations are revealing their centuries old hatred and intolerance towards Islam and Muslims.


In universities, European and American journalists are often taught that freedom of speech ends where the sensitivities of people begin. Seemingly, they have failed to implement this most ethical and moral lesson. A newspaper, whether Danish or Portuguese, that indulges in opinionated reporting by making fun of a major religious figure revered by a global community is an exercise in emotional torture.


Showing solidarity with those who promote such kind of propaganda does not promote “free speech” but in fact promotes intolerance and violence that hurts innocent people all over the world. However, this is not a new phenomenon. Many European and American scholars, academics and intellectuals as well as public officials have remained engaged from seventh century onwards in anti-Islam, anti-Muslim and anti-Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh) campaigns. They have refused to show civility in dealing with issues pertaining to the second largest religion in the world.


Those who are unable to overcome their hatred and ignorance of Islam will not stop from promoting their agenda. To expect otherwise from such intolerant people would be futile.


We are brothers and sisters in humanity and all of us should share a common goal of eradicating intolerance of any kind by speaking out against it. Whether it is a Jew or a Gypsy, we should not tolerate such hateful rhetoric. Yet, only a handful of community and religious leaders spoke out.


What was even more disturbing was the response of Muslims. Boycotting Danish products, closing down the offices of European diplomatic offices and the beating of Dane’s working in the Gulf were measures that did not suit a community whose Prophet is described in the divine scriptures as a Mercy to Humankind.


Immediately, after the battle of Badr, Omar bin al Khattab, (RA) one of the most celebrated companions of Prophet sought the permission of the state to punish Suhail bin Amr, a prisoner of war who had engaged in anti-Prophet Muhammad propaganda in Makkah. Suhail was known for his abusive language and insulting attitude towards the Prophet. Prophet Muhammad , as the ruler of the newly formed Islamic State strictly prohibited his companions from punishing or torturing any prisoner of war on account of their past hostilities. He admonished Omar bin al-Khattab for seeking retribution. After all, the Prophet had endured all the possible humiliation at the hands of the elites of Makkah and their supporters, without asking any of his supporters to silence his opponents.


Islam appeals to its adherents to deal with it in a civil manner. Islam promotes the idea that a polite response and a decent rebuttal are powerful enough in changing the worst enemy into a friend. Islam does not seek revenge of those who indulge in anti-Islam, anti-God or anti-Prophet abuses. Furthermore, Islam prohibits the use of pressure and intimidation for changing the hearts of people.


Islam teaches us that coercion is incapable of bringing a change in the attitude of people. Intimidation might make others change their immediate reaction to Islam, but ultimately it is futile because every individual has to make a conscious decision about his or her relations with God and His creation.


The provocation of Danish and other European newspapers was foolish and full of hatred. There is no need for such provocation in a world that is fast becoming cosmopolitan in all its dimensions. The freedom of speech cannot be used as an excuse to hurt or insult others. Moreover, there exists double standards in this matter among most European and American journalists working for big media corporations. Most of these advocates of freedom of speech do not dare write against the foul practices of multi-national corporations that often provide bread and butter to most working journalists. Most of them do not dare to expose the dirty trade practices, excessive exploitation and other violation of human rights of people working in such corporations. Most of them would not even touch the so called issues of national security even if the position of the power elite is against national interests. A case in point is the War in Iraq.


The majority of the European and American journalists working for big corporation controlled media have not questioned the rationale behind going to war in Iraq.


In fact, their anti-Islamic writings betray their loyalty to the power elites who are keen in promoting a hateful agenda against Muslims. Muslims ought to be cognizant of these facts. Our response to such insults and humiliation should be based on the divine teachings and the lifestyle of our Prophet. We must not give in to our emotions.


We could have done much better if our response was controlled by the Divine teachings. We could have asked the Danish and other newspapers to allow us to introduce our Prophet to their audience the way we see him. We should have engaged the Dane’s and others in a meaningful dialogue and discussion on the true nature of our faith and the true personality of our Prophet.


We should rise above our emotions to use this moment to educate others about Islam in an objective manner. It is the responsibility of our religious and intellectual leaders to direct our masses in developing a meaningful response to incidents of hate and racial bigotry.


No doubt, each of us feels hurt when we see an offensive depiction of our faith or our Prophet. However, rather than reacting in an emotional manner, we should use the opportunity to demonstrate true Islamic values of patience and persuasion. Perhaps we need to go back to study the life of our Prophet in more detail to develop a better understanding of his character and teachings as well as his mission in the world. After all, we accept him as a Mercy to Humankind that includes Danes, Norwegian, French, Germans, Jews, Christians and every human being that exists or will exist in our universe.

(www.islamicity.com)

Burning flags and destroying embassies are hardly appropriate responses. Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh) certainly would not approve of such violent acts.


The worldwide flap over a series of cartoons published in a Danish newspaper was avoidable, had all sides approached the issue with wisdom and restraint.


Denmark’ s Jyllands-Posten published the cartoons depicting Islam’s most revered personality, Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh), in a way that was inaccurate, derogatory and intentionally provocative. Other than demonstrating visceral hatred towards Islam, the cartoons achieved little else.


Muslim outrage over the cartoons has led to boycotts of Danish products across much of the Middle East, resulting in hundreds of Danish employees losing their jobs. Protests across the Islamic world have been mostly peaceful, but some have unfortunately turned very violent. Characterisations of the controversy as a clash of civilizational values or upholding freedom of press miss the point of the debate.


