Islamophobia!

The only acceptable racism left: Islamophobia

Abdul Malik Mujahid

"So what do you do for a living?" the activist asked me. He was an American Christian, an ordained minister and leader of an interfaith peace organization. I was attending a conference organized by his group.
"I produce Islamic videos and programs, particularly for children," I replied.

"Oh. Doesn't Hamas produce programs for children, too?" he asked.

I was stunned. This exchange occurred shortly before the Hamas victory in the recent Palestinian elections. What floored me though was that this man associated what I do for a living with a group considered terrorist by the American government. It is clear that the ugly tentacles of Islamophobia have penetrated places where Muslims have normally felt safe from it. An interfaith gathering is the last venue I'd expect these comments.

I was representing the Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago as it's chair, and he knew that pretty well. It's a federation of more than 55 mosques and Islamic organizations serving 400,000 Muslims from the region.

The Danish cartoon affair - Europe's latent Islamophobia comes to life
The latest example of Islamophobia comes from Denmark and Europe, not the United States. By now, we've all seen and read about the protests against 12 deeply offensive cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him.

What is critical to know is that it was not some random cartoonist drawing one cartoon and an editor who decided to publish it. Rather, a neo-con newspaper chose to commission artists to draw these images that depict the Prophet as a terrorist. These cartoons were not an ignorant mistake. The intent was to insult and inflame. The concept of respect and honor among Muslims is well-known. So is the potential risk of incitement, especially after knowing what happened when the Muslim world came to know about some American soldiers disrespecting the Quran last year.

The Danish embassy in Lebanon has been torched, the country's flags burned, death threats have been issued and some protesters have been killed as a result of police firings.

But well before these dramatic images that must have made editors salivate for their sensational qualities made the news, Muslims in the Muslim world and abroad launched peaceful, lawful protests for four months against the cartoons that would have made Martin Luther King Jr. proud.

Danish Muslims wrote letters of protest. They were ignored. Eleven Muslim ambassadors in Denmark asked to meet with Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen. He refused to do so. A grassroots boycott of Danish products was launched in the Middle East. That got some attention, but not much until Danish businesses realized how much of their $1 billion business in the region was at stake.

The cartoons were printed in September 2005. In September, October, November, December and almost all of January, the Muslim opposition to the cartoons was characterized by peaceful demonstrations of love for the Prophet and restrained protests of how he was being denigrated.

Arrogant Response to Peaceful Protests
When newspapers in Norway, Germany and France, in their Islamophobic frenzy, decided to republish the cartoons in the name of "freedom of expression," the scale of anger and protest widened. What started off as peaceful opposition spiraled out of control.

Now, the situation was out of the hands of Muslims who had made serious attempts to resolve the issue peacefully. They had tried their utmost, but to no avail. From this point onwards, all kinds of people, including those with little knowledge of Islamic rules that forbid harm to foreign emissaries in Muslim lands, had upped the ante. The torching of embassies is wrong. So is stepping on and burning the symbols of Danish pride, their flag. It is Haram and a sin in Islam.

Unfortunately, some Iranian newspapers have commissioned the drawing of anti-Semitic cartoons in protest. This is a disgusting form of retaliation that deserves absolute condemnation. It will neither help fight Islamophobia, nor elicit any understanding about why Muslims are upset about the Danish cartoons. The conflic has hit a new low with this move.

But the world media, always in search of dramatic images of death and destruction, lapped up the anger and violence with glee. There was little coverage of the peaceful response of the Muslim community to these cartoons in the initial days after their publication. There were no calls for death, there was no fire involved or images of screaming bearded and Hijabed Muslims. Just peaceful bearded and Hijabed Muslims. Yawn. The media was bored.

When it comes to Muslims, everything goes
Would the media outlet which commissioned and printed these cartoons, as well as those which reprinted them, call for artists to develop grotesque anti-Semitic caricatures to prove that they have the freedom to do so? Of course not. The French even have laws to punish anti-Semitic "speech" and "writings."

The current cartoon affair is not about freedom of expression, it's about Islamophobia.

Islamophobia is real
Islamophobia, or the fear and hatred of all things relating to Islam and Muslims, has become an acceptable form of racism. A sympathetic Jewish lawyer who was representing a Palestinian client in Chicago pre-9/11 said something telling to me in this regard: "Muslims are the new N…ers of America. If you will not fight for yourself, no one will."

He's right. But Muslim complaints about Islamophobia continue to be dismissed.

More than one fourth of all American Muslims surveyed by more than one public opinion organization stated that they have personally experienced Islamophobia or know someone who has. Over 200,000 American Muslims have been subjected to some kind of law enforcement activity since 9/11. At least 15,000 Muslims have been detained or arrested since that tragedy. Over 16,000 were either deported or are in the process of deportation. The Council on American-Islamic Relations annually issues reports about the state of Muslim civil rights in the United States. Harrowing tales of anti-Muslim discrimination on the job, at schools, stores, restaurants and on the streets fill these publications. The case of Capt. James Yee is a disturbing example of how American Muslims even in positions of authority and respect must endure Islamophobia publicly at the hands of our own government.

It is due to Islamophobia fanned by government policies and a media frenzy that a majority of Americans continue to hold negative opinions of Islam and Muslims. And a few thousand bin Laden terrorists contribute to authenticate this negative image. Forty-four percent of Americans queried in a Cornell national poll favor curtailing some liberties for Muslim Americans.

Over half of schoolchildren in the Australian city of Victoria view Muslims as terrorists, and two out of five agree that Muslims "are unclean", a survey has revealed.

Islamophobia is older than 9/11 and is based on ongoing ignorance
The fear and hatred of all things Islamic can be traced much farther back than 9/11. Edward Said's landmark book "Orientalism" outlined how European colonial masters viewed their Muslim subjects with disdain and disgust. This attitude continues to characterize the discipline today. That view of Muslims as bloodthirsty, misogynist and violent savages persists. It is furthered by Bernard Lewis, America's top Orientalist, and his neoconservative students, a number of whom are the architects of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

In the 1980s, funding was cut throughout the United States for programs that attempted to understand other peoples and nations. With the fall of the former Soviet Union in 1991 and the establishment of America as the world's sole superpower, a fair amount of arrogance towards the rest of the world pervaded America's dealings with other countries and continues to do so.

The barring of Yusuf Islam in 2004 and Tariq Ramadan in 2005 from the United States are examples of how we are not only closing our borders to Islam but opening them to Islamophobia. Even worse, we are closing our minds. As Diana Eck, President of the American Academy of Religion wrote in the Boston Globe on February 2, 2006 about the Ramadan case, "Denying us face-to-face access to scholars and theologians who contribute to critical reflection on the religious currents of our world is an intolerable impoverishment of the academic enterprise." The Academy is currently suing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff for barring Ramadan entry into the US.

Islamophobia harms all of us
In my four interfaith interactions in the last two months, I have met a whole lot of very nice people. But I was surprised to find at almost each event I attended, one or two Islamophobic people who seemed to have a high dose of Fox News in their system. I listened to them and prayed for them instead of responding to them.

