Comment

Western arrogance or intolerance of Islam?

NOW that the furore caused by the cartoons of Prophet Mohammed is gradually losing steam, a careful examination of the events is warranted. Cartoons and the art of cartooning have always been a matter of utmost seriousness. Martin Luther used caricatures and other visual art forms to good effect during the Protestant Reformation in Germany. R.K. Laxman’s cartoons have documented the entire history of post independence India. It is, therefore, important to see the political, social and cultural context of the Prophet’s cartoons rather than dismissing them as ludicrous and derisory.

The recent ‘cartoon controversy’ has its genesis in the difficulties faced by Danish writer Kåre Bluitgen in finding artists to illustrate his children’s book, Koranen og Profeten Muhammeds liv (The Qur’an and the Prophet Muhammad’s life), in fear of violent reprisals by the Muslims. On 17 September 2005, the Danish newspaper Politiken ran an article, Dyb angst for kritik af Islam (Profound fear of criticism of Islam) detailing Bluitgen’s predicaments which then prompted the cultural editor of the Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten, to invite around 40 cartoonists to draw the Prophet as they perceived him. He eventually received 12 cartoons which were carried by the newspaper on 30 September 2005.

The cartoons went almost unnoticed until the ‘cause’ was taken up by a group of ‘committed’ Danish Muslims, led by a young Imam, Ahmed Akkari, who was appalled at the silence and nonchalance of the Muslims in Denmark at the blasphemous caricatures of the Prophet. The delegation travelled to Al-Azhar University in Cairo which is Sunni Islam’s most prestigious seat of learning with a 43-page dossier containing xenophobic and culturally insensitive images circulating in Denmark about Muslims and Islam. Al-Azhar, held in high regard among officials of the Arab League, in turn pledged support to the delegation. In late December, the League criticized the Danish government. Four weeks later, the boycott of Danish products began in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait before quickly escalating into protests across the Muslim world.

Newspapers in almost all countries devoted significant space to the cartoon controversy. News channels beamed pictures of angry mobs burning Danish flags and calling for death to Europe. In the United Kingdom, demonstrations by radical Islamists saw placards proclaiming ‘Behead those who insult Islam’ and ‘Liberalism go to hell’.

One of the main arguments levelled by Muslims against the cartoons is that pictorial or visual depiction of the Prophet is prohibited in Islam. Though the Quran only forbids idolatry, the Hadith which is equivalent to Judaism’s Talmud, prohibits any pictures or drawings of sacred figures, including of Mohammed. Hence, Jyllands Posten cartoons are against the basic tenets of Islam.

Second, for thousands of Muslims, the incident has confirmed their perception of an arrogant West that is bereft of any moral or cultural code and which has no respect for other religions. With incidents like flushing of the Quran down a toilet at Guantanamo Bay to antagonize Muslim detainees still lingering in public memory, the cartoons were deemed to be the latest in a string of affronts caused to Islam by the West.

On the other hand, for most European states it is a matter of upholding the right to free speech. This essentially means one can even satirize religion and be able to laugh at the most revered and sanctified objects, symbols and rituals, something unthinkable in the Muslim world where media is state controlled with little or no option of exploring the contours of freedom of expression. Jyllands Posten, while publicly apologizing for the unfortunate fallout of the cartons, did not regret its decision to publish them. The Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen welcomed the paper’s apology, but defended the freedom of the press.

In a show of solidarity, various newspapers from various European countries republished the cartoons. French newspaper Soir and Germany’s Die Welt were among the leading papers to reprint the cartoons whereas La Stampa in Italy, El Periodico in Spain and Dutch paper Volkskrant carried some of the caricatures. Die Welt argued there was a right to blaspheme in the West and asked whether Islam was capable of coping with satire. Roger Koeppel, editor in chief of Die Welt said that European societies had a right to make their own choices.

One of the caricatures which seem to have caused greatest injury to Muslim sentiment depicts the Prophet in a turban with a bomb attached to it. Though without doubt outrageous, it reflects the way Islam is viewed in Europe in the post 9/11 milieu. Violence, terrorism and conservativeness have come to characterize Islam in Europe and America.

Islam is perceived to be the fuel on which Islamist terrorist networks run. Today, the West is in the clutches of Islamophobia and in a perpetual state of conflict with Islam. Most westerners have constructed a stereotypical image of Muslims as terrorists or fanatics. Unfortunately, a small albeit highly committed section of Muslims, have reinforced these stereotypes by indulging in terrorist activities and strengthening the western misconceptions about Islam and Muslims. And now, the widespread violence resulting from a reaction to the cartoons has given strength to the misconceptions. The headscarf issue in France and outbreak of the French riots in 2005, the killing of van Gogh in Netherlands and the controversy in some countries over building of mosques, have further highlighted that the place of Islam in the public life of Europe is far from resolved.

Nonetheless, responses to the cartoons in Europe and elsewhere have not been uniform. There were many Muslims who denounced the violence and advocated a resolution of the crisis through peaceful means. According to Tariq Ramadan, ‘There is a lot of mistrust between the two groups. People need to break out of their intellectual ghettos, break out of their religious and cultural ghettos and come to some common, universal values. And these values do exist.’ The Organization of Islamic Conferences (OIC) called for restraint and calm. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, who heads the IOC, called for peaceful protests by Muslims. Even Grand Ayatollah Ali-al-Sistani called for refraining from violent protests to prevent a future catastrophe.

Asia was at the centre-stage of the demonstrations where Muslim majority states with the exception of India and Bangladesh, raged with anti-Denmark and anti-Europe protests. Preachers of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia took the lead followed by Iran whose supreme religious leader Ayatollah Khomeini termed it a ‘Zionist conspiracy’. While Danish embassies were torched in Lebanon, Damascus and Syria, Palestinian students raided the German Cultural Centre in Gaza. In Pakistan, the protests were slow to start with but later got transformed into widespread disorder. Pizza Hut, McDonalds and KFC outlets were burnt in Lahore, and Peshawar witnessed the largest demonstration with seventy thousand people.

In comparison, demonstrations have been largely peaceful in India and have been organized rather than spontaneous in nature. A number of reasons explain this:

* Indian Muslims have a long experience of living in a democracy. Ideals of ‘freedom of speech’ are not alien to them unlike a large number of Muslims living in authoritarian regimes, theocratic states or military dictatorships.

* Identity is always determined in relation to the other. In India, the identity of the Muslim minority is determined by the majority Hindu community. Hindu-Muslim relations do not have the same historical legacy and animosity as Christian-Muslim relations. Also, unlike the Christian-Muslim relations, Hindus and Muslims do not have to contend with the ‘crusader’ and anti-crusader’ mentality of the middle ages that colour popular Muslim perception elsewhere even today.

* Post the Babri Masjid demolition, Bombay blasts and Godhra killings, the Muslims are a fearful community in India. Most prefer to maintain a comfortable distance from politics and though personally hurt by the cartoons, they chose not to express it publicly.

India may have found the correct permutations and combinations to peacefully coexist with its Muslim minority, but the normalization of relation between Muslims and Europe is some distance. The reconciliation of their differences does not seem possible in the near future. Many people have raised the question of whether Islam is an intolerant religion. There are no easy answers to this complex question. Every religion has its own rituals and religious dogmas and so does Islam. Labelling it as intolerant, illiberal, pre-modern and fundamentalist will only add to the woes of Europe. The solution lies in demystifying Islam and engaging in meaningful dialogue with the Muslims at home and renouncing double standards in foreign policy in Muslim societies.

Supriya Singh