By Fazal Amin Beg (M. Phil, Social Anthropology),
Researcher/Consultant
 For everything, though entails both positive and negative facets, there is a limit and within the limit there is normality and guarantee. When the limits are crossed in either direction, whether upward or downward, to the right or to the left, that reaches to the extreme point and finally comes to the negative ends. For instance, if a bottle is filled with any liquid or gas, it will accept it within its capacity or size, and obsession will cause it got out and will waste. Second, if a car has the capacity of carrying three persons; but, in contrast, eight persons are seated and driven, this will definitely cause it to damage. When we exemplify and focus the limits on the human beings, it becomes obvious that in twenty-four hours’ period, without any interval or rest, a person cannot frequently talk or speak, walk or drive, eat or drink, sleep or awake, and read or write. By the way, if anyone does so, he may not be deemed or termed a normal person rather an abnormal. If there is logic in this argument, can there be then any limit for the so-called freedom of expression: to its extreme level, I call “freedom of ignorance”?
Limits to freedom of expression in free — that is, non-Muslim and non-authoritarian — societies are imposed by social pressures. They aren't a matter for government policy. There are occasional limits imposed by law, for instance in the case of child pornography, but these are required to prevent physical harm to someone.
Freedom of expression says that you have the right to say what you want, no matter how stupid it may be. This is why the West has so many stupid opinions expressed, and why we have a lively civil discourse. Purely as a matter of statistics, some of the opinions expressed are not stupid. Once one has picked through the chaff to find the wheat there's something to talk about. Social pressures might involve actual argument, to whit, hollering back at the person who's offended you or it might involve refusal to associate with them. Riot, rapine, murder and arson aren't appropriate responses. They are practiced in societies where the government or the local holy men or both presume to tell their fellow citizens what they might and might not think. The cartoons mocked Islam's ready resort to violence, and the Islamic response was to become predictably and hysterically violent. |
In the name of satire, the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) published firstly by the Danish newspaper, “Jylands-Posten last September, and recently being published in the media of the European countries, clearly indicates crossing the limits of cultural universals and reaching in satire extremism.
| Crossing "cultural universals," even if the proposition is accepted, doesn't involve a death penalty, nor even damage to property. Nor are "cultural universals" quite as "universal" as we might like to believe when they're our universals. Making fun of my wife or my mother or my children might irritate me no end, but you won't feel a thing. That applies to religion, as well. I don't like seeing religious symbols trashed, which is why I disapproved strongly of a cross in a beaker of urine, but the Muslim world ignored the phenomenon. You'll notice that Americans called each other names in that case, but didn't riot. Likewise, when Hindus or Jains or Buddhists have some falling out that gets them all worked up it means nothing to either Christians or Muslims. |
Through such mechanism, it sounds that these media-persons intended to promote and intensify harsh differences and different sorts of extremism among the Muslim communities.
| The harsh differences were already there, and they were the genesis of the cartoons. Since Muslims have been demonstrating a penchant for violence and a wide streak of unreason, the Danish press took it upon itself to make fun of them for it. I find the results perfectly predictable, and the efforts to excuse the behavior of the rioters to be specious. |
These hatred behaviours would not turn only towards the concerned media-people (to get international exposure, or otherwise), but rather the abhorrence will certainly generalize also towards their concerned governments, countries and their faiths because in the developing Muslim world, the views of the media and the governments can hardly be distinguished.
| But where is it written that Muslims have a right and a duty to become incensed at the smallest provocation, while the West has an obligation to remain polite? What would happen if Westerners decided to riot and beat up all the Muslims they could find? If there's an obligation to civilized, polite behavior, the obligation would seem to extend to both sides. When one side breaks that pact, why should the other side remain constrained? |
On the other, the counter-reaction of hatred could come up by the communities of these media-persons for the Muslims. So what is the need of such satire?
| To make fun of the Muslims' habit of rolling their collective eyes, making faces, shouting slogans they heard in the mosque, and setting things on fire. If you and I were social acquaintances and you exhibited nasty habits, I might well make fun of you. |
Is the role of media to divide the communities of our little globe through such malignant and naïve thoughts and actions?
| The communities are already divided, as witness the violence that was being mocked, followed by the violence in response to the mockery. That's not a very wide repertoire. |
Were the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), Jesus the Christ, Moses, or other prophets so funny like these cartoonists and their cartoons or like any president or Prime Minister or Chancellor of the countries?
