reduced and recycled

Get this: the cartoons were published 30th September 2005. Worldwide reactions in, say, four months and you get a slew of denunciations from an old lady in Bush’s new Iraq to King Abdullah of Jordan. You would, by now, have heard about the caricatures published by Jyllands-Posten, a Danish newspaper. The reactions have been coming fast and furious, with things taking a serious turn for the worse in November 2005.

Bounties were offered for the heads of the cartoonists[⁽¹⁾]. A German was captured somewhere in Palestine by gunmen and then released[⁽²⁾]. Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and Islamic Jihad in Palestine have given Danes 48 to 72 hours to leave the territories as at 31 January 2006[⁽³⁾]. As early as October 2005, the Danish government[⁽⁴⁾] recognized the possible threat posed by Muslim anger over the caricatures, warning Danish citizens of possible terrorist retaliations. And because newspapers in France and other nations in Europe have decided to publish said caricatures as a gesture of solidarity, there are now worries over the Muslim threat there[⁽⁵⁾].

The overriding sense in Denmark seems to be a refusal to apologize for the cartoons[⁽⁶⁾].

My initial reaction was amusement, then a growing sense of horror. This wasn’t merely about a group of people who misplaced their funny bones, this was turning out into something ugly. But it was, strangely enough, a joy to see: that Muslims could be this united. If the global Muslim community could be as united in standing up against the more extremist elements of their community, what wonders can be achieved? Instead, Muslims are standing by while little-reported threats are being carried out with deadly will in Palestine.

“Hardened extremists” on both sides of the fence are turning this into a grand, old clash of civilizations, again. It’s not merely a case of free speech versus the sore feelings of an injured community, it’s also been cast in terms of western traditions viz. the separation of church and state, against pre-Modern, traditionalist bias apparently “inherent” in Islam itself. Some Muslim detractors put it more plainly: it’s “part of a savage campaign waged by the West against Islam and Muslims”.

Also, complains have been flying across both sides about self-censorship and bias: while Muslims complain about bias in the European press against reporting anything remotely ‘anti-semitic’, it is a fact that Middle Eastern media is itself chock-full of anti-semitic bias [⁽⁷⁾]. This sort of hypocrisy amongst Muslims and people who counter these claims with the above has a term: ad hominem tu quoque. The truth is, neither side has an equal right to foul play.

That aside, I have been intrigued for the past few days by the growing resentment and anger from the global Muslim community. I’ve often wondered where the defensiveness comes from. If it is merely outrage at the caricatures of prophet Muhammad, then that’s easy to understand. But the sheer enormity of the reaction makes me think such defensiveness has much to do with what the Salon.com article notes the following:

“A study published in January suggested that religion alone did not make french Muslims any likelier to have extremist religious tendencies; however, Islam remained key to those people “looking for an identity”. And when Islam is attacked or ridiculed, those people already feeling shut out from society see it as an attack on their already injured self-esteem. Le Nouvel Observateur pointed to the classic example of such thinking. One paper quoted a young man named Said from Nice. he said he considered himself to be an atheist, but “when the mayor rejects the building of a mosque, I suddenly become Muslim.”

It appears what can be said about French Muslims appears to hold true amongst Muslims from other parts of the world. This ‘defensiveness’ seems to imply a siege mentality: innundated by the values of a complex world which has, increasingly, little time or place for religiousity and religious values, Muslims, especially post-September 11th 2001, seem to have retreated into a shell of their own choosing[⁽⁸⁾].

The same parallels can be drawn, I think, with respect to the situation in Malaysia, with the insistence for example, of maintaining the stipulations of Article 121(1A) or the call, from some quarters, to maintain Malaysia’s identity as an Islamic nation[⁽⁹⁾]. I never really looked at it this way, but it appears PM Abdullah’s “Islam Hadhari” approach is nothing more than this: establishing (or, as he would put it, re-establishing) a Muslim identity to which the Muslim community can strive toward.

That says much about what Muslims think of themselves, I believe: they don’t quite know yet. Can we conclude, therefore, that Muslims don’t quite know how to deal with such attacks against their religion? Are they, after all, more French/Nigerian/Malaysian; more Malay, Western African, Algerian; or ultimately more Muslim?

I think until Muslims decide for themselves, we will continue to see more of such extreme reactions.