Like racism and anti-Semitism, Islamophobia hurts all of us. In America, it is eroding our civil liberties. In Europe, it is further isolating minority communities and inflaming latent xenophobia. It is perpetuating the neocon wish for a "clash of civilizations" at a time when no country in the world, Muslim or not, can afford it politically, economically or otherwise. Just ask the Danish dairy industry how Islamophobia has hurt its business.

Islamophobia is responsible for torture. Islamophobia is responsible for the grave misunderstandings that only serve to perpetuate hatred and demonization.
Perhaps we need to learn from Canada, where hate speech is banned despite the guarantee of free speech in the country's constitution.

Islamophobia is today's accepted form of racism. It will require Muslims to fight hard against it. Muslims are neither solely responsible for its creation, nor will they be able to fight it on their own. It is a collective responsibility for all bridge-builders of the world.

Let us today take a stand to end all kinds of fear and hatred of "the other."

Double Trouble for Free Speech

Yesterday, an Austrian court sentenced a British historian, David Irving, to three years in prison. His crime? He dared to deny the Holocaust, the extermination of six million Jews by the Nazis. Specifically, Irving has been accused of denying that the Nazis used gas chambers.
The case is, to put it mildly, unfortunate for all those governments, organizations and individuals who in response to the blasphemous Danish cartoons row have vigorously championed the right of free speech. The Irving case could not have come at a more inconvenient time for them since it exposes a fatal flaw in their argument. Free speech clearly has its limitations. It all depends on the subject and where you are. Deny the Holocaust in nine European countries and you could end up in jail; ridicule Islam in those same countries and you are exercising your right to freedom of expression. Free speech is clearly a highly subjective concept in certain areas of Europe and the West in general.

The fact that Irving yesterday pleaded guilty — having changed his mind about the gas chambers — alters nothing. The case reeks of double standard. The Europeans trumpet the right to insult Muslims in the name of free speech but anyone who dares to use that right to question the Holocaust will be punished.

This sticks in the throat, presumably even that of the Austrians who, like the Germans, take a hard line on Holocaust denial. It has to be one or the other. Either there should be no restrictions whatsoever on free speech (other than incitement to violence) in which case these Holocaust denial laws should be abolished or the countries that have them should have the courage to admit that they are biased. We all know that Israel would baulk at the Holocaust laws being wiped off the statute books in Europe. It has exploited the slaughter of Europe’s Jews during World War II to create a sense of guilt and ensure its own political and financial support. It has been brazen and revolting in doing so — and it is the Palestinians who have suffered as a result, paying the price for European guilt. But do the Austrians, Germans and other Europeans really believe that the only way to respond to those who question the Holocaust is by locking them up? Do they have to play Israel’s game? In the immediate aftermath of World War II and the horror of the Nazis’ “Final Solution,” the anti-Holocaust laws were understandable; the Austrians and the Germans needed a total break with the past. But even then, the laws were untenable for societies supposedly wedded to “free speech.”

In normal circumstances, the Irving case would have attracted little international attention. Bizarre and inconsistent, yes; worthy of comment, no. But the free speech argument championed by Europe in the wake of the cartoons row changes everything. We realize that the Austrians, Germans, Swiss, French, Belgians and others are unlikely to heed a Saudi voice pointing out the folly and inconsistency of their Holocaust denial laws. But what they cannot deny is that, contrasted with their views on the cartoons, they literally scream hypocrisy.

The Respect of a Cousin

JEWISH WEEK
Wednesday, February 15, 2006 / 17 Shevat 5766

The Respect Of A Cousin
by Edward Miller

After the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten’s 12 caricatures of the prophet Muhammad were republished in European newspapers, riots erupted in Damascus, Gaza, Beirut and elsewhere throughout the Muslim world. The violence is an extreme manifestation of the deep hurt felt by virtually all Muslims.As we condemn the violence on the streets, perhaps we should take a moment to understand the hurt in the hearts of the great majority of Muslims who did not engage in violence.For Muslims, the mere rendering of an image of Muhammad is sacrilege.

The portrayal of Muhammad in a pejorative fashion is to them an inconceivably offensive desecration, on the level of what would be for us the defilement of a Torah scroll. Because it was done in newspapers across Europe, it was a slap in the face repeated thousands of times.Perhaps it’s a question of respect, not freedom.

Freedom of expression theoretically protects the right of a non-Jew to desecrate a Torah scroll. Yet we would all view freedom of expression as a hollow defense to such a vile act.

Some say Muslims can’t take criticism and simply don’t understand freedom of the press. In my own limited experience, that has not been the case. For the past year I’ve written a column in a Muslim newspaper, Muslims Weekly, in which I’ve criticized suicide bombing, the treatment of Jews under Islamic rule, the anti-Jewish rantings of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and even Muslims Weekly’s own reporting about Israel. But it was all done with respect, an informed appreciation of the wonderful benefits that Islam conferred upon the Jewish people, along with a willingness to look at our own imperfections together with those of the other.

Regardless of whether or not the European press was constitutionally free to publish the offensive images, the act was a blatant and vulgar act of disrespect to Islam. Such insults no doubt contribute to the frightening specter of a clash of civilizations.What can we do as Jews to lessen the hostilities? Perhaps, just perhaps, a little respect would help. Rather than ripping the wounds wider with editorial musings extolling freedom of speech and condemning violent protests, is it not time for a bit of healing?

The pages of this Jewish newspaper present a place for a small start by showing Muslims right here that though we too have the freedom to say anything we like, we choose to convey respect to our Muslim cousins. Printing something positive about Muhammad best does this.

There is a space between romanticizing the past and vilifying it. There is a time to focus on the dark side of history and a time to view the other in the best light. There is a time to cull from our rabbinic writings the good our sages saw in Islam and there is quite a bit of such sentiment recorded. We Jews need to learn to be more flexible, pursuing the claims of Jews expelled from Arab countries and criticizing anti-Jewish TV programs and cartoons in the Muslim media, while at the same time displaying gratitude for all the good Islam did for us.

There is a time to jump over our pain and see the humanity of the other. That time is now. Let us start:There is a Hadith (oral tradition concerning the words and works of Muhammad) recorded by Bukhari in the name of Amer Bin Rabiha that reads as follows:“A funeral procession passed us and the Prophet stood up for it. We said, ‘but Prophet of God, this is a funeral of a Jew.’ The Prophet responded, ‘rise.’ ”One can search the writings of the ancient non-Jewish world for a more powerful example of a public display of respect for the humanity of the Jew. There simply is no more powerful statement than the single word uttered by Muhammad nearly 14 centuries ago.Some readers will bombard this newspaper with reams of material showing a darker side to Islam, as if it were just too much for them to hear one good thing. But it is there, it is a sacred part of their tradition, it is good and we should hear it and respect it.When you give respect you get it.

When you take criticism, you earn the right to give it. Perhaps this article will be republished in Muslim newspapers, compete with its critical comments about the pain we feel in the face of anti-Jewish cartoons and worse in Muslim media. Muslim readers may come to understand that an article by a Jew, in a Jewish newspaper, was one of respect, telling its audience: “We know that the one mocked in newspapers in Europe is the one who had the humanity to tell his companions to rise for the funeral procession of a Jew.” nEdward Miller, a local attorney, is active in efforts to reconcile Jews and Muslims.

