[Note: The cartoon controversy that has enraged the world has upset me. I finally managed to see the pictures recently, and I was really upset, angry and hurt. I have poured out my soul in this article, so bear with the length of it.]
------
I was infuriated when I finally saw the cartoons on Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) through an email, which otherwise I could not see since most of them are blocked. I was really hurt. The one picture of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) wearing a turban made of bombs really hit me hard in my heart. Now that I think about it, these cartoons have messed with each Muslim’s heart on a very personal level. A friend of mine who is not a staunch Muslim felt hurt by them too. He told me that these cartoons struck a chord in his heart, and he felt hurt. I felt even more upset, as I have just returned from Hajj, retracing Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) steps there, getting to admire and appreciate Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and here I am face to face with these horrible cartoons.
I have been challenged at the most.
I don’t even know where to begin to sort this mess out. Why did they publish it again? What were they trying to prove? Were they making an attempt to see how far their concept of freedom of speech would go? If they printed it once, and apologized for it, what was the need to have all the major European papers publish it all over again? Is there some sort of hidden propaganda taking place? Lots more questions roam in my head, and I cannot make a sense of it.
These cartoons were originally published five months ago in Denmark, by the same newspaper, as an experiment to see how far “freedom of speech and expression” can go. They pushed the limit and boundary on the level of freedom they have by producing these drawings. No one spoke out five months ago. I think they felt the need to re-publish these drawings, to garner the attention they seeked the first time round. As we can all see, they have the world’s attention.
The Danish newspaper has since apologized for causing hurt, and have said sorry to the Muslim world. However, they have not apologized for publishing the cartoons. They maintain that it is their given right for “freedom of speech and expression.” I am fine with that. It is their country, their rules and I am not going to impose the Sharia laws on them. But what is not ok is deliberately re-publishing these images. Norway followed Denmark. Spain, France and Italy followed. These countries claim they are supporting Denmark for the values they stand for: Freedom of Expression. I personally think these papers did a very tasteless thing by re-publishing these images, either to add more fuel on the fire, or to insult the Muslims, or to increase the newspaper sales.
The Danish prime minister had called for a meeting with the Muslim world’s envoys, and tried convincing them that the government cannot control what the media says. A very poor attempt to reduce tensions I must say. The newspaper is not apologizing for what they have done. The Muslim world is boycotting Danish products, which is resulting a loss of 200 million dirhams for Danish businesses daily in the UAE. European flags are being burnt in countries from Palestine to Iraq to Indonesia. A Danish embassy was stormed at. Envoys are being recalled from Danish embassies. Libya closed its Embassy in Denmark. The scale of the controversy has impacted a lot more than what I am sure the newspaper would have imagined so. Some people have talked about the Muslim’s reactions as being wrong. The Danish Muslims, who are the second largest religious group there, should have handled the matter legally in the court under the pre-text of defamation of Islam. Muslims worldwide should have taken peaceful methods to deal with the issue (petition etc). The Muslim world leaders should have intervened and talked to Danish prime minister about the issue. There really was no need for flag burning, effigy burning, embassy storming. By doing all this, we are again portraying to the world that we a bunch of people ready to kill the “infidels,” and in the end, the interests of the Western world has been served as the world watches the violent Muslims demonstrating, thereby solidifying the image of Muslims being violent terrorists and non-peaceful people.
However, in defense of the Muslim’s reaction, I have to say that these cartoons are certainly inflammatory, offensive, hurtful and downright tasteless. I question the motives of the cartoonists. Were they seeking to insult Islam? Were they testing the tolerance of the Muslim world? Or were they really seeking to see how far their freedom of speech would take them? Does freedom of speech mean you insult something sacred to another group? You have to realize that religion has certainly been on a fast decline in Europe, and the Europeans are god-less people. They are secular, atheists, and agnostics. Church attendance is pitifully low. Gay marriages are allowed. Euthanasia is allowed. With morals on the decline, these people have a secular outlook on life, where the freedom to express themselves is more important than actually following a life of religious law. If the same cartoons were made of Jesus, they would not have bothered to protest. Because of this, they do not understand fully what Islam means to the Muslim. They don’t understand what being a Muslim is about. They are living with a totally mis-understood, confused, wrong understanding of Islam, which is depicted in the drawings. It’s pitiful really.
