Upholding the Sacred in Islam and Democracy: Freedoms of Expression and Faith

Transcription

1 Upholding the Sacred in Islam and Democracy: Freedoms of Expression and Faith Mehdi Noorbaksh Center for International Studies University of St. Thomas "O you who have attained to faith! Be ever steadfast in your devotion to God, bearing witness to the truth in all equity; and never let hatred of any-one lead you into the sin of deviating from justice. Be just: this is closest to being God-conscious. And remain conscious of God: verily, God is aware of all that you do" (Qur an, 5:8). This verse from the Qur an was often cited by moderate Muslims after the violent storms of the last few weeks in some parts of the Muslim world to encourage calm and persuade thousands of Muslims from all over the world, including émigrés in Europe to denounce violence and peacefully protest against the cartoons. The Danish cartoon debacle and the ensuing violence in some Muslim quarters have generated divisions within the West as well as within the Muslim world. In the West, the pressing issue has hinged on freedom of speech and expression, and whether there are acceptable constraints on their application, while in the Muslim world the nature and scope of the reaction has been the contested debate. The conflict is still far from over and both the debate and protests continue in some Muslim communities. That there are lessons to be learned is beyond question. But those on all sides need to be willing to engage in an ongoing dialog about the freedom to voice opinion, opposition and dissent peacefully and without damaging mutual trust. The images of the violent protests in places like Lebanon, Syria and Southeast Asia made moderate and reformist Muslims throughout the world, Europe and the US cringe. The cartoons were published last September by Denmark s largest daily newspaper, Jyllands-Posten. The newspaper s cultural editor invited cartoonists to depict Muhammad as they saw him in their drawings for publication. He must certainly have been aware that Muslims consider representation of Muhammad as sacrilegious and the invitation is interpreted by many Muslims as evidence of an eagerness to test the limits of criticism of Islam. Following the publication of 12 cartoons, one of which depicts Muhammad wearing a turban shaped as a bomb with a burning fuse, the small Muslim community in Denmark, in addition to the ambassadors of a dozen of Muslim countries wrote to Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen explaining they were offended by the images. These individuals and groups asked him to demand an apology from the paper and also apologize on behalf of his country. Prime Minister Rasmussen declined to intervene and recommended the complainants file a lawsuit under Denmark s anti-blasphemy law. They filed a lawsuit, but the cartoon was later republished in other European countries, most notably France, Spain, Italy, and Germany and circulated more broadly in the Muslim world. The nature of the cartoons outraged both moderate Muslims and radical factions alike. And if meaningful attempt to bridge the so-called divide between cultures

2 is to materialize, this is where the danger lies in alienating or disillusioning moderateminded Muslims from the West s pro-dialogue stance. Extremist Muslims reacted violently to these depictions and protest quickly swelled in the Middle East and elsewhere; the Danish Consulate in Lebanon and the Danish and Norwegian Embassies in Syria were destroyed; and boycotts of Danish goods continue. Moderate Muslims were enraged by the violent fury that unfortunately was transmitted as the Muslim response. But they also took offense at what they perceived to be the level of insensitivity of some in the West to religious persuasion in the Muslim world, and the selective targeting of Islam under the protection of press freedoms. This was not a display of ridicule against the abstract concept of religion, or a depiction of an angry mullah, often poked fun at or used as socio-political symbols in the past. This time the target was perceived to be the very sanctity of the Muslim faith. But what lessons are to be learned from this debacle by both Muslims and Western observers? The violence following the publication of the cartoons was certainly out of proportion and should have been condemned instantly by both Muslims and the West, because dialogue demands the language of moderation, mutual respect, and tolerance the prerequisites and fruits of an inclusive and participatory relationship. But what about the cartoons? Should they have received identical blame and condemnation? The search for the answer to this question stirred up old apprehensions in the US and Europe in their relations with their Muslim immigrant populations, and also served as a painful reminder of the internal friction in the Muslim world, and between the Muslim moderates and their Western sympathizers. Some in the West agreed with moderate Muslims and condemned both the violence and the cartoons. The EU senior foreign policy official, Javier Solana, United Nations Secretary General, Kofi Annan, and Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, wrote a joint statement condemning both the cartoons and the violent reactions to the publication of the cartoons. The Prime Minister of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, as leader of a predominantly Muslim country, and Spain s Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero of his predominantly Christian country published a joint communiqué in the Paris-based International Herald Tribune on February 5 th calling for calm, We shall all be the losers if we fail to immediately defuse this situation Therefore, it is necessary to make an appeal for respect and calm, and let the voice of reason be heard. Senator John F. Kerry was quoted, These and other inflammatory images deserve our scorn, just as the violence against embassies and the military installations are an unacceptable and intolerable form of protest. Former Democratic congressman and a member of the September 11 commission, Timothy J. Roemer, argued, We have done precious little to effectively communicate to the hearts and minds and win that long-term war This seems to be an opportunity to condemn the cartoons and communicate directly with the Muslim people on a host of issues. The U.S. administration s initial reaction to the cartoons was one of strong criticism. State Department spokesman Kurtis Cooper 2