Special To The Jewish Week.

From a Brother in the West

These words are from an american, Luqman Ali.
He is the imam of a masjid in Luton, UK.

Salaams All

While Muslims once again fall into the reactionarytrap set for them and confirm the thesis of the offending cartoons by exploding in rageand violence, we would do well to reflect upon the Prophet's supplication in Taif.

This is the dua he recited with shoes full of blood, wounds all over his body and after havingbeen insulted and abused by the people of Taif. What's more this all occurs after three years of suffering a boycott at the hands of the Quraysh as a result of which Muslims were reduced to eating grass and leaves off of trees.

The Prophet (s) as he walks out of Taif:"O Allah! I complain to You of my weakness, my scarcity of resources and my humiliation before the people. O Most Merciful of those who are merciful. OLord of the weak and my Lord too. To whom have you entrusted me? To a distant person who receives me with hostility? Or to an enemy to whom you have granted authority over my affair? So long as You are not angry with me, I do not care.Your favour is of more abundance to me. I seek refuge in the light of Your Face by which all darkness is dispelled and every affair of this world and the next is set right, lest Your anger or your displeasure descend upon me. I desire your pleasure and satisfaction until you are pleased. There is no power and no might except by You."If those who claim to love the Prophet(s) so much that they are willing to infringe upon prophetic conduct with their blind rage and fury would reflect upon this prayer, it would be a guiding light for them and a clear instruction as to how a Muslim should respond to our currentsituation.

It is also the only salve by which troubled hearts and souls will find peace. It will not be found on pickets and demonstrations - not that these may not be useful in making clear our reverence for the sacred and the divine.

In my jum'ah khutbah today, I spoke on this prayer and while there were some whose hearts and eyes were cooled by it, it was obvious to me that there were many who were so caught up in anger that they could not hear.For whom does the Prophet's saying: 'Islam is good character' mean anything anymore?Are we to revert to pre-Islamic tribal norms of vengeance and retribution rather than see this as an opportunity to turn hearts by sharing the example of our beloved Prophet's centredness andcompassion in the face of hate and enmity with those whose hearts are open.

Are we to fall into the major sin of despair-fuelled violence rather than maintain hope as the Prophet (s) did when the angel of the mountains met him outside Ta'if following his supplication and offered to cause the mountains surrounding Taif to explode over the town and obliterate it to which the Prophet (s) replied 'No, I hope that these people will one day come to worship only Allah and Him alone'?Unless we have the centredness and the Allah-consciousness of the Prophet (s) by which every event whether favourable or unfavourable (in material terms) offers us the opportunity of strengthening our relationship with Allah, we will continue to be thevictim of every ruse and ploy.

Rather than reacting with violence and rage we should intensify our work to share the beautiful and merciful message of the Deen especially now that the Prophet (s) is headline news. Let the Prophet's prayer of Taif be printed in European newspapers as the example of his supreme magnanimity and patience.

Violence, death threats and fury only betray a lack of trust in the power and light of the sacred which is illustrated in the Prophet's experience in the garden outside Taif when persons who overheard his prayer were moved by it to come to Islam. Moreover, on the way back to Mecca after this experience, many jinn who happened to hear the Prophet's recitation of the Qur'an in his night prayeralso came to Islam.

And not long thereafter the Prophet (s) was conveyed on his night journey and ascent to heaven. Verily with difficulty comes ease.Yet with today's anouncement of 'eminent' Muslim scholars of a 'Day of Outrage', I fear we have become nothing but saboteurs. Why not a Day of Remembrance of the Prophet, Why not a Day of Tremendous Prophetic Character? Why not a Day of the Prayer of Taif?I recommend that we circulate the Prayer of Taif at this time as an antidote to all of the madness and poison of emotional maelstroms. May Allah guide us to that which is right and grant us the tremendous fortune of seeing our enemies as our close friends to whom we have theduty of conveying the love of Allah and his Prophet (s).

Ameen.

Allah knows best.

Luqman

The Millenium Holocaust

Solana Seeks to Quell Cartoon Rage

by Siraj Wahab
Arab News, Tue Feb 14 2006

JEDDAH, 14 February 2006 — In what can only be described as the first confidence-building measure between Europe and the Muslim world, one of the highest ranking leaders of the European Union paid a visit to the secretary-general of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) here yesterday.

Top on the agenda of the meeting between EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu at the OIC headquarters in Jeddah was a discussion on the ways and means of turning the tide in the raging furor over the blasphemous cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) that were first published in a leading Danish newspaper in September. They were subsequently reproduced in several European publications, touching off violent protests.

Solana agreed with Ihsanoglu’s suggestion that the EU and the OIC should jointly make efforts to adopt a UN resolution on the lines of the existing Resolution No. 60/150, which calls for combating defamation of religions.

“The new UN resolution should prohibit defamation of all prophets and faiths,” said Ihsanoglu at a press conference addressed jointly by the two leaders.

Ihsanoglu asked for international legal measures against blasphemy. He said the EU should adopt necessary legislative measures by the European Parliament against Islamophobia.
“Unfortunately, people in the Muslim world feel that this is a new 9/11 against themselves. In Europe unfortunately Muslims have taken the place of Jews during World War II. There is a need for a UN legislation and clarification of existing conventions,” he said.

Ihsanoglu asked for adopting a code of conduct for the European media. “The code of conduct should take into account the sensitivities of the Muslims and defamation in any form or manifestation and the core beliefs of the religions including mocking and criticizing prophets, and it should be considered an ethical offense in the European media code,” he said.

The secretary-general called for adopting the International Communication Order by the United Nations, which should cover limits of freedom of speech in case of religious symbols.
Solana agreed with much of what Ihsanoglu said. “We have decided to work together to overcome the consequences of the present crisis,” said Solana. “The OIC is very close to our heart, the heart of Europeans. The reason for this visit is to show our respect for the OIC and through the organization respect for all the people represented by this organization.

“We feel a profound respect for the Islamic world, Islamic people and the Islamic countries. We never wanted to offend the feelings of the Muslims. This was not our intention, this has never been our intention nor will it be in the future.

“We are ready to devote as much time as is required to rebuild. We want to renew the dialogue ... a dialogue that had never been cut off. We need good cooperation. We need to understand each other. We have values that we share, the value of tolerance. The Europeans need a solid relationship with you and, I think, you need a solid relationship with us,” said Solana.

Ihsanoglu said it was wrong to blame the OIC for what one reporter suggested was the organization’s hard line that has riled up sentiments in the Muslim world.

“We wrote to the prime minister of Denmark. We wrote to UN representatives, EU representatives etc. etc. The OIC had a very mild, conciliatory statement in the Makkah Declaration, but the European response was one of indifference. We haven’t heard anybody saying anything until the streets took over,” Ihsanoglu said.

He said the street took over because of the republication of the offensive cartoons in Norway’s Magazinet on Jan. 10.

