Absolute freedom to cause offense?
February 7, 2006
Embassy of Denmark, Damascus, February 2006.
Most of the 12 Danish cartoons are certainly offensive in that they insult the Prophet Muhammad, and in that they imply that Islam is by nature a violent religion. Some are also typically orientalist and incredibly crude (the prophet wears an Indian-style turban with a bomb in it). It would be difficult to believe that the editor responsible for their publication did not imagine they would cause an outcry, to say the least, especially when he had apparently refused to publish cartoons depicting Jesus (another prophet revered by Muslims) a few years ago.
It is also probable that the subsequent publishers of the offending cartoons (in Norway, France, Germany) knew perfectly well they would cause even more outrage. This was downgrading freedom of speech to simple provocation; while it is certainly legally defendable, it is ethically questionable. On both sides of the divide (assuming there are only two sides), there have been hidden agendas which intransigent people have tried to pursue; one side has tried to prove Muslims are insulted and mistreated in the West, while the other tried to prove Muslims are dangerous and inherently aggressive. Sadly, both sides managed to be proved somewhat right. Islam has not been well defended by recent events - nor has, for that matter, the notion of freedom of speech.
Is the Danish government supposed to apologize for the offense caused by the cartoons? It refused to do that in September when the cartoons were originally published, and it was right to do so: the Danish government is not responsible for the country's media. Unfortunately, the notion of an independent media is still one that seems incomprehensible in the Arab world, through no fault of the people. The problem is that many Western governments (including the Danish one) do not bring up freedom of speech and freedom of expression when they condemn positions that are deemed to be anti-Semitic (that doesn't include Arabs, of course, because they are not considered to be Semites for some odd reason). The resulting perception for many is that while anti-Semitism is off-limits and sometimes punishable by law, Islamophobia is not, which might explain why more and more Muslims are paranoid.
The Danish government should have foreseen the potential for trouble and should have been more flexible and understanding with the initial complaint logged by Danish Muslims. At the very least, the Danish prime minister should have agreed to meet with the ambassadors from Muslim countries last October, but he unwisely and undiplomatically denied their request.
Still, if I had a bone to pick with the Danish government, it would be for actions for which it was truly responsible, such as its decision (for instance) to have participated in the invasion of Iraq and to have kept over 500 troops since then. I would have a bone to pick with the Danish parliament's decision to extend the troops' presence in Iraq and with the reprehensible actions of some Danish troops with Iraqis.
Does the offense caused by the cartoons justify the violent reactions seen so far? Certainly not! In fact, the latter have outraged me a thousand times more than the original cartoons could ever have! Even the most religious Muslims or the most scholarly Islamists will be hard pressed to find a validation for this violence in the texts of Islamic law or in the Quran. This is not self-defense. If anything, the reaction of some Muslims around the world has "proved" that Muslims are violent and that Islam is intolerant - seemingly making this a self-fulfilling prophecy. I find nothing Islamic in these uncivilized displays of aggression and ignorance.
I was particularly incensed by the theatrics of some Palestinian militants (interestingly, not from Hamas or religious parties) in front of the EU embassy in Gaza, threatening violence if the Danish government did not apologize; while Muslims in Palestine have as much affinity with their religion as anyone else and have the right to feel offended, surely they have a lot more pressing issues than the cartoons. The same goes for the rioters in a number of Muslim countries. As for the signs seen during the London demonstrations, they are totally unacceptable and can only be interpreted as incitement to violence. No Muslim I know would identify with the notion that someone who insults Islam deserves to be punished, let alone beheaded! Nonsense. The Islam I know washes its hands of such thugs.
All these scenes have given the media plenty of opportunities in the past few days to portray the fanaticism of the demonstrators (and consequently Muslims), choosing the most shocking and scary images to drive home a point: as example, see this Rasputin-like photo in The Daily Telegraph on Monday. I really don't think this young man was physically representative of the Lebanese rioters, but a picture is worth a thousand words.
It is important to remember, however, that while some protests have indeed been fanatical and violent, they were relatively limited in scope and still only represent a tiny minority of Muslims. Most would not dream of taking things to this extreme and totally dissociate themselves from these actions.