3 stated on February 3 rd that, Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable. In Europe, the reactions were different. While the press in Norway, France and Germany defended the cartoons on the basis of freedom of expression; Poland, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand considered the publications of these cartoons insensitive, disrespectful, offensive, wrong and unnecessary. French President Jacques Chirac responding to a newspaper s reprinting of the cartoons in France said, Anything liable to offend the beliefs of the others, particularly religious belief, must be avoided. In the United States, the administration s moods on the cartoons began to change on February 8 th, when violence in Iran and Syria picked up, leading to the burning of the Danish Embassies in both of these countries. Washington blamed Iran and Syria for instigating violence in the Middle East in reaction to the publication of the cartoons. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told reporters on February 8 th, I have no doubt that Iran and Syria have gone out of their way to inflame sentiments and have used this for their own purposes The world ought to call them on it. A few hours earlier to Rice s remarks, in a White House ceremony with King Abdullah of Jordan, President Bush condemned the violence but not the cartoons, We reject violence as a way to express discontent with what may be printed in a free press. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi agreed with the Bush administration s later position of the concern for the freedom of press and expression. But King Abdullah of Jordan did not share President Bush s view. Many of the allies of the United States in the Middle East and the war against terrorism demanded Washington condemn the drawings in order to ease the tension created in the region as a result of the American invasion in Iraq. Abdullah said, With all respect to press freedoms, obviously anything that vilifies the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, or attacks Muslim sensibilities, I believe, needs to be condemned. This points to what really does not come as a surprise at a time when tensions are already high in the region due to escalating conflict in Iraq, the cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist inflamed another sensitivity and anxiety in the Muslim world that Islamophobia is spreading in Europe and the U.S. What truly is at issue? Is it the clash of civilizations or something else? There are certainly two cultures with two different sets of values: one values the sacredness and absoluteness of freedom of expression and the other values first its faith. No one can blame either side of the freedom divide, except when one side oversteps its limits and attempts to impose the values underlying its belief and its own symbol of sacredness on the other. Muslims do not object to the sacredness of the freedom of expression held among Western democracies. They do however reject the absolutism in this belief which during the recent events has attempted to override decency and respect for other, equally sacred, beliefs. Many Muslims have repeatedly shown that they believe in the sacredness of their faith over other things, including freedom of expression as applied by the Western media. The protests reigning over Muslim communities were really over the rejection of any norm that threatens to deny their belief in the sacredness of their faith. 3

