|
ISLAMIC
FURORE
February 2006 will go down
in the records as a month of international Islamic furore, anger and
violence.
On September 30, 2005,
Denmark’s leading daily newspaper, Jyllands-Posten,
published 12 caricatures/cartoons of the Muslim Prophet, Muhammed. It
seems that some frustration had been expressed about the lack of graphic
artists willing to illustrate books on Islam in fear of offending Muslim
extremists. In response the newspaper asked for submissions of
illustrations of Muhammed. Twelve of the result were published last
September.
Some Muslims in Denmark
felt offended and demanded action, but were rebuffed on the grounds that
democratic governments don’t interfere with freedom of the press.
Danish Muslims attempted to organise a delegation of diplomatic
representatives from a number of Middle Eastern countries to meet with
Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen. He declined to meet those
diplomats, because the government did not control the Danish press.
That further angered the offended Muslims. Copenhagen’s Imam Ahmed Abu
Laban and Islamic spokesman for honouring the Muslim Prophet, Akhmad
Akkari, then set about deliberately campaigning against the Danish
press and government. They built up a dossier of cartoons and letters,
adding to the cartoons published in the Jyllands-Posten, including the
addition of a picture supposedly showing Muhammed as a pig. The ‘pig
picture’, was supposedly evidence of ‘Islamophobic’ caricatures and
opposition. It turns out that the ‘pig photo’ was a poor reproduction
of a photo from an Associated Press story about French Pig-Squealing
Championships published in August 2005 and had absolutely nothing to do
with Muhammed or Islam.
(see: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8959820
and http://www.neandernews.com/?p=54%20 - see also: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4693292.stm
and http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004511.htm)
It is interesting to note
that the Egyptian newspaper, Al Fagr, published some of
the cartoons on the 17th October, 2005 - with only minor (nonviolent)
protests resulting from their publication.
The deliberate Laban-Akkari
campaigning and stirring up of Muslim anger around the world worked very
well. Some four months after the Danish newspaper first published the
cartoons, the circulation of the Laban-Akkari Dossier’s circulation
around Islamic countries had their effect. Islamic anger was fuelled
into violence and anti-Western hatred and sloganeering:
‘Europe
is the Cancer - Islam is the Answer’; ‘Danish has to Apologize to People
of Islam’; ‘Massacre Those who Insult Islam’
and more. Manipulation of the masses brought Islamic ‘cartoon rage’
that erupted into violence, burned embassies, death threats - and
deaths, around the world. As Tony Rutherford commented:
‘That
these people could, with the utmost cynicism, copy and circulate images
that they deemed abhorrent, for the merest political purposes, is
something we should never forget...Over and over again, we are being
fooled into deferring to Muslim opinion, mysteriously divined, and never
for one moment accompanied by the suggestion that our own values are due
equal respect.’
(The
West Australian, p.25, Wednesday February 15, 2006)
(see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akkari-Laban_dossier as well as:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy
http://blog.newspaperindex.com/2005/12/10/un-to-investigate-jyllands-posten-racism/
http://www.di2.nu/files/Muhammed_Cartoons_Jyllands_Posten.html
http://www.retecool.com/mirrordir/Mohammed%20Image%20Archive.htm
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Comic_artists_response_to_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy
http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/Muhammad/1.asp)
Over the past decade or
so, Muslims in Western countries have not only increased in their
apparent collective ‘victim’ mentality, but have also become more
strident and aggressive in voicing their affront at any perceived
slight, offence or insult.
Before recently retiring
his regular opinion column in The West Australian, Andre
Malan wrote:
‘A few
years ago I made a lighthearted reference in a column to people who
carried on “like mad mullahs”. The following day I received a nasty
phone call from a man who warned in a heavily accented voice that I
would be punished if I continued to insult Muslims...the incident was an
example of how easily some Muslims are offended, and how ready they are
to use violence - or, at least, the treat of it - to try to influence
media coverage.’
Towards the conclusion of
his column he added:
‘Eruptions of Muslim anger at slights to their religion are also
selective and inconsistent...It makes you wonder whether the outrage
over pictures is the result of genuine hurt over an insult to people’s
belief, or just another outpouring of the blind hatred Muslim extremists
have for everything Western democracies stand for.’
(The
West Australian, p.18, Tuesday February 7, 2006)
Christians can have some
empathy with Muslims who feel their faith is maligned. We have faced it
many times, and often more insultingly than some cartoons. As Malan
commented (ibid.):
‘In
Western countries Christians are a soft target for blasphemers who
insult their beliefs, under the protection of freedom of expression’,
while Tony
Rutherford (in previous article), commenting on the values and views of
some Westerners:
‘the
only offence that counts is offence against Western, particularly
Christian, values.’
