Euh, Say Again? People Burnt What?
The man who is most hateful to God is the one who quarrels and disputes most.
The Prophet
This Denmark controversy has gotten slightly out of hand. What gives a worse image of Islam - the cartoons, or the following actions:
- Thousands of outraged Syrian demonstrators stormed the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus, setting fire to both buildings. Police fired tear gas and water cannons to disperse demonstrators at the Norwegian Embassy after the Danish building was burned. But the protesters broke through police barriers and set fire to the second building, shouting "Allahu Akbar!" which is Arabic for "God is great!"
- The conflict heated up on multiple fronts Thursday. In the Gaza Strip, masked Palestinians fired weapons into the air as they surrounded an office of the European Union and a French cultural center. Two Palestinian militant groups threatened to retaliate against the newspapers by kidnapping European citizens and targeting churches and European offices.
And then Arabnews uses the phrase "spirit of defiance" in the title, creating the notion that this type of action is legitimate because it comes in the form of resistance against "the enemy".
This hasn't become an argument against insulting drawings or articles. Granted, those were drawn, and published, in bad taste. Publishers should be more discerning in what they choose to publish. As the Guardian noted
Context matters very much in the case of the cartoons of Muhammad too. It is one thing to assert the right to publish an image of the prophet. As long as that is not illegal - and not even the government's amended religious hatred bill makes it so - then that right undoubtedly exists. But it is another thing to put that right to the test, especially when to do so inevitably causes offence to many Muslims and, even more so, when there is currently such a powerful need to craft a more inclusive public culture which can embrace them and their faith. That is why the defiant republication of the cartoons in some parts of Europe (some of them with far less good histories of intercommunal relations than this country) is more questionable than it may appear at first sight.
I also don't want to discuss the hypocricy of the French media in particular for assuming an air of freedom, giving their other restrictions. This should now also become a discussion of the proper reaction to such provocation. Is such outburst justified? Is there no responsibility among the leaders - be they religious or political - to attempt to either pacify their followers, or to create a more reasonable sense of priorities - such as a rebellion against those "resistance fighters" in Iraq who kill dozens of Shi'a on a daily basis?
However, in the end, each person has his own vision of which battles are more justified, and which ones deserve to be fought for. It just so happens, that this very battle is giving Islam an even worse name than it previously had. And that is a true shame.
posted by Lazarus, 8:46 AM
6 Comments:
In view of the fact that most of the readers of the Lebanese blogsphere are the same I will spare your readers a repetition of why the Arab and Moslem response is the one to be ostracised.( I have made my views clear in a number of posts).
I would like , however, to add that I do not agree with your characterization that since freedom of speech in France and other countries is not absolute that thses restrictions amount in essence to double standards. They don't. Many have mistakenly made the argument that since no one is allowed to yell fire in a crowded theatre then this is a proof that freedom of speech is cirumscribed and therefore the Moslem opposition to the publishing of the offending cartoons is justified. Such an interpretation of these issues is not proper, actually it rests on very weak and shaky grounds. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is illegal and objectionable because of the consequences of this act. It will creat a rush to the exits and lives will be lost. The individual right to yell fire is balanced against the infringements on the rights of others. In the case of a cartoon one is expressing a view regarding an issue and no cartoon on any subject is going to escape offending the sensibilities of a group of people. That is what a cartoon is supposed to do. Offending ones sensibilities does not cause physical harm nor is it an infringement on the rights of others to issue a retaiatory cartoon of their own.
Censoring a cartoon on the basis of its being offensive leads to a very slippery slope. If the punlishing of a cartoon is going to create so much anger among some people then what will be the outcome of a critical article or book? Reason. rationality and enlightnment will suffer when society makes a subjective judgment that some ideas are not to be questioned, reevaluated or subjected to critical analysis. If we have faith in the validity of a concept then critical analysis should strengthen that idea, if an idea cannot measure up then that is an indication that it is time to replace it. The only ones that should fear open discourse are the ones whose ideas are built on foundations of sand.
By
Anonymous, at 10:18 AM
ghassan - i wasn't referring to socially irresponsible "freedoms". in fact, that should have been clear in my previous post on nasrallah vs. denmark. i was referring to the double standards in freedom of the press with regards to anti-semitism in france.
another example is "mein kampf". this book, because of its contents, is not allowed to be printed (or copied) in germany. it is illegal to sell it in the netherlands (although a slightly modified version can be allowed under certain cases). after an outcry, amazon stopped selling mein kampf for a while, but has restarted.
those are the double standards i was referring to.