4 But should this be construed as a rejection of all democratic norms or are they symptoms of a deeper malaise afflicting Muslims in the Middle East and the denial of their right to voice any form of protest, dissent, or opposition? That Muslims had the right to be outraged, offended and shocked by the publication of the cartoons is not up for debate. What do however necessitate discussion are the threats to the voicing of personal opinion and rational dissent in the Muslim world imposed by domestic regime repression in the Middle East. The problem is not a rejection of democratic freedom of speech, but a lack of institutionalized access to it. To many disillusioned Muslims, it appears that the only legitimate and unpunished expression of opposition is through violent means; since peaceful recourses to express dissent are routinely blocked by extremely restrictive government imposed measures curbing freedom of speech. And ironically, many of these governments are backed by Europe and especially the United States. This is not to excuse or tolerate the violence espoused by radical Muslim factions in their protest over the cartoons in no way was it acceptable. But the distinction should be clear: the outrage over the cartoons was not because of a rejection of democratic values, but because of a routine denial of access and expression of it and also insensitivity of the West toward Muslims and their faith. But the issue is not only about the nature of the outraged response, but also hinges on the bounds and limits of freedom of expression, both in the West and in the Muslim world. Should freedom of expression trump freedom of faith? The rejection of the offensive cartoons did not impose any demand on Western democratic values or convictions on the notion of freedom of expression. It is not anti-democratic in nature to request respect for belief held by 1.2 billion followers because it does not infringe on the right to freedom of expression by any standard, including the Western one. Adherence to a norm or value, however primitive it is, is the right of any individual, under any notion of democracy. Insulting a person for what he or she believes in is definitely not democratic in nature because it rejects the right of that individual in belief and faith. Imposing a value system over another value system is un-democratic because it denotes the superiority of a value system over the other. In the West, the notions of Manifest Destiny and the responsibility of civilizing the barbarian cultures no longer stand the test of democratic norms. In this case, the cartoonists imposed not only their values over Muslims by telling them that their devotion to the belief in the sacredness and absoluteness of the freedom of expression is more valued than theirs, but they did it in an utterly insulting manner. It was insulting because both the moderate and radical Muslims did not want to see their faith depicted by a symbol of violence. They rejected any idea or value that set out to equate the Islamic faith with the political violence in the Middle East. And this is the irony of the whole story, that even those who used violence to protest were condemning the link between violence with faith. But there is another twist in this story. The West is cognizant of the fact that the Muslims never fully subscribe to the totality of democratic norms expressed under Western cultures. Freedom of expression is not an absolute value by itself for the Muslims; it is a value in the broader context of faith, reason and respect. In Islam ridiculing another person is considered a sin. The Qur an forbids Muslims to even use names for others that are insulting, belittling and have negative connotations. When a faith is this instructive to 4

5 the point of being intrusive in the behavior of its adherents to promote respect and tolerance, no one can expect the application of other boundless values to the behavior of the believer of this faith. Cartoons are mostly used to mock or scorn a person or an idea. Herein lies another irony in this debacle that the language used is the language of disgrace and shame. Demanding Muslims to subscribe to Western models of democracy and embrace all of its tenets is at best an absurd idea. Muslim democracies have their own prerogatives as democracies in the other parts of the world have. Certainly, in a country such as Israel, viewed as the insisted prototype of democracy in the Middle East by the United States and some Western countries, sacrilegious images of Judaism are not allowed. In some European countries such as Britain, there are anti-blasphemy laws. What is perceived blasphemy in Christian Latin America by the Catholic masses is not tolerated. In the Muslim world, although Turkey s reaction as a secular democracy to the cartoons was peaceful when compared to the reaction in autocratic Syria, in both cases the sense of indignation and shame was similarly shared. Democratic Muslim countries such and Turkey and Malaysia rejected the cartoons as an insult rooted in malicious intent at worst, and severely misguided judgment on the part of the cartoonists at best. On February 6, 2006, the Guardian wrote that the Danish daily, Jyllands-Posten that initially published the cartoons of Prophet Muhammad turned down cartoons of Christ three years ago on the basis that they could be offensive to the Christian readers of the paper. In April 2003, Danish illustrator Christoffer Zieler submitted a series of unsolicited cartoons dealing with the resurrection of Christ to Jyllands-Posten. Zieler received an response from the paper s Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, which said: I do not think Jyllands-Posten s readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them. The newspaper editor predicted that the publication of the cartoons will provoke outcry in a society that is democratic and understands the freedom of expression. This is the minimum that 200 thousand Muslims in Denmark with a 5.4 million population expected from the newspaper when it was publishing the cartoons of Prophet Muhammad. Besides, the West should appreciate the fact that Islam is not only a faith in the Muslim world, but it is also a culture and a source of identity. The people have mostly an emotional attachment to their identity. Secular and religious nationalisms all over the globe attach themselves to that identity, which can instigate mobilization and change in their respective societies. When religion becomes the last resort for many, that emotional attachment grows stronger. In much of the Muslim world, the Islamic culture is overwhelmingly felt by other minorities. In Iraq, the Christian minority participates in the Shiite ritual of Ashura by participation in charity during those special days. In the month of Ramadan, all other minorities in the Muslim world participate in charity and the spirit of that month. The Muslims reciprocate by respecting Christian or Jewish rituals, especially during Christmas. And that is how the Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus and others lived side by side with each other in many part of the Muslim world. Bangladesh by any standard is a poor country where the adherents of two faiths, Muslims and Hindus, have lived side by side peacefully for many years. After independence, there was a tendency to call the new nation, East-Pakistan. But the suggestion was rejected in 5