| They've been mocked and derided many times. Since they're not your prophets you've ignored it. I cited one example earlier... |
In atheistic (and/or agnostic) perspective, these Holy Personalities can be like ordinary persons or any political dignitaries in Denmark, Norway, Germany, France, Holland, Italy or other countries, but it is wise to also keep in mind the perspectives of vast majority of global population who are tied in faiths like Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and others. For the Muslims, all prophets are not only reverent but rather are part of their faith.
| But not the most important part. Otherwise you'd have been incensed at the cross in the beaker of piss. |
Regarding the Holy Prophet (PBUH), the editors of the concerned media first should have adequate knowledge about his emergence, contributions and the messages that were not only to the Muslims rather to the entire humans—being blessing to the humanity (rahmat-al lil-aalameen) termed by the Almighty Allah. Such naïve persons in the West should not forget that when they were in the dark-age (ignorance), it was this great Prophet’s teaching that took them out from the darkness.
| Actually, it wasn't. Mohammad had nothing to do with our shaking off our Dark Ages. Our Dark Ages started with the fall of the Western Empire and ended around the time of Charles Martel. They were followed by the Middle Ages, which were even more priest-ridden but where human progress was made in response to the competition Europe received from the Islamic world. The Middle Ages ended with the Reformation, when we ceased kow-towing to the priests. Man's relationship with God became a personal thing, rather than a matter of state policy — a slow, but productive progression. Islam remained priest-ridden, with societies not that different from our own Middle Ages, only with turbans. Once we were done being ruled by theocrats Europe had a fine time, exploring and later ruling the world, innovating, and mocking the Turks. |
The followers of this prophet carried ahead and greatly contributed to the humanity through advancement in knowledge, whether it is the field science or technology, philosophy or astronomy, arts or architecture, anthropology or sociology, music or spiritualism, and others.
| We've heard all those arguments before. Islam also ceased developing because it had no Reformation. Even in the Middle Ages, it managed to miss out on things like chivalry that redefined the obligations of the strong toward the weak, of men toward women. |
So how come a prophet of such followers be satirized or depicted as terrorist whose life and conducts have been termed rather endorsed as perfect and model for the humanity by God in the Holy Scripture (QurÂ’an)?
| The Koran's not our holy book, and we regard Mohammad as rather less than perfect. The mere statement that he was doesn't make it so, and the record included in the Koran in fact says that he wasn't. Perfection, in the Western mind, doesn't include lies, dissimulation, brutality, and despoiling entire peoples. We won't even mention his sex life. |
It was this Holy Celebrity who, being human, had holistic personality, possessing all encamping knowledge, wisdom and command, who taught his followers monotheism/mono-realism, knowledge and wisdom, peace and tranquility, affection and philanthropy, universalism and fraternity, tolerance and patience, equality and equity, spirtualism and spirituality, caring for oppressed and suppressed ones and orphans, and the like.
| The while despoiling large parts of Arabia, followed by his supporters despoiling and enslaving much of the world. |
Through such exemplary deeds and character, he won the hearts, and so far there are more than 1.5 billion Muslim in the world who have highest attachments and love, reverence with depth and breadth, who love him more than any of their immediate kinspersons or other revered humans, and for him the followers sacrifice their lives.
| There are rather more Christians in the world than there are Muslims, just under 2 billion by most estimates. Christians make up about 33 percent of the world's population, Muslims around 20 percent. |
Doctrinally there cannot be any imaginary photo, or otherwise, of the any Prophet, which is deemed blasphemous.
| But they've been produced, and in many cases produced by Muslims. |
Being a believer, one cannot imagine that someone satirizes the Prophet Mohammad or other prophets. It is a pity that in such circumstances, is it wise to satirize the Holy Prophet? The idea-conceiver, the cartoonist, the editor of Jyllands-Posten (Carsten Juste), editors of other newspapers, and the related media-persons—who knew such sensitivities—need to further and fully open their eyes, broaden the avenues of their minds, analyze such subtle points and come to logical conclusion with regard to the negative effects and long term impacts of such phenomenon.
