There have been demonstrations, some violent and some peaceful, throughout Islamic world over cartoons published in a Danish paper caricaturing the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). In Afghanistan several people have been killed in very violent demonstrations.
When Salman Rushdie published his novel Satanic Verses there were violent protests in many Muslim countries and Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa to kill Rushdie and even declared an award on his head. That time too, the European nations had invoked human rights and the freedom of opinion to defend Rushdie for his insulting remarks against Islam and the Prophet.
Is it really a matter of the freedom of expression or something else, which is not spelt out? It would be really simplistic to reduce it to the freedom of press though it might appear to be so. It is a multilayered and multicausal phenomenon.
One cannot deny that throughout the Western world there is tension between Westerners and Muslims. In every European country Muslims are seen as not only outsiders but also as a menace, a threat, to their values and their culture. In many countries this tension is quite palpable. The fact is that for Western world pluralism is a very new phenomenon and they are finding it very hard to digest it. Their democracy has been monolingual, monoreligious and monocultural.
True, political democracy is well established in the West but the freedom of opinion and differences of opinion are confined to political sphere and within the framework of a monoreligious and monocultural situation. For Asians, on the other hand, pluralism has been a way of life. They have lived and coexisted with different religions harmoniously. Even in the absence of political democracy tolerance toward other religions and cultures has been their way of life. We do not find bloodshed in Asian countries between followers of different religions throughout medieval ages.
In the West, on the other hand, though there has been political democracy and tolerance for political differences, its record on religious and cultural tolerance has not been very glorious. Since political democracy demands tolerance and freedom of opinion, they tried to apply it to religious and cultural field too but I am afraid, not with very great success. Below the surface they remain monoreligious and monocultural.
There is one more dimension to this problem. The West has never been very comfortable with Muslims. Islam was always seen as a religion of the alien, and hostile alien, at that. France with all its democratic and secular values became very uncomfortable with hijab worn by schoolgirls and at last the central government banned it. How the hijab worn by schoolgirls could be a threat to French secularism, we fail to understand.
In fact the hijab was only a symbol. Behind it they saw Islam as a threat. In all European countries, Muslims are recent migrants and are perceived as double threat — as migrant and as Muslim. All migrants make natives uncomfortable and more so if they belong to a religion or culture perceived to be hostile. Prof. Huntington of Harvard had given vent to the Western feelings when he wrote Clash of Civilizations.
Western countries were compelled to allow Asian and African migrants as they were experiencing acute shortage of manpower after World War II but the Asian and African migrants soon realized they are condemned to remain on the margins of Western society. They do not get opportunities for better and well-paid jobs and their children, out of frustration, take to drugs or crimes or to violence further reinforcing the images of violent outsider. The rejection becomes more intense leading to more tensions. Recent disturbances in France, which continued for several months, between the police and young Africans, prove the point.
Since there is so much hostility between Western Christians and migrant Muslims, it erupts in different ways. The recent cartoons and caricature of the Prophet should be seen in this light. The events of 9/11 have only aggravated the whole situation. Be it the Salman Rushdie affair or the cartoons published in the Danish newspaper, it is part of the same phenomenon. Deep prejudices against Islam and Muslims spring up in different forms and are defended in the name of the press freedom. But one cannot defend the right to abuse others or caricature founders of religion in the name of the freedom of press or opinion.
One can concede that West is much more secularized but the West has taken more than three centuries to secularize and this process of modernization and secularization has begun only in the last few decades. Cultural differences are there but these should not be depicted as hostile resulting in clashes. The Muslim world is still far behind in science and technology. When the West with all its progress has not been able to shed its prejudices and hostile perceptions, how can one expect it from the Islamic world?
The Muslim intelligentsia also needs to cultivate more tolerance. One has the right to protest but this right should be exercised peacefully. As there are some limitations to the right to the freedom of press, there are certain well-defined limitations to the right to protest in democracy. The Muslim intelligentsia and leaders should reflect deeply as to why their demonstrations tend to be violent. Are they not playing into the hands of those leaders who have their political agenda?
If Islam is a religion of peace and it indeed is, why Muslims tend to be so violent in their reactions? Let us realize that no one can live in this multireligious world on one’s own terms. It was not becoming of Muslims to tear flags of Denmark or set to fire their embassies or become so violent that police had to fire and kill demonstrators.
A silent and peaceful demonstration is far more telling than a violent one. Since these demonstrations are over a religious issue they should be imbued with religious dignity and religious values.
According to the Qur’an, a believer is one who restrains his anger and pardons (3:133). What kind of believers are we that we always talk of punishing rather than restraining and pardoning?
Now it is for us to decide whether we follow some political leaders or hooligans or the Qur’an, which again and again emphasizes wisdom and restraint, tolerance and understanding. Modern world values education, understanding, tolerance and coexistence. We were given these virtues by Qur’an more than 1400 years ago. But we never studied Qur’an and when we studied it we did so to fight our sectarian battles against each other. For us sectarian dogmas became central rather than the Qur’anic ethics.
Let us make serious efforts to make Qur’anic ethics central and these dogmas peripheral. It requires tremendous courage and commitment to truth and without such commitment we can be anything but religious. Now it is for Muslims to decide — acceptability or narrow-mindedness and intolerant sectarianism? The world will judge us not by our dogmas but by our morality and ethics.
— Asghar Ali Engineer is one of India’s well-known writers. He heads the Institute of Islamic Studies and the Center for Study of Society and Secularism, Bombay.