There will be people in this world who will advocate freedom of speech. Does that mean one can say absolutely one wants to? What if I go to Denmark and start publishing articles that the Holocaust is a lie? Freedom of speech doesn’t mean that you insult. It doesn’t mean you deliberately incite hatred. It doesn’t mean you hurt the sensibilities of a group of people. I remember Christians in America were upset when Madonna came out with her Like A Prayer video, with a black Jesus; they were also upset when The Last Temptation of Christ came out, which depicted Jesus falling in love with Mary Magdalene. They all protested, wrote letters, talked to the companies, influenced the big bosses, and created lobbies. We should learn a lesson from them too. We shouldn’t have to resort to flag burning, or boycotting all the time. When the Iranian president said that the Holocaust is a myth, the Europeans were very upset, so much so, they voiced their concerns. But they did not burn the Iranian flags. They dealt with the issue through diplomatic means. Imagine the impact if the Muslim world had peaceful demonstrations in large numbers, petitions, websites created to counter argue the cartoons, and so on.
I am comforted with the fact that God is in control of this world, and that the situation is not out of hands. He is in control. He knows exactly what is happening here. The predictions that the world will become amoral and without-religion is true. I know that at the end of the day, the people involved with the cartoons will be held accountable for their actions. Each one of us will be judged, and the rewards and punishments will be handed out accordingly. So, even if I cannot do anything as an individual, I can pray over the situation, be patience, persevere in my faith, and know that those who insult my faith, and the prophet Muhammad (pbuh), will be punished accordingly.
To quote Yusuf Islam, “I have no cannons that roar, but I have faith in God and love,” and that is all I need to help me get through this madness that has been unveiled in the name of freedom of speech.
Mansur
8 comments:
very well done for a very written piece of article. I felt like i was reading an editorial for a major newspaper. i like how you think, and how you present thoughts in a clear, concise manner.
Omar
for a while i thought i was reading some editorial which you copied and pasted from a major newspaper and i realized that it is you writing this. i am impressed with your thinking...
But they did not burn the Iranian flags. They dealt with the issue through diplomatic means.
Exactly.
This controversy is because the terrorists who use bombs and knives to behead, claim to be following the religion portrayed in the cartoons. This is their prophet that you see protrayed.
They have made a joke of muslims for years, with no reaction from the supposedly peaceful people.
Your blog is very interesting and educational and I enjoy it very much. However I am concerned about something here. You wrote this: 'By doing all this, we are again portraying to the world that we a bunch of people ready to kill the “infidels,” and in the end, the interests of the Western world has been served as the world watches the violent Muslims demonstrating, thereby solidifying the image of Muslims being violent terrorists and non-peaceful people.'
Aren't these actions giving a TRUE picture of these Muslims as violent, non-peaceful people if this is how they are acting, not a MISTAKEN impression? After all, they ARE being violent. It is not a misunderstanding on the part of those observing, is it? We (in the West) are trying to believe what is always said about Islam being a religion of peace, but these extreme reactions are shaping our views of Islam.
I have another question. It is said that ANY representation of Mohammed is not allowed. So is the offense that some of the cartoons were disrespectful or that there were any cartoons at all, regardless of what they looked like?
Western thought emphasizes tolerance, that we live side-by-side with people who have different beliefs and lifestyles than we do, as much as possible. Is this an aim of Muslims also, or is the aim/goal of Islam to reshape those societies around them to comply to sharia law even if they are not believers themselves? For example, we have heard that in England, there is pressure on shops in heavily Muslim neighborhoods to stop selling pork products, even if only bought by non-Muslims. Do you think this is correct? Many Westerners feel this is intolerant behavior on the part of the Muslims. I am sorry this comment is so long and contains so many questions. I would be very interested to read the responses in a post, should you choose.
Thank you again for all your writing. Your description of the Hajj was fascinating. Many of your readers would never learn about it any other way.
Anon @ 2:55
These Muslims whom you refer to following the religion of the prophet portrayed in the cartoons can be deemed somewhat true. Yes, there are fundamentalists in Islam who have deluded themselves into believing that violence is the answer. For all I know, they may have been brainwashed by devious mullahs, who have misled certain Muslims to follow their political ideas. I for one do not believe the prophet depicted in the cartoons comes even close to who the prophet really is.
