A Muslim Call From Europe For Faith in Civility-Tariq Ramadan

[Coastie for Truth]

<<<snip>>>
After Jyllands-Posten first published the caricatures, a number of Danish Muslims brought news of the issue to the Middle East and stirred up resentment in several countries. Governments in the region, happy to prove their attachment to Islam — and by doing so find some sort of legitimacy in the eyes of their own people — took advantage of this piece of good fortune and presented themselves as champions of the great cause. Back in Europe, this was enough for some politicians, intellectuals and journalists to present themselves as champions of the equally great struggle for freedom of expression, as resistance fighters against religious obscurantism and for the preservation of Western values. What an incredible simplification. What a simplistic polarization.

To hear these people tell it, this is a clash of civilizations — a confrontation between, on the one hand, the inalienable principle of freedom of speech and, on the other hand, the principle of the inviolable sacred sphere. When presented in such terms, he who does not win this debate loses.

Muslims demand apologies and threaten to attack European interests and even people. Western governments, intellectuals and journalists refuse to bend to the threats, and several newspapers have added to the controversy by republishing the caricatures. The majority of sane people around the world, meanwhile, are observing these excesses with perplexity, and asking what craziness drives this madness.

Let us be clear: This is not a matter of a clash of civilizations. This affair does not symbolize the confrontation between the principles of Enlightenment and those of religion.

What is really at the heart of this sad story is the capacity to be free, rational and reasonable, in regard to both one's own beliefs and those of others. The fracture that seems to have opened is not, as some are saying, between the West and the Muslim world. Rather, it is between those who are able to assert reasonably their identity and their belief in faith or in reason, and those who are driven by blind passions, exclusive certainties, reductive perceptions of the other and hasty conclusions.

Lost in all the righteous anger is a basic understanding of the core beliefs behind the resentment. Those rushing to defend freedom of expression may not fully realize that it is strictly forbidden in Islam to represent the Prophets in any way. It is not only a matter of fundamental respect. It is — much like in Judaism — a principle of faith that the image of God and the Prophets are never to be represented, in order to avoid any idolatrous temptations.

<<<SNIP>>>

Tariq Ramadan, a Swiss-born philosopher, is one of the leading Muslim voices in Europe. A visiting fellow at St Antony's College, Oxford, and senior research fellow at the Lokahi Foundation in London, he is author of "Western Muslims and the Future of Islam" (Oxford University Press, 2005).

Some parsed excerpts:

Westerners need to understand that "to represent a Prophet is a grave transgression. Moreover, when clumsy confusions and insults are added, as was perceived to be the case with the caricature of the Prophet Muhammad wearing a turban in the form of a bomb, one can understand the shock that was expressed by many Muslims around the world — and not only by practicing Muslims or radical Islamists."

"...it is also necessary for Muslims not to forget that Western societies have known public derision, irony and criticism toward religious symbols and even God for the last three centuries."

"...it is also irresponsible to invoke the right to freedom of expression in order to give oneself the right to say anything any way one wishes against anybody one chooses. Despite recent claims to the contrary, it is simply not true that in Western societies everything is permitted in the name of freedom of expression.

Each country has its own laws regarding racial or religious insults. A body of specific rules based on each respective society's culture, traditions and collective psychology regulates the relationship between the individual and the diversity of cultures and religions. Although Western societies generally share a similar legal framework, each country has its own memory and its own sensitivities, and wisdom requires acknowledging and respecting that reality."

"What is needed is not the enactment of laws to restrain the scope of free speech, but rather a broad appeal for all to exercise their right to freedom of expression in a more decent manner."

"What is needed is not the imposition of more legislation, but the nurturing of more of a sense of civic responsibility. Muslims are asking for more respect, not more censorship."

"We — in both the Western and Muslim worlds — are at a crossroads. The false divisions being drawn are threatening to destroy the bridges our shared common values have built. We are in dire need of mutual trust."

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Thank you so much for this

Here at DU, I read post after post saying that moderate Muslims "aren't doing anything" about this bruhaha. I have posted links to the contrary; this is a new one for me, and I appreciate getting this.

Here's another analogy, that might help some understand the Muslims' distress; this cartoon was as shocking and hateful as if a rap group or a rock group wrote a song demeaning God, and used the Jewish name for God that is never to be spoken. I hope to heavens this never happens-but I hope that this will make it clearer to some why the cartoon was so upsetting.

[Tamyrlin79]

2. It may be against Muslim belief

to represent the prophets or god. The author compares this to judaism's (and subsequently, christianity's...) prohibition on graven images, idols, etc.

However, I would note the images of God do appear in the West, despite such prohibitions: The Sistine Chapel is the most famous example. Cartoonists usually represent God as a white-haired bearded old man. I once saw a Far Side cartoon that depicted God at his computer with his finger on the "smite" button.

So, I still come down on the side of the cartoonist, freedom of speech and press, and freedom of religion on this issue. The only one's required to pay that sort of respect to god and the prophets are those who believe in them...and believe in/support the prohibitions. Thus, there is no legitimate case against the cartoonists here.

Honestly, I think that this whole brouhaha is a result of inflamed tensions between the West and Islamic people, generally. I imagine that 10 years ago, the same cartoon would hardly have been noticed, much less causing the brouhaha it has now.

[Coastie for Truth]

3. Under Ashcroft

the Executive Assistant Attorney General for the Office of US Attorneys, Mary Beth Buchanan (now US Attorney in Pittsburgh PA), made the specious argument (in a porn case) that the First Amendment only applies to "political" and "scholarly" works.