“We have always been trying to calm down reactions,” he said. “We deplored all acts of violence. But at the same time we have to defend the rights of the Muslim Ummah for its holy values. We are not challenging anybody’s values of human rights; if these rights are misused we cannot stop people to do what they have done. I don’t think we can ask people not to express their feelings. Nobody has the power to stop public expression. But we made it clear right from the beginning that it (the protest) should be in a democratic way. It should be in a peaceful way. No violence, no attacks on others because this is against the ethics of the Prophet himself.”

When Solana was asked whether he would ask the prime minister of Denmark to issue a clear-cut apology, he was vague: “I think the government of Denmark has said what it had to say.”
To a question on why Europe reacted only after extremist Muslims burned down Danish embassies and Danish flags, he said that perception was not true. “We talked way before the controversy burst onto the street. We started reacting way before that,” he said.

Ihsanoglu said he had a very constructive discussion with Solana. “There is a strong will to cooperate. We agreed that we should take all measures on different levels including at the UN to guarantee that these acts will not be repeated.”

Solana was in Saudi Arabia on the first stop in a five-country Middle East trip mainly aimed at repairing ties strained by the row over the caricatures. The four-day tour will also take him to Egypt, Jordan, Palestine and Israel.

Danish cartoons: An assault on press freedom

by ANITA Pratap

PRESS FREEDOM: One of the most preposterous aspects of the ongoing controversy over the Danish cartoons is the way the western world is projecting this as an issue involving freedom of the press.

It has absolutely nothing to do with press freedom. As a journalist who has spent 27 years reporting sensitive and contentious issues for Indian, American and international media, issues that represented the cutting edge of press freedom, let me bury this specious claim once and for all.

Press freedom is the bedrock of a democracy. Freedom of the press is the unfettered right for the media to expose corruption and wrongdoing in any institution - it could be in the government, in business houses, in NGOs or the clergy. In a democracy, no institution or individual is sacred, above law or beyond criticism.

The government or any institution cannot misuse its power or laws to silence the media from its duty as the watchdog of society. A free press is the Fourth Estate in a democracy, after the legislative, executive and judiciary. It is the job of the media to tell the truth, however unpalatable it is.

Just to give examples from my own career. I have called the Tamil rebels of Sri Lanka "fascist". I have called the Sri Lankan government "racist", the Indian government "corrupt", and the Taliban "bigoted".

In all instances, I have backed my allegations with facts and specific incidents. They could not be denied. It is a measure of the freedom of press that exists in India and Sri Lanka that I was never harassed or imprisoned. Not one defamation case has been filed against me.

It is an indication of a society's maturity when journalists can fearlessly expose wrongdoings,
misguided policies or sweetheart deals between politicians and businessmen.

Thus, it is a matter of press freedom to expose a minister taking kickbacks to sign a deal, an NGO using foreign funds to incite communal riots, a factory discharging effluents that pollute a river.

Religion is sacred, but not the clergy. If there is wrongdoing among priests and imams, it is the right of the media to expose and criticise.

So it is a matter of press freedom to expose child abuse in the Catholic Church, racial prejudice in the Buddhist clergy, sexual exploitation in a Hindu ashram or hate mongering in the Islamic clergy.

Religious establishments comprise ordinary mortals and they are susceptible to corruption and wrongdoing as all mortals are. When exposing such corruption in the clergy, the purpose is not to defame the whole institution. The aim is to identify, expose and get rid of the "bad apples".
Just because one politician is corrupt it does not mean the entire political class is. Exactly like wrongdoing in one company does not mean that all business houses are corrupt.

There is one guarantee given to all victims of exposes. The media reports should be based on facts. If the media reports are fabrications then the offending journalist is imprisoned or fined.
All institutions and individuals have the right to be protected against defamation. But this presupposes that the media has defamed the person on baseless information and not facts.
Let's look at the Danish cartoons in this light. Firstly, in publishing images of the Prophet, the Danish newspaper was violating a sacred principle of the Muslims. Secondly, are any of the issues highlighted through the cartoons based on facts? Clearly they are not.

Doesn't that clearly constitute defamation, even in the secular sense? Many countries have anti-blasphemy laws. Let's assume Denmark does not. But it surely has anti-defamation laws. The cartoons fall within this purview.

Lets look at cartoons per se. Cartoons are caricatures, they exaggerate existing features to drive home the point.

Television comic Jay Leno has a long chin, so cartoons will depict him with a chin that comes down to his chest. Indian leader Indira Gandhi had a hooked nose, so cartoons showed her like a predatory eagle.

Cartoons thus exaggerate an existing feature - but the point is that the feature must exist. Is there any depiction anywhere in the world that shows the Prophet, Jesus or Buddha or any other venerated person with horns on their head or grenades in their turban for cartoons to depict them as devils or terrorists? Where is the basic fact on which the depiction is based?
The Danish cartoons constitute blasphemy in the religious context and defamation in the secular sense. Either way, clearly punishable. To claim this is press freedom is an assault on press freedom.

Journalists like me who have fought for press freedom all our lives cannot tolerate this. We cannot sit idly and watch press freedom being hijacked by bigots and misguided groups.
The hypocrisy of the claim that this is press freedom is highlighted by news reports of how the same Danish newspaper refused to publish blasphemous cartoons on Jesus Christ.
There can only be two reasons why the Danish newspaper published the anti-Prophet cartoons: either the decision stemmed from bigotry, a premeditated desire to offend Muslims or it stemmed from insensitivity - they didn't realise it would offend Muslims.

Either way, the act of publication is culpable, not in keeping with press responsibility, which is as sacred a principle as press freedom in a democracy.

One hopes law suits will be filed against the Danish newspaper, not merely by Muslim lobbies, but by all right thinking people.

(The author can be contacted at anita.pratap@gmail.com)

Punish Mockers of the Prophet

Makkah Imam at Friday Jumuah Prayers Sermon
P.K. Abdul Ghafour, Arab News

JEDDAH, 11 February 2006 — An influential imam of the Grand Mosque in Makkah yesterday called for the imposition of stiff punishment on those daring to mock the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

Delivering his Friday sermon, Sheikh Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais also emphasized the need to activate international resolutions that condemn and punish such crimes as defamation of religions and prophets.

“All Islamic countries have condemned this act of crime,” Al-Sudais told the faithful who packed the large mosque complex, referring to the blasphemous cartoons published by Western newspapers.

“We make a call from the podium of the Grand Mosque and the birthplace of Islam, on behalf of Muslims all over the world, that tough punishment should be imposed on those who make a mockery of the Prophet,” the imam said.

Sudais said Western countries and organizations were adopting double standards on the issue of Danish cartoons allowing abuse of Muslim sanctities and their Prophet.

“The repulsive cartoons depicting the Prophet have violated the sanctity of 1.5 billion Muslims around the world and their feelings.... This has exposed those who are actually promoting extremism, violence and hatred between peoples,” Sudais said.

He praised Muslims all over the world for standing up to the challenge and protesting the publication of cartoons.

Sudais told Islamic scholars and intellectuals to do more to spread the message of the Prophet and his noble qualities and ideals. “We must seize this opportunity to spread the correct perspective of his noble life through publications and programs in various languages,” he added.
The imam called on wealthy Muslims to use their money to confront the smear campaigns against Islam.