Does the offense call for a boycott of Danish products? Not in my opinion; not only is that uncalled for, but it is as ridiculous as Americans pouring bottles of French wine down the drain when France refused to sanction the invasion of Iraq. I don't think that switching from Lurpak butter to other brands will have much of an effect on the portrayal of Islam abroad. Furthermore, the Danish people are not to blame for the actions of one editor. The case here is very different from the boycott of South African products until the end of apartheid, or from the boycott of Israeli products: in these two cases, it is believed that a good portion of the people of these countries had (and still have) a clear responsibility and an impact on the actions of their governments, and it was thought economic pressure could help redress iniquities. A boycott of Danish products therefore seems futile - especially when we come back to the original issue of freedom of speech (and not freedom to oppress or dispossess).
If the Danish government is believed to be responsible for the actions of some of its citizens, what does this mean for the governments of Syria and of Lebanon, and of the countries where damage was caused to a number of European embassies? There are so many parts to this question. In my mind, there is absolutely no doubt that the Syrian regime is responsible for the damage done to the embassies in Damascus (especially that of Chile, which has the misfortune of sharing a building with the Danes and the Swedes). You don't need to be a Syria expert to know that nothing of that magnitude can take place in Syria without the permission AND the encouragement of the regime. And you don't need to be a Syria expert to realize the absurdity of recalling a non-resident ambassador to Denmark when Syria needs all the EU contacts it can get!
I am sure that the demonstrators were genuinely angry, but they were also worked up into a frenzy by rumours; indeed, many had received text messages claiming that Danes would meet that weekend in a Copenhagen square to burn Qurans! While I have no evidence to point fingers, I wonder who started these rumours and who stands to gain from the consequences. I do not dispute the fact that most Syrians are religious, but I do not recognize such mindless fundamentalism. (Unlike in Beirut, thankfully, no church was even touched.) Just as Syrians "happened" to storm the American embassy a few years ago, "overwhelming" the security forces, they were clearly permitted to show those Danes a lesson and were treated with unrealistic kid gloves by the police! If the Syrian regime expects us to believe the people were out of control, its stupidity is truly astounding.
As for the problems in Beirut, I know that some of my Lebanese friends will disagree with my view that while this certainly started as an organized demonstration with dubious goals, underlying sectarian feelings did come out at one point (worryingly turning the event into a Muslim vs. Christian clash), and it could not be blamed solely on Syria. This is not a good omen for the future and brings back too many bad memories.
Are Arab regimes taking advantage of the situation? Of course they are. How convenient for them to fuel the people's anger and to "allow" them to express their frustration. How convenient to have "proof" of the people's fundamentalism as a reminder of the regimes' "moderation." It's either us or the Muslim Brotherhood, they want to tell us all, which is why hordes shouting "Allahu akbar" really serves their agendas. These are the same regimes which did not hesitate to violently crush demonstrations in support of the Intifada, when millions of Arabs (and Muslims) truly and spontaneously took to the streets to vent their anger at Israeli actions.
How convenient for some of these regimes to demand respect for religion: does Saudi Arabia have a leg to stand on when it forbids the manifestation of any religion other than Islam? Is it respectful when no church, bible or crucifix can be found there? How does that fit with Islam's tenet that "there shall be no compulsion in religion?" And, by the way, would the Saudis have recalled their ambassador had the offending publication been American? How convenient, of course, that the boycott is being targetted towards relatively inoffensive countries like Denmark.
Have I been as annoying as Rumsfeld by posing and answering my own questions? You bet, so here is a final thought. Following Gebran Tueni's murder in December, I simply wrote in this blog one of my favorite Voltaire quotes, which I think represents my stance today: "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it."
There are so many other, better ways to explain the tenets of Islam to those who hold a particularly skewed view of it, based on the actions of a minority. Dialogue is certainly wiser than diatribe. And while some people choose to take offense in varying degrees at insignificant (albeit insensitive) cartoons, I will continue to direct my outrage at other issues in the Middle East and around the world which directly affect human lives.