6 favor of putting the name of the race and ethnicity, Bangali, on the new nation. That forged a nation based on the respect for the plurality of faiths. But dialogue requires the participation and commitment of both sides that have a stake in overcoming seemingly impassable divides. What lessons can Muslims learn from the Danish cartoon controversy? Perhaps the first and foremost is that the images of fellow Muslims inciting hatred and violence is more of an insult to the Prophet Muhammad than misguided cartoon depictions. The Islamic faith demands that its adherents act to eliminate social injustices, and in today s world where misperceptions unfortunately prevail over true accounts, moderate Muslims must practice what they preach. Muslim moderates must actively protest against programming that is insulting and discriminatory in the press of some Muslim countries. Respect needs to be reciprocal and mutual. Islam and the Muslim heritage demand nothing less. There are several other points that the publishers of the cartoons dismissed. First, religious pluralism is as a strong component of a democratic society as the freedom of expression is. In democratic societies, not only the plurality of opinions is appreciated but the plurality of religions is also respected because appreciation for various religious experiences brings cohesiveness and blends members of society into a larger community, the nation. Religious beliefs are also respected because it is that respect which strives to discourage discrimination and encourage tolerance and respect for human rights. Respect for human rights in general motivates citizens to participate in the political process and feel a sense of belonging to that community and loyalty to the nation and state. Democratic institutions cannot be constructed in societies where religious hatred and ethnical conflict exist. The term Judeo-Christian was coined for the first time in the United States delineating the common ethical standards rooted in both religions. That was done with the intention to establish a non-denominational civil religion that could embrace Judaism and reject anti-semitism. Christianity in the United States became inclusive for the sake of religious tolerance and democratic values. Second, the West should be mindful of the fact that the Muslim world in general and the Middle East in particular is in the midst of a transition to building democratic institutions. Malaysia, Turkey and Lebanon have passed the critical phases of this transition, while Iran is battling toward it. Other countries of the Middle East such as Qatar, Jordan and Egypt are at the beginning of this phase. In this process, the battle and conflict between tradition and modernity, and radicalism and moderation is inevitable. Muslim and non- Muslim moderates in the Muslim world need very much the moral support of the West and not its agitation that creates tension. Insensitivity of the West would only agitate the radical tendencies in these nations and put the moderates in a defensive mode. It creates conflict, tension and disturbance. Democracy and democratic debates could not take place in a non peaceful and unstable environment. The Middle East in particular is currently tainted with conflicts and tensions. Lack of progress in the Arab-Israeli conflict and the American invasion of Iraq have imposed an unbearable amount of tension in this region. Because of these tensions, instigated from outside and inside, any agitation leads toward unease, disturbance and occasionally violence. It is in the interest of the West to 6