A Caricature of Freedom

by M.J. Akbar, Arab News Sun Feb 12 2006
mjakbar@asianage.com

Sequence and consequence do not always follow the same logic: The publication of the gratuitously offensive cartoons against the Prophet of Islam (you can translate that, literally, to the Prophet of Peace for Islam means peace) has already resonated through contemporary events. It will also echo far into the future. Any single day’s newspaper was sufficient to indicate that simmering resentment against the presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan, for instance, found a reason to escalate into anger. There are too many questions around this conscious provocation by an irresponsible Danish newspaper, fueled by a less than comprehensible Danish government, and not enough answers.

The first question must surely be the simplest one: Why? More than one answer has been offered. One editor of the paper appeared on European television and said, so primly that he was on the verge of sounding pompous, that the cartoons were not meant to hurt Muslims but only to represent, through an image, that a number of Muslims had become terrorists. This is the sort of argument that sounds reasonable to a neutral mind until you pare open the first layer of deception. If that was the purpose, why not use an image of Osama Bin Laden? Why use the image of the Prophet, which by itself is offensive to a faith that rejects, very strongly, any iconography or deification? We have published cartoons on Osama fairly regularly in our papers without anyone raising any objection.

This is buttressed by the “freedom of press” argument, a view endorsed so strongly by the media of continental Europe (but not, repeat not, by British media) that sensible publications like Le Monde have reprinted the cartoons twice.

Far be it for me to decry press freedom. It is my bread and butter. But I have yet to come across a nation or society that offers freedom of expression without the qualification of libel or similar safeguards. One of our editors asked the Danish Embassy in Delhi to let us know if they had any libel laws. They promised to get back to us. We are still waiting. But text is not difficult to find in the age of Internet. I quote from Section 266B of the Danish penal code: “Any person who publicly or with the intention of dissemination to a wide circle of people makes a statement or imparts other information threatening, insulting or degrading a group of persons on account of their race, color, national or ethnic origin, belief or sexual orientation, shall be liable to a fine, simple detention or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.” Section 140 adds, “Those who publicly mock or insult the doctrines or worship of any religious community that is legal in this country, will be punished by a fine or incarceration for up to four months.”
This is as civilized as it gets. The reason for such legislation is not a history of abuse against Islam, but a history of virulent anti-Semitism, for which Europe holds some kind of pernicious record. I warmly applaud such laws that protect Jews from verbal and image-barbarism. There are laws in Europe by which anyone denying the Holocaust can end up in jail, and a poor British historian is in an Austrian jail at the moment for doing so. Excellent. Then why is Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen pleading helplessness? He did not have to convict anyone himself, for the very good reason that he cannot. But he could have easily referred the matter to his own country’s judiciary and awaited their decision. During the long months when nothing happened over the cartoons this would have been sufficient to calm Muslim unease over the insults. The cartoons appeared on Sept. 30. There was no public reaction in October, November, December and most of January. But there was official reaction. The Saudi and Libyan governments withdrew their ambassadors. The Danish prime minister, who is desperate for a peaceful dialogue now, held no press conferences then. Eleven ambassadors of Muslim countries wanted to talk to him. They got a polite letter that they construed as a snub.

One reason for the anger is the conviction of gratuitous bias against Muslims. It has now emerged, thanks to a story in the Guardian, that the same Danish newspaper rejected a series of cartoons against Jesus some three years ago because they were deemed to be offensive.
It was the correct decision. Journalists like the editor of the German publication Die Welt, who has gone on record to say that the publication of the cartoons is “at the core of our culture” would not find enough freedom in his press to publish a cartoon (produced in a British newspaper, the Independent, in January 2003) showing Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon dining off Palestinian babies. I am a journalist too, and would not publish it either. But the editors of continental Europe have suddenly broken into paroxysms of moral indignation at any attempt to question their right to publish offensive cartoons against Islam. Freedom of press was not trotted out to defend nastiness against Jesus or indeed Israel’s prime minister. To do so now is mendacity.

The International Herald Tribune of Feb. 9 reported that Fleming Rose, cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten (the Danish newspaper that started the controversy) told CNN that his paper was ready to publish cartoons of the Holocaust that were being encouraged by an irresponsible Iranian newspaper, as if two wrongs added up to a right. His newspaper, however, quickly denied any such intentions.

I was in Britain last weekend when this storm was raging. I don’t think that British newspapers have any less desire for a free press than their Continental counterparts. And yet, none of them published the cartoons, although there was doubtless pressure to do so. The BBC (more accurately known as the British Boredcasting Corporation) did a typical weaselly sort of fudge, showing a bit and then removing the image so that it could claim to have it both ways, but no one was very impressed.

Instead, newspapers from across the ideological spectrum, from the Observer on the left to the Sunday Telegraph on the right, published powerful and moving accounts of what it meant to respect the faith of the other. The British media, which is not wimpish and which can be the most aggressive in the world, can today claim the respect of Muslims because of its restraint. British Muslims today feel closer to their country.

Hindus and Muslims have lived with one another as long as Muslims and Christians have. You can go through the literature, popular songs or journalism of India and you will not come across a Hindu writer insulting the Prophet of Islam or a Muslim writer insulting a Hindu deity. This does not mean that either has changed his faith. It merely means that in India we have a culture that respects the right of another to believe in a different creed, and values a neighbor’s sentiment as much as his own.

The Danish prime minister began to perspire only when Muslims across the world started to boycott Danish products. His object of worship is commerce, so the only retribution he understands is an insult to that commerce.

Muslims who think that violence is the answer, have got it wrong. Violence is wrong in itself, and counterproductive. A boycott of Danish products is far more productive.

Who did we Indians learn this from? Mahatma Gandhi, of course. His challenge to the British Empire began with a boycott of British goods. It is only when he made a bonfire of the colonizer’s cloth did the world’s mightiest empire begin to shiver. It is not too difficult to live without Danish cheese, or even Bang and Olufsen. One would, in fact, like to extend the logic. If you have to buy a European product, buy British. That would be a nice way of saying thank you.
The Danish prime minister is searching for answers. But in order to get the right answers you have to ask the right questions. Here is a suggestion, Mr. Prime Minister. Do not worry about the enemies Denmark has made. Worry instead about the friends Denmark has lost.

Confusing Hate Speech With Freedom of Expression, Again

Dr. Khaled Batarfi, Arab News Sun Feb 12 2006
kbatarfi@al-madina.com

Many commented on my last column about the difference between freedom of expression and hate speech. Some are still confused about the issue and couldn’t understand the strong Muslim response. But before I give a summary of the main arguments advanced by some of my readers, here’s some “breaking news” from Denmark.

According to MediaGuardian.co.uk, Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), refused to run drawings making fun of Jesus Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny.

In April 2003, Danish illustrator Christoffer Zieler submitted a series of unsolicited cartoons dealing with the resurrection of Christ to Jyllands-Posten. He received an e-mail back from the paper’s Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, which said: “I don’t think Jyllands-Posten’s readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them.”

