Our world in 21st century is a place of swift communication; where news travels many times around the world within a day’s time. This communication bridge has made it possible for people of all cultures to reach others at a pace that was unheard of before. And through this fast channel of technology views can be exchanged, expressed as freely as all other emotions like that of fear, anger, etc. This communication revolution has also made the world a global village realizing the centuries-old desire of humans to be close to each other. And, like all other revolutions this one also comes with certain responsibility on the shoulders of participants; to be cognizant of each other’s feelings and place limits on the infringement on each other’s privacy. Recent incidents related to the publishing of Prophet Mohammad’s (PBUH) cartoons in an obscure Danish newspaper and subsequent riots in the Muslim world to express their anger is a clear indication of the responsibilities imposed on societies by this communication age. It also shows how a single incident can fuel a chain reaction perpetrated by people with ulterior motive on each side. Before we give our view on this situation let us first narrate how all this came to pass.
On September 30th, 2005 Jyllands-Posten, a small Danish newspaper, published 12 cartoons of Prophet Mohammad, one of which portrayed him as a terrorist while the other came with a caption that the heavens are running out of virgins for suicide bombers. Head of the local Muslim organization promptly protested about these cartoons but received no attention. He then approached ambassadors of some Muslim countries including Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The ambassadors requested government to seek an apology from the newspaper but government refused to act citing the Freedom of the Speech/Press as a policy. When the local organization failed to muster support for an apology they traveled to Egypt to show the pictures to the Muslim clergy there to increase the sphere of the support. From there the issue became a political one and people saw elements that could be exploited. Rest is history. We all saw the whole Muslim world gripped by demonstrations by agitated crowds; banning of Danish product in some countries as protest; and subsequently Saudi Arabia and UAE broke their diplomatic ties with Denmark and called their ambassadors back. Europe, in a show of solidarity, stood behind Denmark and went so far that French and German newspapers published the cartoons. The ensuing debate from these incidents is revolving around two main ideologies, namely, Freedom of Speech and state of Muslim societies.
Let us first address the first one. Freedom of individuals and rights of an individual in a society are two conflicting philosophies. In dealings between individuals it is easy to create an understanding but when it comes to societies the issue becomes more complicated. For instance, a person may decide to be nude inside his home, which might be acceptable to his/her companion or friends. But as soon as the person steps out on the street, the sphere of the rights awarded by the society now governs his individual rights. In a utopian society a person can claim to have right on his body and his freedom to choose how to adorn it. But in real world there has to be a delicate balance between individual’s rights of expression and the rights awarded by a society on its members. The issue becomes even more complex when the interests of different cultures and religion are intertwined in a global village.
According to famous western philosopher Kant, the knowledge and reason fail when it comes to acceptance of faith. Faith transcends all logic and reason offered by science. We can argue about the validity of one faith as compared to the other. But as long as there are followers of a faith in a society we are bound to respect that faith for peaceful co-existence and communal harmony. During a meeting with Dutch journalist in Houston, in October 2005, one of the points discussed was why western media call a terrorist as “Islamic terrorist” and become an ally of that handful of people who has kidnapped a peaceful religion for furthering their political agenda. The broad consensus in the meeting was that it is a valid point and should be considered while preparing news about terrorist events. Now the appearance of Prophet Mohammad’s cartoon shows that the image of Muslims at large as terrorists is deep rooted in the psyche of the western mind. Though the literacy level of western countries, as compared to Muslim countries, is much high yet they decided to reprint the cartoons in solidarity with the Danish newspaper without giving due thought to a large section of the world population of Islamic faith. We should praise the role of US news media who has shown greater respect for the sentiments of Muslims and conducted open debates on the issue all the while understanding the delicate issue by not showing those cartoons.
The other side of the coin is the state of Muslim societies around the world. The attitude and behavior of the orthodox Muslim clergy is of double standard. At one hand they are intolerant of point of views of other religions and on the other they do not openly condemn the killing of innocent people by terrorists in the name of religion. These orthodox religious leaders have no real understanding of Prophet Mohammad’s life, who on many occasions showed deep respect for other religions. Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) did try to convey the message of God to followers of other religions but never used any violent means to seek their conversion. Even when Mecca was conquered, he pardoned all those who conspired to assassin him. During many centuries of Muslim rule, especially during the Moghul and Ottomon rule in South Asia and Europe, people of various faiths lived in total harmony with equal rights to all. This shows that the anger demonstrated by Muslims is not a religious matter rather depicts the social decline of societies with a large population of young people that are devoid of proper Islamic education and hence fall easy prey to the manipulative clergy.
It goes without saying that Muslims around the world have the right to protest against the indignant representation of our beloved Prophet Mohammad (PBUH). But there are many peaceful means available to protest instead of resorting to violence. Muslim societies should ponder as to why they feel exploited by the western civilization even though the former represent almost 30% of the world population. Instead of pointing a finger outside, we need to look inward.The positive effect of this incident is the initiation of debate on both sides of the spectrum to find a common ground. We need to continue this debate to find out where we differ and where we agree. Once we understand each other better we can expect the differences to disappear. If we fail this could be another in a series of events fueling the clash of civilizations.