7 support a peaceful environment especially in the Middle East for democratic debate and transition. Third, the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights adopted since March 1976 clearly indicates in one article, Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discriminate, hostility or violence shall be prohibited. The cartoons have definitely had a discriminatory message associating Islam with violence. Besides the blasphemy laws in many democracies, some European countries restricted the freedom of expression in several areas. It many of the Western democracies the act of inciting racial hatred is illegal. In many European countries those who deny the Holocausts openly will receive up to five years in prison. A Western media outlet would not dare to publish a cartoon ridiculing the Holocaust. In some other countries burning the flag is illegal and in the United States even the most ardent supporters of the freedom of expression will pause when it comes to burning the flag of this country. The reason is very obvious as flags symbolically represent identity and loyalty. There are also some other issues in the realm of expression that are not acceptable in the Western countries. The President of Harvard incited calls for his resignation because in a speech he suggested the hypothetical of research on the intellectual inferiority of women to men. Racial profiling and discrimination on the basis of race, religion and cultures are illegal under democracies. Fourth, globalization in the most realistic sense of the word is not only about economy and trade, it is also about ideas and values that human beings can share and benefit from for the improvement of their lives. Globalization has been undermining more than ever the cultural barriers and exclusive values among nations. This means that cultural exclusivity is being replaced by cultural sensitivity and understanding. Without appreciating the value of cultural diversity that transcend cultural exclusivity and contribute to a new global culture of respect for all cultures, the idea of global village would be misplaced. In the global village, humans participate not only in trade, but also in the sharing of experiences, values, cultures and more. Insulting other cultures and religions for their belief and values is totally against the sprit of building a global community. Modern democracy and globalization both originated in the West. The West should be more cognizant of how to protect the sanctity of both democratic values and true globalization when it comes to accommodating other values and beliefs. In the course of the cartoon crisis, there were two extremist camps pushing for more confrontations and extremist approaches. Neither aids the project of democratization or the consolidation of common ground between those in the West and those in the Muslim world. Addressing thousands of people in the anniversary of the Iranian revolution in Tehran in early February, President Mahmood Ahmadinejad said the United States and Europe should pay a heavy price for the publications of cartoons. The cartoons publication offered a good opportunity to the racial extremism in the Muslim world to mobilize, especially against the United States. The other extreme in the United States was represented by Daniel Pipes in an article for New York Sun on February 7 th under Cartoons and Islamic Imperialism. After a lengthy discussion criticizing the United States under the former Bush administration for its stand on Rushdi s Satanic Verses, and 7

8 the Clinton Administration for condemning in 1997 the distribution of a poster by an Israeli women portraying Muhammad as a pig, he concludes People who would stay free must stand unreservedly with Denmark. Mr. Pipes was President Bush s appointee to the US Institute of Peace in 2003, a nomination and appointment that angered many republicans, democrats and the Muslims all over the world. When it comes to offer extreme solutions and views on the Muslim world, Mr. Pipes is in the forefront. For the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict he believes that the Israeli military must bring about a change of heart by the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza through military actions that totally eliminates the Palestinian will to fight and leads to a complete surrender. How is a change of heart achieved? It is achieved by an Israeli victory and a Palestinians defeat The Palestinians need to be defeated even more than Israel needs to defeat them. On a recent posting in FrontPageMagazine on February 13, under the title of Moslem States Represent a potential Threat to World Peace, Mr. Pipes goes through a document on Islam and the Muslim world that was published by the United States government in 1946 and concludes, The perception that the Muslim world could impede world stability is deep and remarkable This confirms, again, that 9/11 and attendant aggression should not have been the shock they were. But what are the lessons that could be learned from this conflict? First, the 5.4 million Danes should give up the illusion that they are living in a different planet from the 1.2 billion Muslims and 6 billion population of the world. Globalization, mass communication and information technology have brought nations close to each other more than ever. In the era of mass communication words and deeds are exposed instantly. Cultural sensitivity and broader appreciation of other values are prerequisite to peace and harmony among the nations. The cartoons and the reaction to their publication indicated the staying power of an old ingrained fear in Europe, that Muslims in the West and their Western neighbors remain estranged, even generations later. Second, members of Western nations must be sensitive to the deep injustice that the Muslims feel. After one hundred fifty years of colonialization by the West and fifty years of the Cold War that inflicted heavy destruction and harm on the Muslim world, many Muslims are convinced that the West is not showing any moral concern over their plight. Under colonialism and Cold War, the West incited and sided with authoritarianism to keep these societies in check. The loss of innocent Muslims in the past and currently in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan does not stir any interest in the West. In the current debate on the American pull out from Iraq, the debate is to save America and not the life and livelihood of Iraqis. The cost of the war in Iraq has not included the cost of the war for the Iraqi citizens. Third, as a civilization that had a golden age from , and contributed enormously to the Western civilization and was essential in pulling out Europe from Dark Ages, the Muslims demand respect. It is the same Islam that put together the knowledge and skills of the ancient Middle East, Greece, Persia and India to create a rich civilization contributing to the vigor of the Western civilization. Despite many problems that the Muslims face today, some of which have been inflicted upon them in the past history by 8