The illustrator told the Norwegian daily Dagbladet, which saw the e-mail, he felt Jyllands-Posten rated the feelings of its Christian readers higher than that of its Muslim readers.
No comment! Now, let’s go back to some of the comments. I’ve discussed this issue with dozens of people in the West, including many in the US and Europe, and the overwhelming response is curiosity and cynicism.

Three trains of thought seem to come up the most: 1) In the West, Christians and Jews are mocked and insulted in articles and cartoons all the time.

This usually leads to many angry letters to the editors and public debate on talk radio and cable news. It never leads to violence and destruction. Freedom of religion also means that others don’t have to live by the rules of your religion.

2) The claim that hate speech toward religion is causing this rage seems bogus, since the Arab and Muslim press routinely prints horribly vile cartoons about Jews. This leads many to believe that this whole controversy is being contrived by anti-Western imams, or others with an agenda that includes attacking the West or causing a distraction, (Syria and Iran for example).

3) Don’t Muslims see the irony that in response to cartoons claiming an inherent link between Islam and terrorism, they commit acts of terrorism?

It seems many still don’t get it. You can’t compare the holiest man in Islam with Hitler, Statue of Liberty and Uncle Sam but to Jesus, Moses and Mary (peace be upon them). And you don’t compare apples to oranges. The Holocaust is an event, not a prophet.

The Western media is full of negative depictions of Islam and Muslims in movies, talk shows, news analyses and commentary, especially after Sept. 11.
But they never generated the outcry the Danish caricatures of the Prophet did.

I am against any stereotyping and targeting of people of any race or faith, in any part of the world.

That’s why I am calling for widening the scope of the anti-Semitism laws that protect Jews to include the rest of us. Can anyone explain to me why not?

Slander against the Prophet of Islam

by Hameed Karim

Not only Muslims, but also all decent people all over the world must be upset over the recent caricature of the Beloved Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessing of God Almighty be on him) in a Danish newspaper.

As a Muslim I am terribly hurt over this latest slander in a long, unrelenting and merciless campaign against his holy personage. As a Muslim I am required to love this man - this mighty messenger of God Almighty - more than anybody or anything else in the world. One can imagine the pain this Danish newspaper would have caused to Muslims.

As a Muslim I must also confess that it is not only the Prophet Muhammad but also the Prophet Jesus Christ (may peace be on them) who has been derided by the Western media. The only Prophet of God who escaped such vilification is the Prophet Moses (peace be on him) - fortunately.

That is because the Jews regard him as their prophet and they vilify all who came after him as a religious deity. This latest slander against the Prophet Muhammad is yet another indication of the dominance the Jews have in the media and financial markets.

As a matter of fact the editor of a French newspaper that copied the cartoon is a Jew answering to the name of Levy. His bosses have sacked him! Perhaps he went too far this time considering the anti Islam and anti Muslim campaign in France in recent times.

In a show of bravado many European newspapers have carried the offending cartoon on the pretext of displaying freedom of speech. Surprisingly these very newspapers would not be able to question the holocaust or even attempt to reduce by just one the figure that Hitler has reportedly killed.

However, these same freedoms of speech loving editors and journalists did not utter a word of protest when the German government impounded the passport of Horst Mahler preventing him from travelling to Tehran where he was to challenge the figures and stories of the holocaust. It seems that the freedom of speech is only applied when the Prophet Muhammad or Islam or Muslims are to be targeted for vilification. What bloody hypocrisy!

Like I said as a Muslim I feel very bitter about what they have said about my Beloved Prophet - but then again as a Muslim I am certain that it will not in any way prevent those decent Europeans and American from wanting to learn more about the Prophet's religion and I am sure more of them will flock to his faith - like they did when Salman Rushdie burst on the scene with his pornography which the so-called Western civilization lapped up like hungry dogs until they came to the point where they were being slandered.

Suddenly Salman Rusdie was no longer much of a hero - to hell with free speech. But as a consequence Islam registered a rise in numbers and I am certain the same thing will happen again - God Willing.

Cartoons and Hypocrisy

Danes Finally Apologize to Muslims (But for the Wrong Reasons)

By RACHARD ITANI

In many European countries, there are laws that will land in jail any
person who has the chutzpah to deny not only the historicity of the
Jewish holocaust, but also the method by which Jews were put to death
by the Nazis. In some of these countries, this prohibition goes as far
as prosecuting those who would claim or attempt to prove that less than
6 million jews were slaughtered by the Nazis. In none of these countries
are there similar laws that threaten people with loss of freedom and
wealth for denying that large percentages of gypsies, gays, mentally
retarded, and other miscellaneous "debris of humanity" were also
eliminated by the Jew-slaughtering Nazis.

Quickly now: what defines a hypocrite? Answer: a person who follows the
letter of the law, but not its spirit. The laws against anti-semitism
are just that: laws against anti-semitism enacted by hypocritical
Europeans with blood on their hands from the genocides in their recent
and distant past, and much guilt to atone for in their hearts and
minds.

The spirit of the law, which would extend this protection to Muslims as
well, if not indeed other religious groups, is nowhere to be found in
the Western legal code. You can curse the Prophet of the Muslims at
will and with total impunity. However, approach the holocaust at your
own risks and perils if you do not include in your discussion the
standard, ritualistic incantations about the six million Jewish victims
of the European Nazis. There is a word for this in the English language:
hypocrisy.

I used to have a lot of respect for the Dutch, the Danes, and the
Norwegians, and still do. However, I cannot claim that this respect is
not more nuanced today. The coloring started when the Dutch, who are
invariably and automatically described as being amongst the most
"tolerant" people in the West, if not the world, proved that their
tolerance was little more than skin deep. Their reaction to the murder
of Theo Van Gogh was anything but driven by tolerance. They behaved as
a mob in reaction to the criminal, despicable action of an extremist
and murderer, by painting the whole Dutch muslim community with the
same broad brush that Vincent Van Gogh would have eschewed. They burnt
Muslim schools and mosques. They directed opprobrium at Muslims in
their midst, calling on them "to go home" though many had been born in
the Netherlands. No subtlety in the Dutch reaction. Just collective
anti-semitism which they directed not at the Jews, but at the Jews'
cousins, the Muslims.

Then the Danes, who must have felt left out, decided to go the Dutch one
better: a Danish paper published cartoons that are no less offensive to
Muslims than anti-semitism is to Jews. The cartoons were described by
Danish politicians and the press as not provocation, but a principled
case of free speech, although many Danish and Scandinavian newspaper
editors are on record stating that they published the cartoons as an
act of defiance against "radical Islam." This is akin to these ignorant
morons recommending that the U.S. ought to nuke Tehran because that
would teach Iranian President Ahmadinejad a lesson.