| Or they need to be left alone to their own opinions. Their depiction of Mohammad injures you in no way. There aren't any scars on you from the pictures, and if there's a sin it's upon their heads, not yours. The fact that it's forbidden to you doesn't mean it's forbidden to them, or even of the least concern to them. |
Let me ask a question. If someone, for instance, abuses or negatively satirizes in public the father or mother, son or daughter of the cartoonist or the editors then what may be the reaction? Shall we call it a freedom of expression?
| Hmmm... I used that example dealing with myself earlier. The fact that my feelings might be hurt doesn't give me the right to burn your house down. |
The Muslims are also human beings. It is not fair and is more than enough to play with the faith and sentiments of these people. What sort of freedom of expression is it that disheartens, divides, creates hatred and violence rather than pleasing, bridging, and promoting human love and affection? Due to individualsÂ’ malignant act, for the sake of their so-called freedom of expressions, the entire global communities have been pushed into the strong fire. The motives seem now somehow varying.
| Personally, I doubt that the publication of a few cartoons disheartened you all that much. Islam has already divided itself from the West — listen to the rantings of Hizb ut-Tahrir for five minutes to convince yourself of that. Hatred and violence? Read bin Laden's declaration of war against us, then take a look at the accounts of 9-11, the Bali bombings, the Nordost Theater, Beslan, 7-11, 3-11, and a host of other outrages. Prior to 9-11 most of us never gave the Islamic world a second thought, except for when they invaded someone or blew something up. Since then we've been looking at Islam much more closely. We're becoming more and more impatient with Islam and its practitioners. It's not our obligation to please you. We'll be happy to reciprocate polite and considerate behavior, but that's the best you're going to get, because that's what we extend to each other. |
In political term, one may apprehend or perceive that such acts can never be of individuals rather through such individuals great games could be played by the great powers in order to further test the sentiments of the Muslims: thus, identifying, planning and striking them not individually rather strategically. This can be a test on Iran, Pakistan, Syria and other countries to examine the reactions of these respective communities, who are already in the lists of the great games for economic gains (the natural resource) and other interests.
| Those natural resources are sold, and at considerable profit, I might add. They're not confiscated. If you don't want to trade, don't offer it for sale. The fact that your leaders make off with the money isn't our problem. Maybe you should consider rioting against them? |
It is essential, however, to take into accounts not only the economic interdependence of the nations but rather the core value of humanity and freedom of religion. Freedom of religion does not mean that such individuals are free to satirize or make fun of the founders or prophets of the religions but rather to show and act for the religious pluralism.
| Ummm... No. It means you're free to believe or not believe — and I'm free to believe or not believe. Freedom is an individual matter, not something that accrues to the state. |
However, the Muslim communities, being true followers of the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), and having the lionsÂ’ heart, need to be cautious in their actions and keep in view the great doctrines of Islam and the teachings of the Holy Prophet by bringing into exercise the lessons of peace and tolerance, taking revenges not by violence rather by forgiving, praying for blessings to non-believers instead of cursing them, as the true examples are found in the conducts of the Holy Prophet with his opponents and enemies are the clear cut guidelines during such worse occasions.
| And when do they plan on starting this program of forgiveness and blessing? It's been notably absent until now. |
At the end, coming towards the solution, the cartoonist, the respective editors of the newspapers and others (including the heads of governments) should apologize, if there is a big claim for great civilizations, opposed to the ignorance, from the victimized community for such malignant action and thoughts.
| And it's my opinion that they should not, despite the fact that they have by now. Your community's no more victimized than any other, and considerably less than many. Every time the West backs down and tries to conciliate violence and brutality it comes back in a few months, bigger and uglier than before. Today's cartoon riots are the same as the Koran riots of a few months ago, only on a larger and more coordinated scale. The riots that will come six months from now will be even bigger and more widespread. Eventually they will be big enough and obnoxious enough that Islam will get its collective head conked, at which point the ummah will go back to forgiving and blessing while plotting Dire Revenge™. |
It is imperative to note that attacking on and playing with the emotions, sentiments and faiths of any community through such means is never lesser or equal rather greater than the terrorists who attack physically on peoples and their assets. So, it is imperative to take the moderate approach, remain within the limits and come out of the “Freedom of Ignorance”.
| I deny the existence of such a thing, though I do acknowledge that ignorance may indeed be bliss. The only question is which of us is blissful. |
|