|
Cartoons and Brainless Rioters By Abdulsalam Olatubosun Ajetunmobi
It is regrettable to read of violent protests in the Northern part of the country against the profanity of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) by Western press. The Secretary General of the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs, Dr. Abdul-Lateef Adegbite in an interview with the Sunday Vanguard, February 26, 2006 rightly described these protesters destroying lives and property as “thugs” and “not Muslims … because Islam is a religion of peace.”
The description is so redolent of history of religious frenzy in the North as to be a precedent in itself. There is little doubt that the publication of the cartoons, originally by Danish newspaper is ill-judged, insensitive and offensive, but this should not be the alibi for an orgy of outrageous reactions. To engage in violence against people or property because of these cartoons is to leave the field of legitimate complaint and enter one of censorship enforced under threat of intimidation. I cannot see how the honour and dignity of the Prophet have been advanced in any way by the crowds of protesting thugs with machetes, sticks and iron rods burning flags, shops and churches and killing people.
Gratuitous offence to religious sensibilities emanating from Denmark and other European nations is nothing new. Offending Jesus Christ, the Pope, the clergy in European TV and media is very common. The Danish Penal Code, for instance, contains provisions against “statements, which threaten, insult, or degrade persons based on their religion” but these provisions have become an obsolete and unnecessary part of Danish Constitution.
For instance, a Danish artist once portrayed Jesus as sexually active and the clergy as corrupt; another also displayed a naked Jesus with an erect penis on the wall of a Danish local railway station. In these two cases and similar ones, no legal measures were taken and no charges were laid against anyone. However, there were protests from devoted Christians, but no emotive or infantile sermons ever emanated from the pulpit.
Of course, lampooning the Holocaust is still illegal under most European hate speech laws, which outlaw intimidating or inciting hatred toward groups on the basis of their ethnic, cultural, religious or sexual identity. And complaints about any hate speech against the Jews are common with consequent prosecutions and, at times, convictions as happened recently in the case of a British historian, David Irving who, last week, was sentenced to a three-year prison term by an Austrian Court for denying the Holocaust.
This has to be put in a context. There is a distinction between Jewish people, institutions and beliefs in the same way as there is a general recognition of the complex heterogeneity of Muslims. There are Arab-, European-, Asia-, and African Muslims with different history, internal dynamics and distinctive features. The horror of slavery which, in a way, is analogous to Jewish Holocaust for instance, cannot be easily forgotten by many a Black person, whether a Muslim or a Christian. And in this regard, lampooning a Black person (e.g. an African-American) on account of this horror will undoubtedly be gratuitously offensive, regardless of his or her religious convictions.
It is worth noting that not a single Jew has reportedly blown himself up in a German restaurant, destroyed a church in the Vatican or protested in European streets killing people for any Anti-Semitic comments. Whereas some “thugs” have once turned Buddha statue into rubble, yet no Buddhist has burnt down a Mosque, killed a Muslim, or burnt down an embassy on account of this action. Only the “thugs” and their sympathisers defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people, and destroying embassies.
Freedom of speech is not a one-way traffic; it is a two-way traffic. About a month ago, the head of the Muslim Council of Britain, Sir Iqbal Sacranie was investigated by London Police for asserting that homosexuality was "harmful." Although no charge was eventually brought against him but a letter was published in The Times (UK) from a group of prominent British Muslim leaders who defending his alleged homophobic comments. These leaders wrote that "All Britons, whether they are in favour of homosexuality or not, should be allowed to freely express their views in an atmosphere free of intimidation or bullying. We cannot claim to be a truly free and open society while we are trying to silence dissenting views."
The difficulty here is that what may appear as an open statement of fact to one person (e.g. Sir Iqbal Sacranie's) may be threatening to another (Gay Right's). Therefore, free speech means that we must tolerate statements to which we actively object, however misconceived. Although matters of religious doctrine may be much more important than trifles, but it must be noted that the sacred texts of many of the world's major faiths, and indeed some new religious movements, contain expressions, in some cases strong expressions of hatred.
While images of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), whether benign or malignant are not well regarded in Islamic circles, but it will be an exaggeration to suggest that such images have never existed in the Islamic tradition. They truly exist in abundance and have existed for years dating back to the earlier periods.
Vivid description of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) is found in the Islamic sources where for instance, the Prophet is described as being broad-chested, with a full beard and a hooked nose which gave him a stately appearance. Also, with a wide black eyes and a long thick hair kept tied behind his ears in plaits, etc. These are not matters of opinion; they are matters of historical facts. There are in existence today numerous depictions of him in Persian and Turkish works of art and books, including Siyer-i Nebi, written in Turkey.
Lies must always be fought with truth and not with violence. The life of the Prophet Muhammad is an open book; rather than using obscene violence to register protests against his profanity, the Nigerian "thugs" and their sympathisers should have sent out a strong-worded rejoinder highlighting his conducts and characters to either the Danish Embassy or any home newspapers. This would have been sufficient to belie the notion now gaining currency that Muslims are not mature enough to accept criticism or that Islam is a vindictive creed intent on stifling any discourse in the process.
A lie can make half way around the world before the truth has time to put its boots on, but catch, will truth catch it. So we must always have faith in the power of truth. By allowing free exchange, by allowing anyone to assert anything, the truth will triumph in the end.
Therefore these thugs and their sympathisers at home and abroad must desist from their jejune rhetoric of clash of civilisation which has so far produced nothing but a narrow, intolerant, obscurantist, illiberal, brutal and confrontational interpretation of Islam. It is time they put aside this misguided and divisive rhetoric, regained their senses, and had some adult debate about Enlightenment values such as liberalism, pluralism, individualism, and human rights which Islam duly enjoins.
Abdulsalam Olatubosun Ajetunmobi London, UK
|