What free speech are we talking about here? The law says thou shalt not
utilize or publish anti-semitic language or imagery. Consequently,
Danish (and other European) papers will refrain from doing so, lest
they fall foul of the law and offend Jewish sensitivities. The law does
not say: thou shalt not offend muslims or use imagery that may be deeply
offensive to them. So Danish papers will not refrain from doing so, in
fact they will go out of their way to offend Muslims both in Denmark
and around the world, in the name of "free speech." And the Norwegians?
Well, they just decided to follow the Danes down perdition lane, all in
the name of holy hypocrisy, so a Norwegian paper also published the
offending cartoons. The statement about "confronting radical Islam" was
in fact made by the Norwegian editor of a newspaper that is described as
a "Norwegian Christian Paper." And now that other European papers and
Magazines have also followed suit, if there was any doubt that this
affair is one of anti-Muslim bias, it was swept away by the statements
of the Editor in Chief of Die Welt, the German magazine, who declared
that the right to publish the cartoons was "at the very core of our
culture" and that Europeans cannot "stop using our journalistic right
of freedom of expression within legal boundaries." It's the "legal
boundaries" qualifier that gives the game away: there are no legal
boundaries in Europe protecting Muslims from the same ignominies that
the law protects Jews from.

And what further argument does Die Welt put forward to justify its
"legal" action? " It pointed out that "Syrian TV had depicted Jewish
rabbis as cannibals." You can imagine how helpful a similar argument
would hold up in a court of law: "But your honor, I only killed one guy
and raped two women: the other guy killed four and raped 10!" That a
German editor-in-chief of a major German paper should use the "legal"
argument to justify offending the religious sensitivities of Muslims,
when that same "legal" framework would see him thrown in jail faster
than he could spell the word legal if he offended the sensitivities of
Jews, may be a testament at least of his own deep-seated contempt for
Muslims. That so many European papers have now reprinted the offensive
cartoons is an indication that the contempt for Muslims does not stop
with the editor-in-chief of Die Welt.

This whole affair is nothing but an over-reaction to a simple cartoon,
you say? Not if you remember a certain other cartoon that appeared in
the British newspaper, The Independent, on 27 January 2003. It depicted
Prime Minister Sharon of Israel eating the head of a Palestinian child
while saying: "What's wrong? You've never seen a politician kissing
babies before?" Jews in Britain and around the world erupted with
indignation, arguably because the depiction reminded them of millennial
charges levied against them by Christians who accused them of using the
blood of babies in ritualistic killings. You see, Sharon can actually
kill, maim and spill the real, actual blood of Palestinian babies: that
is not offensive to Zionist Jews and their apologists in the West. But
let Sharon be depicted in a cartoon metaphorically as the ogre that he
has proved to be in his real life, symbolically eating a Palestinian
child, and the world will erupt in offended indignation. A cartoon that
is offensive to Muslims, on the other hand, is depicted as nothing but
an expression of "free speech." There is a word for this in any
language: hypocrisy.

Before the Danish cartoon incident started to evolve into a growing
international crisis, the Danish Prime Minister and the publisher of
the Danish newspaper that first published the offending cartoons both
declared that they would never apologize on grounds of free speech and
because publishing the cartoons had not broken any Danish laws. (Yes,
the "no law broken" argument again.) Yesterday, however, they both
ended up apologizing in the face of a growing tsunami of protests on
the part of Arab and Muslim governments, some of whom withdrew their
Ambassadors from Copenhagen. The Danish prime minister did not
apologize because his moral compas suddenly found True North again. The
real reason, of course, is that he understood, though a tad too late,
the potential economic consequences of a widespread boycott of Danish
goods on the part of one billion people. There is a word for this in
the Danish language: realpolitik.

Muslims and other reasoning people around the world understand well that
European laws against anti-Semitic speech, writing, and behavior, were
enacted for two reasons. The stated reason was to protect the Jews from
the continued onslaught of anti-Semitic attacks, both verbal and
physical, which culminated historically in the repeated pogroms that
Christian Europeans launched against Jews repeatedly through the
centuries. (Historically, it was the Arabs who protected the Jews and
took them in whenever they fled Christian barbarity, especially in the
Middle Ages.) The real reason, of course, is to protect the Europeans
from the pangs of their own conscience, which has very good reason to
feel guilty indeed, given what Europeans did to Jews in the last
millennium, especially in the 19th and 20th centuries, not to mention
what they did to the indiginous people of the Carribean and the
Americas since the 1600s, and to the people of Asia, Africa and Oceania
as well. I have long thought that it's European Christians, more so than
Jews, who ought to observe Yom Kippur, or adopt a similar atonement
observance of their own.

While the spirit of the law is that Europeans shalt not offend any
ethnic or religious groups including Muslims, this seems to be lost
only on the Europeans themselves, or at least the Danes, the Germans
and their ilk amongst them, who only care about, or fear, the letter of
the law. Why should we therefore be shocked when Muslims depict
Europeans as nothing but a bunch of hypocrites? Why shouldn't
Governments of Muslim countries recall their Ambassadors to Denmark in
protest, as some did? The only disappointment is that no Western or
non-Muslim government, the meek complaints to a French newspaper by the
French Foreign Office excepted, had the moral and ethical courage to
publicly, unequivocally and forcefully condemn an act that is as deeply
offensive to Muslims as the desecration of a Torah scroll, or of a
Jewish cemetery, is offensive to all civilized people in the world, be
they Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Animist, or Atheist.

There are two ways for Europeans to redeem themselves: the immediate
temptation would be to call on their national parliaments to extend the
protections of the laws against anti-Semitism and Holocaust denying to
Islam and Muslims, as well as any other religious group . That would be
the wrong recommendation however. The right recommendation would be to
repeal the laws that govern holocaust denying and other laws that favor
one group over another, so that the issue truly becomes one of free
speech. And if Europeans are the civilized people they claim to be,
then their politicians and newspaper publishers ought to find it easy
to immediately apologize when they have unwittingly offended the taboos
of any human community, be it religious or otherwise.

Muslims and Arabs have suffered enough hypocrisy on the hands of
European Christians, just as Jews suffered in the past on the hands of
these same Europeans, and as Palestinian Muslims and Christians alike
are suffering today on the hands of Americans, Europeans and, of
course, Zionist Jews, both Sephardim and Ashkenazi. If Europe thinks of
itself as a civilized society, then it ought to do its utmost to redress
the wrongs that too many people around the world have suffered as a
result of European misbehavior and often outright criminal actions,
most especially since the 1400s.

Muslims deserve nothing more nor less than for Christians in the U.S.
and Europe, and Zionist Jews in Israel, to simply abide by the golden
rule: treat others as you would have others treat you. So far,
Christians and Zionist Jews have proven that they only abide by the
alternative definition of this rule: "They who have the gold, make the
rule." The gold in this case is a combination of economic and military
might. Of this, Europeans, Zionist Jews and their American overlords
have aplenty in reserve. Were it that they also had an equal reserve of
un-hypocritical, civilized morality and ethical behavior to underpin
their feelings of sanctimonious superiority.

