Recent events in Europe and the Muslim world have highlighted — yet again — the gulf that separates two great cultures. The publication of the cartoons satirizing the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the angry feelings this released across the Muslim world presented the gap in garish colors. People in the West feel unable to understand the depth of the anger that the cartoons generated. They are just mediocre cartoons satirizing a man who lived fourteen centuries ago. Publishing them was in poor taste, perhaps, but they should not directly affect anyone alive today. Westerners may feel that the angry demonstrations taking place as far apart as Jakarta and Rabat show how strange the workings of the Muslim mind are. What do these demonstrators want? An apology by the Danish and Norwegian governments? Why? Neither government was responsible for the cartoons or their publication. When demonstrating evolved into burning embassies, it placed itself outside both the law and the comprehensible.
The newspapers insist that the whole thing was an exercise of the sacred human right to freedom; in this case freedom of expression. Many Muslims ask why anybody’s freedom of expression should acquire greater sanctity than the religious sanctities of millions? Muslims revere Muhammad as the bearer of a message from God, respect him as a social reformer and political leader and love him as a man and a role model. In all these capacities they would go to great lengths to defend him. What freedom, and what expression, then, could be given higher importance? Moreover, Muslims see no virtue in the freedom of expression expressed in these cartoons. This is merely freedom to hurl abuse. And is it not the case that one person’s freedom stops where it encroaches on another person’s rights. We all have the right to be treated with respect, so where do these newspapers get the right to ridicule and insult the Prophet — the man we hold dearer than ourselves?
The European papers that published the cartoons in solidarity with the Danish paper said they wanted Muslims to know they cannot be exempt from satire. But for Muslims the cartoons were sheer ridicule. They reflected nothing that the Prophet had ever said or done. They might refer to some ideas held by some Muslims; but none of those ideas were expressed by the Prophet. So they ask: If the papers only want to critique Muslims, why do they target the Prophet?
Had these cartoons been directed against someone alive today, that person might have a case to sue the papers for libel. How come, then, that Western laws protect Tom, Dick and Harry but leave the man who is the object of every Muslim’s love and veneration vulnerable to senseless abuse? The logic is straightforward to a Muslim who is under divine command not to mock the religious symbols of any religion, including idols and similar objects of worship.
Muslims see the West’s selective application of some of its enshrined freedoms. They ask: What freedom of expression are we speaking about when US President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair discuss the bombing of the Arabic television channel Al-Jazeerah? In fact, the coalition actually bombed Al-Jazeerah’s offices in Afghanistan and Iraq and killed Arab journalists working in Baghdad. What freedom of expression sentences Al-Jazeera’s Tayseer Allouni to seven years imprisonment? One of the pieces of “evidence” against him was that he interviewed Osama Bin Ladin: Wouldn’t every Western journalist think of that as a scoop?
Such double standards are often cited when discussing relations between the West and the Muslim world. Recent examples abound, the latest being the attitude of the West to Hamas winning the Palestinian parliamentary elections. Everyone agrees that the elections were conducted freely and produced a clear winner. But the US and the European Union declared immediately that they would not deal with Hamas and that they would stop the funds already committed to the Palestinians. The message is that there is a limit to acceptable democracy: Elections must never produce a result the West disapproves of. What would the German, the French, or the British electorate think if their politicians tried to apply the same idea to them: We will have general elections, but they must produce a specific government? What is the likely result of a British opinion poll asking: “What would you say if elections in Northern Ireland produce a clear win for Sinn Fein?” Most respondents would probably say “good for them”. Why is it not good for the Palestinians that Hamas has won a free election? Fixing election results is common practice in the Arab world. Do we find in the attitude of Western democracies to the Hamas win a reminder of the attitude of Arab governments to elections? In other words, how far have these Western democracies already gone in borrowing policies and practices from Arab dictatorships? Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Al-Jazeerah, Allouni and now the Palestinian elections tell their different stories, but they all confirm such an unwelcome traffic. Arabs and Muslims in general have traditionally longed for the day when the freedoms of the democratic West are practiced in their own countries. Now they are in despair as they see the traffic going the other way, with many Western countries importing ideas and practices that are dictatorial in nature under cover of the “War on Terror”.
There is no doubt that the gulf between the two cultures is wide. Nor is there any doubt in my mind that it is bridgeable. What is needed is for both sides to understand and practice their basic principles: They will be surprised at how much they have in common. For example, the West rightly takes pride in its freedom. Well, Muslims should have no problem with freedom. Notable scholars of the Qur’an declare that freedom is the first human right under Islam. They cite in evidence a principle stated twice in the Qur’an: “Oppression is worse than killing.” (2: 191 & 217)
The Prophet is instructed in the Qur’an to say to all those who will not believe his message: “You have your religion, I have mine.” (109: 6) The Qur’an describes itself as the message of truth sent by God. It immediately follows this description with the statement: “Let him who will, believe in it, and let him who will, reject it.” (18: 29)
Why do many Muslims not reflect this emphasis on freedom in their attitude to others? The basic reason is that most Muslim countries have been living under dictatorships for several generations; this has left them socially embattled.
There is a general feeling among Westerners that democracy is incompatible with Islam. This notion is confirmed by the activities of some fringe Muslim groups. Yet the essence of democracy, i.e. consultative and representative government, is endorsed in two definitive Qur’anic statements one of which may be translated as: “Take counsel with them in all matters of public concern.” (3: 159) This is a command to the Prophet and to every Muslim ruler to institutionalize public consultation over all matters.
Gender equality is another important issue with which Islam has no problem. Islam addresses its message to both men and women and treats them on absolutely equal basis. The Prophet states: “Women are the full sisters of men.”
The gap between the two cultures is bridgeable, but much work is urgently needed on both sides. This can be done through dialogue based on mutual respect, as taught by Islam, Christianity and the best of the humanist traditions in both cultures.