9 the West, democratization is flourishing in many parts of the Muslim world and there is a vigorous attempt to integrate their economies to the global economy. Fourth, it is no doubt, that the threat of force and violence must be rejected by the West and the Muslim world be encouraged to participate in a dialogue. By now the too familiar Clash of Civilization theory is a pessimistic viewpoint that is used mostly by extreme tendencies in the West to encourage a clash with the Muslim world and discrimination against Islam. This is a dangerous scheme that leads only to more violence and misunderstanding and should not become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The population of 1.2 billion Muslims in the world is too much to be dismissed. Many from this population are part of the population in the Western countries and contribute actively to the education, science and economy of these countries. The population of six million Muslims in the United States is the testimony to this contribution and participation in the democratic process in this country. The Muslim world has something to teach the West. Muslims have lived in peace for centuries with different minorities from other faiths in many Muslim nations. Yes, they had they share of small conflicts, but never resorted to mass mobilized movements to cleanse their nations from others. Muslims did not reciprocate the savagery of the Crusades and the Muslim world has never allowed mass cleansing movements such as the one by the Nazis and the Serbians. Major conflicts with minorities in the Muslim world were planned by the governments and not the people. Minorities were welcomed to the Muslim land after the Spanish Inquisition and especially the Jews were welcomed in different parts of the Muslim world. The Palestinians and the Jews were living together peacefully for centuries before the establishment of the state of Israel in The largest Jewish community in the Middle East outside Isreal lives in Iran today. The Jews considered themselves citizens of these nations and did not migrate to Israel albeit the financial rewards that they could have received. The West can learn from this experience and be more sensitive to the Muslims and respect Islam for what it is for its adherents in many Western countries and the Muslim world. President Bush made a historical mistake in misreading the cartoon crisis. It was not about freedom of expression, it was about cultural insensitivity. It was not about the Muslims, it was mostly about the West and the democratic norms that recognize human rights to belief without the threat of insult and attack on others dignity. The newspaper, Jyllands-Posten finally apologized to Muslims for missing a great lesson of democracy: human rights to belief without the threat of insult. But extremists in the West that criticized Muslims for their sensitivity, denounced Jyllands-Posten later for its apology. The Bush administration had a historical chance to show a moral concern over what insulted Muslims, but did not adequately stand with the moderates in the Muslim world to firmly denounce the cartoons and violence equally. Using Islam as a weapon of violence was as bad as using freedom of expression as a weapon of insult. The shift of the president toward denouncing the violence more strongly than the cartoons, has shown that this administration lacks understanding of politics in the Muslim world. The confusion and tragedy borne of this debacle could have been leveraged as a moral boost that the moderates need to push for reform and democratization in many repressive 9

10 regimes across the Middle East. Cartoons were published in Denmark and Europe, where there is a rift with the United States on how Washington handles the war against terrorism and pursues policies in the Middle East. With firm critical stands of the European leaders against the cartoons and violence equally, they showed that there is also a rift between them and Washington on this issue and that they understand the Muslim world better than this administration. The price of cultural insensitivity was paid mostly by the United States in this crisis and not European countries from where the cartoons were originated. My special thanks to my research assistant, Burcu Ozcelik. 10