The Saudi papers are utterly dominated by reaction to the publication, in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten of a series of cartoons that many Muslims find offensive, even blasphemous.
In the Arab News, for example, we find:
OIC Demands Unqualified Danish Apology on the front page, with Dodging Boycott Call, Norway Voices Regret and Effect of Danish Boycott Patchy on Page 2.
An article from the Arabic daily Al-Watan, We Need More Than a Butter Boycott is translated and appears on Page 3.
Even the lead editorial, Irresponsible, takes up the subject. And then there’re the Letters to the Editor…
The Saudi Gazette has a front-page banner, “Dump the Danes”, which sends readers to a Page 4 article, “Boycott of Danish Products Gain Force”.
I noted the anger caused by these cartoons back on Jan. 11, Thin Skin When It Comes to Religion and find nothing in the newest flurry to change my opinion.
What we have here are two different cultures, with different cultural values. The difference in those values is so complete that neither side can resolve the issue to the other’s satisfaction while preserving its own deeply-rooted values.
There are two issues involved here, religion and freedom of speech and thought.
For the Islamic side, religion is the utterly dominant issue, trumping all else. For the Danish side (a fair model for the West in general), the matter is freedom of conscience and speech, which trumps nearly all else, but certainly religious sensibilities.
Islam does have strong taboos about representational art and depictions of the Prophet Mohammed. But they are not universal. There are, in fact, Islamic paintings of the Prophet, created hundreds of years ago, mostly in Turkey, Persia, and the Moghul Empire. That many Muslims see these paintings as blasphemous is noted.
Islam is also one of the few religions that continues to see blasphemy as a crime. After centuries of wars about religion, the West generally concluded that religion is not to be a matter of law, but of individual conscience. What you hold to be sacred is sacred. To you. You do not have a right to impose the dictates of your religion on anyone else by force or even force of law. You may prosyletize, you may seek to convert others, you may preach and conduct religious services. You may not coerce.
As a corollary to freedom of conscience is freedom of speech. In the West, with very few exceptions (as slander and libel, plagarism, counterfeiting, etc.) one has the right to say and write whatever one wishes. You have the right to offend.
And of course, one has the right to be offended!
What happens as a result of that offending/being offended is what truly matters.
The call to boycott Danish products is perfectly fine. It’s rational, it’s non-violent, it’s targeted to reach (more or less) the offender.
What is rather silly, however, is what the OIC is doing. The Danes cannot apologize for something that is protected by Danish law and strongly supported by Danish conscience. It can no more say “Gee We’re sorry. Won’t happen again” than the OIC can say, “We see your point. We’re sorry that we don’t get the concept of ‘tolerance’ at all.”
And tolerance is exactly the answer to this problem.
One doesn’t have to like offensive, obnoxious speech. One does have to accept that others have different opinions about everything and that they have a right to hold those opinions and to express those opinions, whether or not if offends anyone else.
And again I note that until the OIC and others condemn speech that ridicules Christianity and Judaism, that calls other manifestations of Islam “rafida”, it is hypocritical to be complaining here.
The hypocracy is so great, in fact, that many simply laugh at the outrage and more damage is done to the reputation of Muslims than the original cartoons could have caused on their own.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
January:29:2006 - 03:07
I saw Al-Jazeera’s report on this Saturday; pictures of Saudis and Kuwaitis protesting. AJ’s correspondent, to his credit, took a fairly skeptical approach to the nonsense that his Islamist interviewee was spewing about how Muslim governments need to do more.
I disagree with your comment that it is appropriate for Muslims as private citizens or otherwise to call for a boycott of Danish products collectively. Rethink the issue: if they called for a boycott of the company which published the satire, that would be fine. But that is NOT what they are doing. They are calling on the Danish government to restrict freedom of press in Denmark, and calling for a boycott of all Danish companies in order to acheive this effect. If the Danish government were to give in to this, even if some private companies were to start calling for the Danish govt to do so, that would be a defeat for freedom.
Most outrageous is the fact that a number of Muslim governments have protested at the ambassadorial level, and have called on the Danes to restrict the freedom of the press. Last week Al-Hayat reported that Foreign Minister Saud Faisal had recalled the Saudi ambassador from Copenhagen to protest. Saudi government sources were quoted in the article as saying that Danish companies in general would suffer. This may seem like a minor issue on which to draw a line in the sand, but it is key to the difference between free and unfree societies. Western democracies should do more to show solidarity with the Danes on this issue.
January:29:2006 - 03:54
Fair enough. Boycotting all Danish products is a secondary boycott and not directed at the offender. Boycotting the Danish newspaper is pointless.
And you’re right that attempting to pressure the Danish gov’t through economic threats that affect the national economy is a means of exerting improper political control over protected matters.
January:29:2006 - 12:25
The Brussels Journal says they are caving in Nornway. The government’s statement seems to imply that the satire might be incitement or hate speech, and thus not protected by the doctrine of free speech.
January:29:2006 - 16:04
[...] In the ongoing saga of the Boycott Danish Goods it appears there will be no let up. A UN resolution, backed by possible sanctions is being sought to protect religions after the publication in Scandinavia of cartoons depicting prophet Muhammad. Many bloggers are expressing their excessive negativity and discontent towards the boycott, but then they’re not Muslims. [...]
January:30:2006 - 22:56
The joke is on the boycotters. The Danes led a very heroic resistance to Nazi tyranny. They will do the same to Islamic tyrants. I’m sure most Danes will be happy to sell their products elsewhere. They value liberty more than they do the material.