Then, in late February,
both the Australian Prime Minister and the Treasurer dared to make
public comments about extremist Muslim views, indicating that these were
not wanted in Australia. Immediately some prominent (moderate) members
of Australia’s Islamic community cried ‘foul’. The Prime Minister and
Treasurer were accused of ignorance; Islamophobia; xenophobia; wanting
to bring back the ‘White Australia Policy’; insulting Australia’s
Muslims; being divisive; using inflammatory language; creating fear, and
more. (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia)
Such reactions and
comments could easily lead to the perception for many, that nothing to
do with Muslims or Islam can be discussed in public - as some cynics
might put it: ‘How can you avoid offending Muslims today (including
moderates)? Draw nothing! Write nothing! Say nothing!’
Democracies are far from
perfect. Freedom of expression can be misused and abused.
Yes, Christians have felt
insulted and offended - many, many times. But do we get so easily
offended? NO! Do we want to end democracies and end freedom of
expression? NO! Do we want tightened religious censorship and
blasphemy laws? NO! Do we believe in protesting when our rights are
infringed and we are insulted? Probably, in some situations - but with
mob hysteria and violence? NO!
As one writer put it in a
Letter to the Editor,
The West Australian,
p.21, Tuesday February 7, 2006):
‘As
a Christian who just about every day hears Jesus’ name blasphemed, I can
well understand the grief which Muslims must feel about what they
consider blasphemy against Mohammed.
However, what I fail to accept is the violence perpetrated because of
this. The sight of these emotionally unrestrained people is enough to
send a chill up one’s spine. I saw on a TV report little girls with
their Islamic veils on, kindergarten age, and besides them stood their
mothers and teachers. These tots were holding placards depicting their
devotion to Mohammed, but they were also burning a cardboard
crayon-coloured Danish flag, no doubt something they had drawn in
kindergarten. Contrast this with another picture -- little girls in
tutus, dancing, singing “Jesus wants me for a Sunbeam.” You get the
picture?
Jesus said “by their fruits you shall know them”. Hmm, let’s see,
which fruit would I rather my children and grandchildren eat? I
wonder? One says, “burn the infidels, cut off their heads, burn their
flags, embassies, destroy, destroy, destroy” and the other says, “love
your enemies, turn the other cheek, bless those who curse you, bless and
curse not.” The contrast is startling, to say the least.’
(used by permission)
Dr
Patrick Sookhdeo was brought up as a Muslim in
Guyana, South America, and migrated to England with his family, while
still young. In England he came to examine his Islamic faith and
understanding. He was converted to Christianity while at University,
where he studied Islam and gained his PhD. He set up the Institute for
the Study of Islam and Christianity - is its director, and is also the
director of the Barnabas Fund in Britain. He wrote the following
article following the first February expressions of Muslim outrage and
fury over the [blown out of all proportion] cartoon controversy:
‘Sir
Iqbal Sacranie, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, has
said that he wishes to see Muhammad protected from insult or disrespect.
Interestingly, he did not make this remark in the context of the current
furore over the Danish cartoons of Muhammad. He said it much earlier, in
a debate on BBC Radio 4’s The Moral Maze on the subject of legislation
to ban incitement to religious hatred. Sacranie’s hope was that the new
law once passed would be used to protect Muhammad from any negative
criticism.
Sacranie
was greatly disappointed with the form in which the religious hatred
bill was eventually passed on 31st January, and complained of injustice
and impediments to the promotion of a cohesive and harmonious society in
Britain. However, he may soon find his hopes for the protection of
Muhammad are fulfilled in the wake of the international response to the
Danish cartoons of the Islamic prophet, a response which appears to have
been not only orchestrated but deliberately aggravated.
The
worldwide responses to the cartoons have raised two questions. (1) Why
are Muslims, even “moderate” Muslims, so passionate in the defence of
Muhammad from any kind of slight? (2) Why do British politicians and
church leaders feel the need to tread so delicately around Muslim
sensibilities?
The
answer to the first question lies in the veneration of Muhammad. This is
a paradoxical aspect of Islam, which in theory affirms the believer’s
direct access to God without the need for any intercessor. Accordingly,
Muhammad should be viewed by Muslims as simply a human channel for God’s
revelation. In practice, however, Muhammad’s figure towers over Islam
not just as its founder, but as the “perfect man” who was divinely
inspired not only in his Qur’anic revelations, but in all his sayings
and deeds. He is considered infallible, free from sin, and serves as the
supreme example which all Muslims are obliged to emulate in every small
detail. Muhammad is also seen as the intercessor with God who can change
the divine decrees and admit those he intercedes for into paradise. Love
for Muhammad (and his family) is deeply inculcated into most Muslim
children. Many Muslims, especially in the Indian subcontinent, hold that
Muhammad was created from an eternal heavenly substance (Muhammadan
light) that pre-existed with God. He is a logos-like figure similar to
Christ a sinless saviour, mediator and intercessor.
A
main concern of Muslims is the person of Muhammad who must be protected
from any criticism or slight. Protecting his honour is an obligation on
all. Any suspected denigration of Muhammad immediately creates
disturbances and riots in many Muslim countries and communities, more so
than blasphemy against Allah himself.