Freedom of Speech in the eyes of the West Our wor…
February 15, 2006 at 5:15 pm · Filed under Political Commentary
Freedom of Speech in the eyes of the West
Our world in 21st century is a place of swift communication; where news travels many times around the world within a day’s time. This communication bridge has made it possible for people of all cultures to reach others at a pace that was unheard of before. And through this fast channel of technology views can be exchanged, expressed as freely as all other emotions like that of fear, anger, etc. This communication revolution has also made the world a global village realizing the centuries-old desire of humans to be close to each other. And, like all other revolutions this one also comes with certain responsibility on the shoulders of participants; to be cognizant of each other’s feelings and place limits on the infringement on each other’s privacy. Recent incidents related to the publishing of Prophet Mohammad’s (PBUH) cartoons in an obscure Danish newspaper and subsequent riots in the Muslim world to express their anger is a clear indication of the responsibilities imposed on societies by this communication age. It also shows how a single incident can fuel a chain reaction perpetrated by people with ulterior motive on each side. Before we give our view on this situation let us first narrate how all this came to pass.
On September 30th, 2005 Jyllands-Posten, a small Danish newspaper, published 12 cartoons of Prophet Mohammad, one of which portrayed him as a terrorist while the other came with a caption that the heavens are running out of virgins for suicide bombers. Head of the local Muslim organization promptly protested about these cartoons but received no attention. He then approached ambassadors of some Muslim countries including Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The ambassadors requested government to seek an apology from the newspaper but government refused to act citing the Freedom of the Speech/Press as a policy. When the local organization failed to muster support for an apology they traveled to Egypt to show the pictures to the Muslim clergy there to increase the sphere of the support. From there the issue became a political one and people saw elements that could be exploited. Rest is history. We all saw the whole Muslim world gripped by demonstrations by agitated crowds; banning of Danish product in some countries as protest; and subsequently Saudi Arabia and UAE broke their diplomatic ties with Denmark and called their ambassadors back. Europe, in a show of solidarity, stood behind Denmark and went so far that French and German newspapers published the cartoons. The ensuing debate from these incidents is revolving around two main ideologies, namely, Freedom of Speech and state of Muslim societies.
Let us first address the first one. Freedom of individuals and rights of an individual in a society are two conflicting philosophies. In dealings between individuals it is easy to create an understanding but when it comes to societies the issue becomes more complicated. For instance, a person may decide to be nude inside his home, which might be acceptable to his/her companion or friends. But as soon as the person steps out on the street, the sphere of the rights awarded by the society now governs his individual rights. In a utopian society a person can claim to have right on his body and his freedom to choose how to adorn it. But in real world there has to be a delicate balance between individual’s rights of expression and the rights awarded by a society on its members. The issue becomes even more complex when the interests of different cultures and religion are intertwined in a global village.
According to famous western philosopher Kant, the knowledge and reason fail when it comes to acceptance of faith. Faith transcends all logic and reason offered by science. We can argue about the validity of one faith as compared to the other. But as long as there are followers of a faith in a society we are bound to respect that faith for peaceful co-existence and communal harmony. During a meeting with Dutch journalist in Houston, in October 2005, one of the points discussed was why western media call a terrorist as “Islamic terrorist” and become an ally of that handful of people who has kidnapped a peaceful religion for furthering their political agenda. The broad consensus in the meeting was that it is a valid point and should be considered while preparing news about terrorist events. Now the appearance of Prophet Mohammad’s cartoon shows that the image of Muslims at large as terrorists is deep rooted in the psyche of the western mind. Though the literacy level of western countries, as compared to Muslim countries, is much high yet they decided to reprint the cartoons in solidarity with the Danish newspaper without giving due thought to a large section of the world population of Islamic faith. We should praise the role of US news media who has shown greater respect for the sentiments of Muslims and conducted open debates on the issue all the while understanding the delicate issue by not showing those cartoons.
The other side of the coin is the state of Muslim societies around the world. The attitude and behavior of the orthodox Muslim clergy is of double standard. At one hand they are intolerant of point of views of other religions and on the other they do not openly condemn the killing of innocent people by terrorists in the name of religion. These orthodox religious leaders have no real understanding of Prophet Mohammad’s life, who on many occasions showed deep respect for other religions. Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) did try to convey the message of God to followers of other religions but never used any violent means to seek their conversion. Even when Mecca was conquered, he pardoned all those who conspired to assassin him. During many centuries of Muslim rule, especially during the Moghul and Ottomon rule in South Asia and Europe, people of various faiths lived in total harmony with equal rights to all. This shows that the anger demonstrated by Muslims is not a religious matter rather depicts the social decline of societies with a large population of young people that are devoid of proper Islamic education and hence fall easy prey to the manipulative clergy.
It goes without saying that Muslims around the world have the right to protest against the indignant representation of our beloved Prophet Mohammad (PBUH). But there are many peaceful means available to protest instead of resorting to violence. Muslim societies should ponder as to why they feel exploited by the western civilization even though the former represent almost 30% of the world population. Instead of pointing a finger outside, we need to look inward.The positive effect of this incident is the initiation of debate on both sides of the spectrum to find a common ground. We need to continue this debate to find out where we differ and where we agree. Once we understand each other better we can expect the differences to disappear. If we fail this could be another in a series of events fueling the clash of civilizations.
Permalink