Why should I believe some Danish cartoonists depiction of a prophet of a religion which he has grossly misunderstood? What's his credibility? He has created cartoons based on lies and misconceptions not based on truth and reality. And if in their mind, freedom of speech means lying to the people, so be it.
I have not lived in the West for far too long, but, whenever I have been in a situation where I feel my faith is being insulted, I make my voice heard. As for those peaceful Muslims, maybe they are doing whatever they can, but the media will never choose to show that. The media is hungry to show the angry and violent muslims because it helps them confirm the notion that all Muslims are violent etc etc.
The media is another controlled avenue. I used to think the media in the West is a great tool for freedom of expression, till I met people working for New York Times telling me their articles were being refused to be published because they were anti-Israel, or doubtedt he Holocaust.
Ha! So much for freedom of speech!
Mansur
Anon @ 7:04
Thanks for your questions. I will answer your queries to the best of my ability. I am not a learned Islamic scholar, so don't take my answers as the final say. :-)
Q 1. Aren't these actions giving a TRUE picture of these Muslims as violent, non-peaceful people if this is how they are acting, not a MISTAKEN impression? After all, they ARE being violent. It is not a misunderstanding on the part of those observing, is it?
Yes, the media cleverly chooses to highlight those Muslims who are seen burning flags etc, because that is what they want. I also blame these Muslims who vent their frustrations in a violent manner. They don't realize that they are somewhat contributing to the idea that muslims are violent. I wish they would not jump into flag burning, boycotting all the time. I wish these people would learn to adopt more peaceful means to resolve issues. Yes, I would agree with you, these images do not help at all to convey to the people in the West that Muslims are peaceful people.
Q 2. I have another question. It is said that ANY representation of Mohammed is not allowed. So is the offense that some of the cartoons were disrespectful or that there were any cartoons at all, regardless of what they looked like?
Well, the drawings in itself would have been deemed offensive, but it is the nature of the drawings that has upset everyone. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) has been drawn in classical paintings as well. My online encyclopedia even has a painting of the prophet. So, yes, there have been drawings made of the prophet before, but nothing of this nature, based on lies and misconceptions. Representational drawings of humans is discouraged, because it could lead to idolatry, and this can been seen in christian churches where people tend to pray to the statues of Jesus and Mary, convincing them God is in the statue. There is a simple reason behind not creating any images of the prophet. I would like to know on what basis have these Danish cartoonists based their image of the prophet on. There is no recorded image of Muhammad, or for that matter even Jesus. So how did they come with these facial features. For all we know, Jesus may not even look what popular portray him as.
Q 3. Western thought emphasizes tolerance, that we live side-by-side with people who have different beliefs and lifestyles than we do, as much as possible. Is this an aim of Muslims also, or is the aim/goal of Islam to reshape those societies around them to comply to sharia law even if they are not believers themselves?
In my opinion, and some wil beg to differ, the aim of a Muslim is not to go out to convert the non-Muslims and establish Islamic societies. I would totally disagree with the notion that Muslims are out there in the Western world to change the society to suit their needs. Muslims are tolerant, at least those who understand Islam in its proper form (another debatable issue). I am tolerant of my christian friends. I am tolerant of them celebrating Christmas.
Q 4. For example, we have heard that in England, there is pressure on shops in heavily Muslim neighborhoods to stop selling pork products, even if only bought by non-Muslims. Do you think this is correct?
Well, Muslims are not encouraged to sell pork or alcohol, but Islam is not a rigid religion. It allows for you to be practical. For example, Muslims are not allowed to eat pork, and are to eat Halal food. But if you are in a situation where you cannot find halal foods, or anything else, you can afford to eat pork. When I was in small-town Texas, there were no halal foods, and because of my situation I was allowed to eat non-halal food. As for selling, it is discouraged.
I hope this helps. Like I said earlier, don't take my answers as the final say on these matters. I encourage you to seek for answers from elsewhere, and form your own opinion.
I am glad you enjoyed reading my Hajj diaries.
Mansur
Post a Comment