Updated:

I’m not obsessing. But I went to bed last night thinking about the reaction on the more immediate level. Some questions I’ve asked myself:

Is ‘freedom of speech’ a viable reason (or excuse) for publishing the cartoons?
Me: Well, maybe…
Zero and waffle, in comments below, frame the consideration of an answer well. If it is a question of the freedom of the press to express opinions, then a maxim attributed to Voltaire needs mentioning: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. What about instances of utterances made with the expressed or implied intention to cause hurt? These cartoons are clearly caricatures of prophet Muhammad. Did the cartoonists anticipate such a strong reaction? In my opinion, they must’ve anticipated some kind of reaction - all caricatures usually do. Do the caricatures constitute fair comment? As caricatures, they certainly are an illustrated form of commentary, but as to fairness, caricatures rarely are fair; ask George Bush in the wake of his election victory in 2000, and he’d tell you what he thinks, I’d imagine.

So do the cartoonists - or Jyllands-Posten - have recourse to ‘freedom of speech’ as a defense? The caricatures were malicious, they were hardly fair, if they reflected any sort of truth, I can see it only tangentially. But surely the freedom to air one’s opinion requires a modicum of responsibility. It could be said, however, that solicity and a ’sense of responsibility’ are merely good manners which provide a veneer of civility over ‘issues we don’t discuss’. It’s the same with Singapore and Malaysia - infamous examples - where crossing certain ‘out-of-bound’ markers is a reason for government censure. People like Salman Rushdie and Theo Van Gogh have paid the price, the latter paying the ultimate price. What do we say to them?

Is the Muslim reaction proportionate?
Me: Perhaps. But…
As I’ve mentioned above, I’ve been quite happy to see the global Muslim community rise up; maybe having Muslims stand united blots out the excessive reaction to the caricatures, I don’t know. What I have been disappointed over is the silence to reports of extremists factions of the Muslim community resorting to violence, kidnapping and blackmail. To remain silent is to be complicit in the acts committed by these idiots.

For years now, Western leaders and politicians have, while sympathizing with the plight of the underdog Muslim communities around the world, called for terrorists to put aside violence and come to the table to talk. This is, of course, indirectly related to the events above, and there are other considerations (after all, negotiations with people who essentially control your judiciary and government isn’t fair); but it is the tendency for moderates to essentially do nothing about these extremist factions within their communities that frustrates me.

Deciding not to buy Danish or Norwegian products is, to my mind, a proportionate response; standing by while your more extreme brethren capture, kidnap and murder Europeans for the ’sin’ of drawing cartoons of prophet Muhammad is beyond the pale.

I’ll update with other questions as they occur to me.

Update 2:

Some interesting pictures of the protests…most of them from a protest staged by Muslims in London.

First spotted over at michellemalkin.com.

Update 3:

Washington Post: Syrians torch the Danish and Norwegian embassies. The Independent weighs in with an overview of the debacle. The Observer’s pithy comments over here :-

“Standing on principles, however dearly held, does not always make for wise judgment. To believe strongly in the right to publish is not a moral imperative to publish. Nor is the decision to show sensitivity to those who would be offended, in any way forfeiting rights or shirking responsibilities. Yet it is clear why the violence and intimidation, including death threats, intensified the pressure on European editors to make a stand. Caution and editorial restraint can easily become self-censorship. Are the boundaries of what is acceptable to be determined with reference to what may inflame a mob on the West Bank? Surely not.

Yet we should not confuse the offence caused to fellow-citizens who are Muslims with the violent response of groups which have a completely different purpose behind their protests. Aggressive slogans glorifying the 7 July bombs in London or the 9/11 attacks on New York, threats to the lives of journalists, as well as yesterday’s torching of embassies in Damascus, are disproportionate to the alleged offence and - this is important - nothing to do with the serious debate that needs to take place within European countries on how we live harmoniously and equitably in multi-faith communities.”

Precisely.

1. More at the Brussels Journal (↩)
2. From the Washington Post (↩)
3. More over at The Daily Star (↩)
4. Check out the warning posted here (↩)
5. Salon.com examines this problem at length. (↩)
6. Al-Ahram Weekly reports: "An opinion poll also showed that 79 per cent of Danes thought [Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh] Rasmussen should not issue an apology, and 62 per cent said the newspaper should not apologise” (↩)
7. Check out Memri.org's comprehensive list of on-going anti-semitism in both the press and television in the Middle East. They have documented quite a number of such incidences since 1998. (↩)
8. Bernard Lewis, "Muslim Anti-Semitism", Middle East Quarterly [1998] for a related view, and a useful analysis of what seems to drive Muslim anti-semitism. You can find an online version over here. (↩)
9. For an interesting examination of the question of the primacy of Islam in Malaysia, you should read a letter submitted to Malaysiakini by En Haris Mohd Ibrahim over here. (↩)