At the core of the reactions in the Muslim world are fears about Western motives, bolstered by lack of redress of ongoing grievances. On the other hand, lack of understanding about Islamic culture explains why many in the West seem perplexed at how a mere cartoon could draw such an emotional response.


A tasteless caricature of a religious personality, whose life has informed and guided billions of people for more than 1400 years, is neither funny nor satirical. On the other hand, burning flags, destroying embassies and threatening innocent people are hardly appropriate responses. Prophet Muhammad, who preached repelling evil with kindness, certainly would not approve of such violent acts. He would have responded by educating the ignorant. Joining the chorus of peaceful protests, former U.S. president, Bill Clinton strongly criticised the Danish cartoons, comparing historical anti-Semitism in Europe with anti-Islamic feeling today. So now what are we going to do? Replace the anti-Semitic prejudice with anti-Islamic prejudice?


In a show of solidarity with Denmark, newspapers in Norway, France, and other European nations republished the cartoons, which prompted British Foreign Minister,Jack Straw to say: “I believe the re-publication of these cartoons has been unnecessary, it has been insensitive, it has been disrespectful and it has been wrong.” The U.S. State Department concurred with this sentiment.


Free speech, like every other freedom, comes with the responsibility of good judgement. Newspapers ought to have the freedom to speak the truth, but a cartoon that defames does not further debate or the cause of freedom.


Islamophobia is on the rise in Europe. This should be of concern to all people of conscience, whatever their faith. Even in America, prominent personalities denigrated Prophet Muhammad using language no different than the sentiments expressed in the Danish cartoons. Talk show hosts coast-to-coast, regularly fill public airwaves with anti-Islamic comments. It is time for Europe and America to adopt the same zero-tolerance for Islamophobia as has quite rightly been adopted toward anti-Semitism.


According to the U.S. State Department, the United States is playing an important role in the effort to contain and ultimately wipe out anti-Semitism. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe sponsored conferences in Vienna and Berlin that recognized anti-Semitism as a fundamental violation of human rights. The Global Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, signed by President Bush on October 2004, asks governments to take note of and respond to instances of anti-Jewish propaganda. These steps are indeed laudable. Why not broaden them to fight Islamophobia as well? Not undertaking similar efforts to curb Islamophobia undermines U.S. and European credibility in the Muslim world, thereby fueling fear and mistrust. We all need to do whatever we can to avoid plunging the world into the abyss of a clash between civilizations.


(The writer is Board Chairman of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and can be reached at pahmed@cair-net.org).

My rejection today of anything Danish or Norwegian may subside over time, as reason takes hold of emotions.


I stopped in at the pharmacy recently, to get a prescription filled, and as the pharmacist brought over the medicine, he quietly pointed out that one of them was Danish. With hardly a second thought, I asked him if there was a compatible substitute available, which he quickly produced. Thanking him, I took the medicine and was off.


As I drove, I wondered what prompted me so quickly to reject the Danish brand. I had been to Denmark and found that the people I encountered there were warm and friendly. And on a couple of occasions, their hospitality matched our own. In my travels through the Nordic countries, there really was nothing that would have left a bitter after-taste. So why this sudden and abrupt rejection of anything Danish?


I expect the malicious portrayal of our Prophet (Pbuh) in one of their newspapers had everything to do with it. For while I strongly believe in freedom of the press, I also know that the press be it anywhere carries with it a weight of responsibility. Portraying our Prophet with a bomb ready to go off says a lot about the intent of the author who drew up this atrocious caricature. It is blasphemous and disrespectful, and prone to provoke and inflame negative feelings. And for a newspaper to publish such an offensive piece perhaps says more.


And for them to take four months before understanding the fury they had caused in Muslims everywhere speaks volumes of the disregard the press has against the religion of Islam. Blame the Muslims for some misdeeds, but blasphemy would not be one of them. Neither Moses nor Jesus (peace be upon them) or any of the other prophets would ever be an object of a malicious drawing or cartoon. For we, like the Jews and the Christians believe in them and their messages as well.


For the Danish and Norwegian governments to assume a “hands-off” policy in the name of freedom of the press rings hypocritically hollow. How swiftly would they have reacted had the piece in that newspaper been one questioning the validity of the number of Jews killed in World War II? Was it really six million?


In Canada, the United States and in Great Britain, those who had previously brought this matter up were mercilessly hounded into silence. Jobs were lost and professions terminated. Laws were quickly drafted to punish anyone daring to question such claims. Had the Danish government assumed a similar posture on the doubters, they would have undoubtedly been booted out of office.


But to satire an individual, who passed on the message of Islam over 1400 years ago, in such a disrespectful manner, no editorial restraint was exercised. Neither was there a swift retraction nor rebuke from the Danish or Norwegian authorities. Only when business and commerce appeared to be threatened was there some kind of action.


I hold no resentment against the Danish or Norwegian people. They have caused me no harm. The actions of a few do not paint a fair picture of their societies. Many have been just as revolted by their own newspaper. But for the moment I am offended. Disappointed at the action and the hypocrisy of those running the machinery of the written word in the so-called “free press” countries who proudly claim to uphold the freedom of the press and yet do it very selectively.


My rejection today of anything Danish or Norwegian may subside over time, as reason takes hold of emotions. But for now, please grant me the right to express my anger privately and non-violently.

(Arab News)