The
antipathy towards pictures of Muhammad stems from several of his own
comments, as recorded in traditions which Muslims call hadith. An
example is his statement that “angels do not enter a house in which
there is a dog or a picture” (Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 5.338). However,
this has not been taken as an absolute prohibition in all kinds of Islam
at all times, as witness the numerous examples of Muslim paintings of
Muhammad in earlier centuries.
Many
Muslims have vocalised their outrage that the Danish cartoons could be
interpreted as suggesting that Muhammad was a “terrorist”. Here too is a
paradox. For these Muslims seek to portray Muhammad as a Jesus-figure, a
peace-maker and channel of God’s mercy, motivated by a profound love for
humanity, who treated his enemies with forbearance, even kindness. They
say that Muhammad (himself) never killed anyone. Yet Muhammad was a
general who led his army in wars of conquest against non-Muslims, and
under whom brutalities were committed against some of his opponents. His
words and example are cited by the most militant of Muslims today as the
justification for their violence which others would call terrorism.
The
second question concerns the reason for the special treatment of
Muslims, in contrast to that of other groups. Ask a British politician
or church leader why they feel Muslim feelings should be protected and
their reply will probably include words like “respect”, “sensitivity”,
“courtesy” etc. But is this the real reason? It can be tested by
comparing the treatment of Muslim sensibilities with the treatment of
another faith’s sensibilities, say, Christians. Do the same voices
protest against the numerous shows, artworks and writings which
Christians find offensive and blasphemous? Do they call for Christian
feelings to be protected? The answer is no. The reason for this double
standard appears to be not “sensitivity” but “fear”. Non-Muslim society
including the Church - is afraid of angering Muslims because of what
they might do in retaliation. And what some of them might do was clearly
seen in the placards carried by Muslim marchers in Britain last weekend
with slogans such as “Massacre those who insult Islam” or “Whoever
insults a prophet kill him.”
The
motive of fear also explains the double standards of the Metropolitan
Police during the demonstrations in London against the cartoons. None
of those carrying placards calling for murder or beheading was
arrested. Scotland Yard explained that the decision not to arrest was
taken because they feared a riot would have ensued. They did, however,
arrest two other protestors, who were carrying cartoons of Muhammad.
Police said they were detained to “prevent a breach of the peace”.
Evidently they did not fear a non-Muslim riot, only a Muslim riot.
The
police have also shown double standards in their treatment of Christian
evangelists, especially in Muslim areas of the UK. There have been
several incidents where police have intervened to prevent such
evangelism, but Islam is strangely untouched.
Fear
could also explain the strangely arrogant attitude of the government
whereby they expect the public to formulate an opinion on the matter of
the cartoons without having actually seen them. Unless fear is invoked
as a motive, this would seem to imply an astonishing lack of respect for
the British people, treating them like children.
As a
result of this fear we are on the verge of creating a no-go area in
society which would allow Muslims to dictate the terms on which they
will relate to the rest of the population and ban the discussion of
certain subjects. The suggestion is that there are religious taboos
linked to “core identity” which should be off-limits to others.
At
first sight this seems a very generous and compassionate response to a
minority in our midst. Yet it could prove to be the thin end of the
wedge. It could soon be followed by Muslim requests to have the
voluntary self-censorship enshrined in law, by means of new blasphemy
legislation to protect Muhammad from criticism. The thick end of this
particular wedge might be laws like those in Pakistan where since 1991
there has been a mandatory death penalty for “defiling the name of”
Muhammad (Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code). Furthermore,
Muslims might seek a news/debate black-out on other issues connected
with their “core identity” such as the treatment of women in Islam,
honour killings, or the death penalty for Muslims who convert to another
faith. Then these important human rights issues could no longer be
discussed in the UK.
The
uneven playing field is a characteristic of Islam. While Muslims rampage
in fury about cartoons of Muhammad, no mention is made of the highly
offensive anti-Christian and anti-Jewish cartoons produced by some
Muslims, including blasphemous depictions of Christ. Contrary to what
Jack Straw has said, there is an open season to vilify Christianity. A
compliant press, an insipid Church and a pusillanimous government all
three erring on the side of pragmatism are effectively allowing the
playing field to be tilted in favour of Islam. If ordinary British
non-Muslims perceive this tilt, i.e. that non-Muslim society has in
effect submitted to Muslims, a submission borne of fear, how will they
react? Is it possible that the British National Party will be the
beneficiaries, being viewed as the only true protector of British values
and Britain’s Christian heritage?
Has
the time come for Christians to be more assertive and demand their
rights, that is, the freedom to proclaim the Gospel without intimidation
even in Muslim areas of Britain and the withdrawal of material from the
public domain which blasphemes against Christ? Should not the Church
speak out to affirm the continuing importance of Britain’s
Judaeo-Christian heritage? And should we not all remember our history?
Appeasement does not ultimately bring peace.’
Dr
Patrick Sookhdeo, Director, Barnabas Fund - 7 February 2006 (used by
permission) |
