Cartoons Encore
By Zulfiqar Rana, MD, MPH
US
From time to time, the three monotheistic religions - Islam, Christianity, and Judaism - have taken jabs at one another. This is not new. However, in 2006 with the publication of some cartoons in a Danish journal about the Prophet of Islam triggered a new era of hitting below the belt. There have been plenty of instances in the past when anti-Islamic feelings have made an expression in the media. This time it was somewhat different. The attempt was solicited, calculated, and decidedly tasteless. After some hiatus this issue has resurfaced this year albeit with much less fanfare.
For most of us, Denmark evokes an image of a country that over the past few decades has become a near perfect showcase of a Socialist Democracy. So how was this sleepy little Scandinavian country thrown into the limelight recently? Just because of some ludicrous cartoons, some might say. For others because it fired the opening salvo that lit the already smoldering keg of Muslim resentment. The cartoons also started a debate about the primacy of free speech over religious and racial harmony in the West.
Free speech in modern history has become a sacred cow of Western ideology and ideals. It has to be defended at all costs. Thus A. C. Grayling who is a Professor of Philosophy at Birkbeck College, University of London, wrote the following in 2006 that nicely sums up the Western outlook:
"Free speech is the fundamental civil liberty. Without it none of the others is possible. I applaud the newspapers in Europe that have shown solidarity with Denmark's Jyllands-Posten newspaper by reprinting the cartoons, and regard our own Foreign Secretary as pusillanimous in buckling to the artificially inflated hysteria of those who think that feeling offended gives them a license to censor other people's freedom to criticize and satirize whomever they wish. I am strongly in favor of freedom to comment on anything, including religious matters. There needs to be some possibility to protect not only from direct incitement but from things that lead indirectly to violence. I think the spread of falsehood that can incite fear and hatred is something that should be controlled. I think people should be perfectly free to caricature any aspect of religion they wish. I am always baffled as to why it is considered blasphemous. It is made clear in Islam that Muhammad is not a divine figure. He is a human figure."
One might argue that he has a point. If Christians can make fun of Jesus Christ on a regular basis then why cannot Muslims do the same? It was precisely this position taken by Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Posten's culture editor when he wrote:
"The modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech, where you must be ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule."
However, some have questioned whether it was the burning need for self-expression and to uphold the flag of free speech that made them do all that or was it just another ruse to embarrass Muslims and vent their religious contempt against them. Some in fact have criticized the paper for holding double standards. Thus, the counter argument made by Muslims in general and some non-Muslims against the cartoons hinges on two separate grounds. First is utilitarian: given the tastelessness of the caricatures and the general message behind them was it worth it? Second (and more importantly) is ethical: what are the limits of free speech and should it apply equally to all (in our case the minorities)? Many Westerners claim that this is the case. For Muslims the answer is a resounding no. Many Muslim newspapers for example, have quoted the laws governing holocaust in Europe. For them it is this kind of duplicity that makes the arguments made by people like A. C. Grayling look spurious.
The whole affair resembles a bullfight. A bullfight is staged, calculated, and entertaining for the spectators. The matador has the brains and skill and the bull has the brawn. Usually the former wears-out the latter. When the Muslim community was first flashed the cartoons in 2005, they did what they usually do – mount a furious and feral initial response. There were attacks on embassies, ritual burning of flags, processions, marching and so on. They looted and plundered their own public properties. The upshot?
One might claim that some of the bigger papers were somewhat intimidated into not printing the cartoons. And then it all died down – only to resurface in February 2008 when the cartoons were reprinted in a Danish newspaper. This time many major Western papers followed suit including the New York-based Wall Street Journal and Britain 's The Observer. There is even a website that openly flaunts these cartoons.
This time there were sporadic protests. For example, close to 3,000 students in Mauritania marched through the streets of the capital Nouakchott early 2008. According to some reports at least 50 people have been killed in the protests so far. Although the charge after the publication of cartoons three years ago continues – it is nowhere as vigorous as before. While a museum in Copenhagen planned to acquire the 12 original Danish cartoons to preserve “a part of Danish history,” some Muslim leaders have suggested that it was time to "move on." It seems as if the bull is finally worn-out.