January:31:2006 - 12:48
I don’t think this is a matter of “tyranny” so much as a complete and utter lack of understanding of core values between two societies. It’s a complete culture clash.
Of course Danes will prefer free speech to market share. Free speech is a core Western value (though so-called “hate speech” laws in various countries nibble at the edges of this).
But the West makes a mistake in simply thinking that Muslims are overly touchy when one of their core values (the role of Mohammed in their own self-definitions) gets poked with a stick.
The reaction was predictable, but that doesn’t mean the cartoons shouldn’t have been published. It just means that actions do have reactions. And when you deal with non-rational factors–as religion is–you often get reactions that are also non-rational, but not irrational.
January:31:2006 - 16:32
I totally agree with the ban and think it’s about time we Moslems signal to the Western countries that they need to show some respect.
I am an Egyptian who has been living abroad, in Europe for some time, including 9 months in Denmark.
There is something called mutual respect for others’ beliefs in Scandinavia. Freedom of expression has to stop to a point when you are offensive to others and inciting hatred and racial friction.
The Moslem world is not retarded by asking governments to stop newspapers from encouraging hatred. Anti semetic behaviour lead to the discrimination against Jews earlier and right now there is a similar trend in Europe and the US against Moslems. Something needs to be done to stop that wave now before it escalates.
You think boycotting products means nothing. I disagree. It was boycotting business in South Africa that lead finally to the transformation and abolition of Apartheid. It was the peaceful resistance movement in India that lead to the final end of occupation.
WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING !
Do you know that in a poll 79 % of Danes were in support of the newspaper campaign ? Why ? Do you know that the current government in Denmark is the only right wing government in Europe at the moment ?
I have watched ridiculous TV programs there inciting against Moslems and asking to throw them out because they are scared their numbers are increasing and soon they might represent a majority. How democratic is that ? Being discriminated against based on your religion is not fun or a joke. Many moslems in Europe now are scared for their lives. In Australia they attacked Lebanese people only based on their ethnic origin. Many are not even Moslems. I saw that live on tv ! In the US they attacked an Indian with a turban mistaking him for a Moslem.
Don’t you think the media is important in shaping public opinion ? What made these people start attacking Moslems ? Yes I agree we are to blame partly for the behaviour of terrorists among us. However, this does not give the Danes or others license to accuse us all of ignorance and terrorism. This is discrimination based on belief which is outlawed by international covenants and the international declaration of human rights.
This is not about 12 cartoons .. This is about saying enough is enough. We need to be shown more respect.
Try to live the lives of Moslem people in Europe.. we are not those veiled with a gun .. we are simple people being some what ridiculed and discriminated against based on our origin and belief…
I am in London but will join the boycott as well!
January:31:2006 - 16:58
Having lived in the West, including Denmark, you show a remarkably poor understanding of the West.
Freedom of speech means exactly that. It also means that people need to grow thicker skins. Freedom of speech means that one is free to say anything, with very few exceptions–e.g., libel. No subject is off-limits, no matter how strongly anyone else feels about it.
This is a basic condition for living in a democracy. It’s called “tolerance”.
While I have sympathy for those whose feelings were offended, I have none for those who call for actions antithetical to the base conditions for democracy.
I suggest you read a bit more about what it’s about, as it’s obvious you’re not clear on the concept.
February:01:2006 - 00:58
Muslims need to be able to make a distinction between a reasonable reaction – being offended by religious slander – and an anti-democratic reaction. I don’t want to be misunderstood here; I wouldn’t read a newspaper myself that slandered religions, mine or others. It is unprofessional at the highest level. But this idea of pressuring a government to censure it’s press is a threat to freedom everywhere.
Returning to John’s point about core values, I think he is right in his description of the difference, and that is the problem. The West could not have democratized without getting rid of the idea that churches should vie for power over the state; likewise Muslim countries cannot democratize without recognizing the freedom of others to think that your most deeply held beliefs are absurd and stupid. They may be wrong about that, but they need to be able to think that way and express themselves. The Muslim world’s “core values” need to be modified.
John Mill’s On Liberty should be read by everyone. One of Mill’s key insights was that even false speech, sincerely believed, was of value, because refuting the false speech forces one to understand why one’s belief’s are valid, and can even strengthen the belief attacked in the process of defense. So if someone caricatures Muhammad as a terrorist, which he was not, refute it through history, not repression.
February:02:2006 - 10:33
[...] I hadn’t planned on putting my oar in on the brouhaha about the cartoons offensive to some Muslims that were run in a Danish paper (and since have been run in other European newspapers as a show of, I guess, defiance). But John Burgess of Crossroads Arabia has an excellent post on the subject and an extremely interesting discussion going on in the comments section of the post. If you’re not up to speed on the story, read John’s post. [...]
February:02:2006 - 18:28
The Muslim reaction to the publishing of the cartoons has been very clarifying. As noted above, ambassadors have been recalled and consulted. Diplomatic protests lodged. Action demanded from the UN. Lets not forget that death threats have been issued against the cartoonists. The office of the Danish newspaper received a bomb threat. Hamas ordered Scandanavian aid workers expelled from Gaza and the West Bank. A Muslim fawta was issued specifically targeting Danes serving in Iraq. Muslim newspaper editorials are demanding the “punishment” of the offending newspaper and cartoonists.Hmmm. The cartoons are legal in Denmark and rightfully so. However, the cartoons are punishable by imprisonment and even death under Muslim Sharia law. That last part is all I really need to know about this subject.