By
Lazarus, at 10:56 AM
Laz
With all due respect I still dont believe that these two issues can be compared. A nation state has the right to pass laws to be applied within its borders as long as these laws are an acuurate representation of the will of its citizens. We do not have to agree with these laws as outsiders but such laws were enacted to be promulgated within the specific boundaries of that political entity.
In the current fiasco that is not the case. Members of a particular group wish to have their views imposed on a universal basis through blackmail and intimidation. Such irresponsible behaviour can never be condoned. The issue is not whether a particular depiction of a sacred figure is to be condoned but it is whether it should be punished. I have no right to silence a person because I gisagree with him especially when the object that I do not approve of has been done within the norms of the accepted social contractShould those that oppose war not be allowed to burn effigies of George W Bush because it runs against the sensibilities of the adminstration? Should we not allow people to question the historisity of Jesus? Should we imprison all those that dare to suggest that Mary Magdellan was a lover of Jesus?Should we prevent cartoons that picture cxapitalists as exploiters and blood suckers?
I wish that a few of these resrictions in some countries do not exist but these restrictions when they do exist are at least an expression of the priorities of a free people and they do not ask the rest of the human race to adopt theses beliefs.
By
Anonymous, at 11:28 AM
ghassan, you're entering the realms of relativism here: "within the norms of the accepted social contract"?
By
Lazarus, at 11:55 AM
Ghassan,
The problem of these images is that they propagate a stereotype that every single muslim is a terrorist. What does it mean to picture the prophet whom i follow as a terrorst? This is incitement to hatred. The effects of such incitement won't be immediate but rather in the long run specially when all European media continues stereotyping muslims in that manner. Do you think that Nazi Germany felt it alright to do the Holocausts overnight or even in 10 years? It is the accumulation of more than 100 years of anti-semetic speach in Europe which was done in the name of free speach granted by the enlightment age at that time. It is worthy to remind you of what Oriana Fallaci has written in Italy few months ago."All muslims are terrorists.There is no such thing as moderate muslims." " They are sh*t and they should return to sh*t". Those were her exact words! These cartoons are a manifestaions of her words. Not to mention as well the British BNP party whose leaders were found by the court 2 days ago not guilty to say that Islam is a vicious religeon.
On the other hand I am totally against the muslims' reactions. They are way out of proportion and have crossed the boundaries of over-reaction. They only help assert the belief that Islam is a violent religeon which is incompatible with European culture. A question I'm often asked here in London when discussing the issue is this: " Why is it that only when criticizing Islam do we get death threats,and we don't get such threats when criticizing any other religeon?" It's really a shame. My flatmates are even convinced with this and consider me as a very rare case muslim.
By
AbdulKarim, at 1:26 PM
The Danish gov't must assume some responsility for what has happened.
I listened yesterday to a Radio interview with a Danish Muslim on CBC Radio http://www.cbc.ca/aih
He describes the frustration of Danish Muslims as they tried to meet in Oct. with the editors of the newspapers or the Danish PM and officals. Their requests for a meeting were ignored. They then decided to take their campaign to the Muslim countries. They even met with Cardinal Sfeir in Lebanon who descibed the cartoons as "an attack on religion" and promised to take it up with the Pope.
Ak, there are over one billion Muslims and we are bound to get various reactions. By and large the outrage has been peacful with a popular economic boycott and demonstrations. The actions of a few are used by the enemies of Islam to slander all Muslims. Christians who kill abortion doctors or terrorists like McVeigh and David Koresh are not used by anyone to characterize all Christians as terrorists and criminals.
The gov'ts are in a bind.They can only pay lip service to the outrage felt by their people but they cannot do anything that affects their relationship with the Europeans.
The European press are hypocrits hiding behind the excuse of freedom of speech. Various authors has been imprisioned for denying the holocaust. In Germany , anti-semitism is a crime- as it should be. With freedom of speech there comes a responsibility for understanding and sensitivity.
It is interesting that Fallaci like Anton "Affendi" is the darling of none other than Daniel Pipes. Smearing their enemies and lying is,for the neo-cons, a matter of course. Muslims are the victims of the "new" anti-Semitism not its perpetrators. We need to ask ourselves who is promoting this "clash of civilizations" at every opportunity.
What is missing in Muslim countries are popular governments that can articulate their peoples popular will into effective and legitimate policies. The burning and destruction of embassies in Lebanon , Gaza and Syria reflect the weakness of their gov'ts more than the anger of Muslims.
issam
By
Anonymous, at 4:27 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home