And the other measure that Europeans can adopt to redeem themselves? The
European people can start by throwing out of office, and initiating
criminal proceedings against, any politician responsible for sending a
single soldier to invade, occupy, and initiate pogroms against the
people of Iraq: these politicians have been guilty of war crimes and
crimes against humanity, which makes them unfit for the honors that
continued office holding bestows upon them. Europeans can also give the
boot to any politician who has approved or turned a blind eye to a
single rendition flight that sent any person to the torture chambers of
the Americans or their surrogate torturers in some Arab or Muslim
countries. These are the same countries whose religious sensitivities
we should all respect as strongly as we respect Jewish sensitivities
when it comes to the Jewish holocaust, not because the law says so, but
because it's the right thing to do. These are also the same countries
whose human rights trespasses Europeans ought to condemn as equally and
vehemently as they should condemn the continued human rights abuses and
state terrorism perpetrated by the Israeli government in
Palestine/Israel, and by some European governments in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and in other out-of-sight/out-of-mind places like Haiti,
Africa, and elsewhere.

In other words, Europeans can start by applying the simple rule of one
weight and one measure to both friends and foes, equally to themselves
and to the rest of the world, because policy and politics, both
domestic and foreign, ought to be based upon and subject to principled
moral considerations, not expediency of the economic, financial or
religious kind.

Is that such an unreasonable moral proposition to consider?

Rachard Itani can be reached at: racharitani@yahoo.com
mailto:racharitani@yahoo.com

Defending free speech or threatening it?

These cartoons don't defend free speech, they threaten it
by Simon Jenkins

I think, therefore I am, said the philosopher. Fine. But I think, therefore I speak? No way.

Nobody has an absolute right to freedom.

Civilisation is the story of humans sacrificing freedom so as to live together in harmony. We do not need Hobbes to tell us that absolute freedom is for newborn savages. All else is compromise.

Should a right-wing Danish newspaper have carried the derisive images of Muhammad? No.

Should other newspapers have repeated them and the BBC teasingly "flashed" them to prove its free-speech virility? No. Should governments apologise for them or ban them from repeating the offence? No, but that is not the issue.

A newspaper is not a monastery, its mind blind to the world and deaf to reaction. Every inch of published print reflects the views of its writers and the judgment of its editors. Every day newspapers decide on the balance of boldness, offence, taste, discretion and recklessness.

They must decide who is to be allowed a voice and who not. They are curbed by libel laws, common decency and their own sense of what is acceptable to readers. Speech is free only on a mountain top; all else is editing.

Despite Britons' robust attitude to religion, no newspaper would let a cartoonist depict Jesus Christ dropping cluster bombs, or lampoon the Holocaust. Pictures of bodies are not carried if they are likely to be seen by family members. Privacy and dignity are respected, even if such restraint is usually unknown to readers. Over every page hovers a censor, even if he is graced with the title of editor.

To imply that some great issue of censorship is raised by the Danish cartoons is nonsense. They were offensive and inflammatory. The best policy would have been to apologise and shut up.

For Danish journalists to demand "Europe-wide solidarity" in the cause of free speech and to deride those who are offended as "fundamentalists . . . who have a problem with the entire western world" comes close to racial provocation. We do not go about punching people in the face to test their commitment to non-violence. To be a European should not involve initiation by religious insult.

Many people seem surprised that a multicultural crunch should have come over religion rather than race. Most incoming migrants from the Muslim world are in search of work and security.
They have accepted racial discrimination and cultural subordination as the price of admission. Most Europeans, however surreptitiously, regard that subordination as reasonable.

What Muslims did not expect was that admission also required them to tolerate the ridicule of their faith and guilt by association with its wildest and most violent followers in the Middle East.
Islam is an ancient and dignified religion. Like Christianity its teaching can be variously interpreted and used for bloodthirsty ends, but in itself Islam has purity and simplicity. Part of that purity lies in its abstraction and part of that abstraction is an aversion to icons.

The Danes must have known that a depiction of Allah as human or the prophet Muhammad as a terrorist would outrage Muslims. It is plain dumb to claim such blasphemy as just a joke concordant with the western way of life. Better claim it as intentionally savage, since that was how it was bound to seem.

To adapt Shakespeare, what to a Christian "is but a choleric word", to a Muslim is flat blasphemy. Of all the casualties of globalism, religious sensibility is the most hurtful. I once noticed in Baghdad airport an otherwise respectable Iraqi woman go completely hysterical when an American guard set his sniffer dog, an "unclean" animal, on her copy of the Koran. The soldier swore at her: "Oh for Christ's sake, shut up!" She was baffled that he cited Christ in defence of what he had done.

Likewise, to an American or British soldier, forcibly entering the women's quarters of an Arab house at night is normal peacekeeping. To an Arab it is abhorrent, way beyond any pale. Nor do Muslims understand the West's excusing such actions, as does Tony Blair, by comparing them favourably with those of Saddam Hussein, as if Saddam were the benchmark of international behaviour.

It is clearly hard for westerners to comprehend the dismay these gestures cause Muslims. The question is not whether Muslims should or should not "grow up" or respect freedom of speech.
It is whether we truly want to share a world in peace with those who have values and religious beliefs different from our own.

The demand by foreign journalists that British newspapers compound their offence shows that moral arrogance is as alive in the editing rooms of northern Europe as in the streets of Falluja.
That causing religious offence should be regarded a sign of western machismo is obscene.

The traditional balance between free speech and respect for the feelings of others is evidently becoming harder to sustain. The resulting turbulence can only feed the propaganda of the right to attack or expel immigrants and those of alien culture.

And it can only feed the appetite of government to restrain free speech where it really matters, as in criticising itself. There is little doubt that had the Home Office's original version of its religious hatred bill been enacted, publishing the cartoons would in Britain have been illegal.

There was no need to prove intent to cause religious hatred, only "recklessness". Even as amended by parliament the bill might allow a prosecution to portray the cartoons as insulting and abusive and to dismiss the allowed defence that the intention was to attack ideas rather than people.

The same zest for broad-sweep censorship was shown in Charles Clarke's last anti-terrorism bill. Its bid (again curbed by parliament) was to outlaw the "negligent", even if unintended, glorification of terrorism. It wanted to outlaw those whose utterances might have celebrated or glorified a violent change of government, whether or not they meant to do so.

Clarke proposed to list "under order" those historical figures he regarded as terrorists and those he decided were "freedom fighters". The latter, he intimated, might include Irish ones. This was historical censorship of truly Stalinist ambition. By such men are we now ruled.

That a modern home secretary should seek such powers illustrates the danger to which a collapse of media self-restraint might lead. Last week there were demands from some (not all) Muslim leaders for governments to "apologise" for the cartoons and somehow forbid their dissemination.

It was a demand that Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, commendably rejected. It assumed that governments had in some sense allowed the cartoons and were thus in a position to atone for them.

Many governments might be happy to fall into this trap and seek to control deeds for which they may have to apologise. The glib assumption of blame where none exists feeds ministerial folie de grandeur, as with Blair's ludicrous 1997 apology for the Irish potato famine.

In all matters of self-regulation the danger is clear. If important institutions, in this case the press, will not practise self-discipline then governments will practise it for them. Ascribing evil consequences to religious faith is a sure way of causing offence. Banning such offence is an equally sure way for a politician to curry favour with a minority and thus advance the authoritarian tendency. The present Home Office needs no such encouragement.

Offending an opponent has long been a feature of polemics, just as challenging the boundaries of taste has been a feature of art. It is rightly surrounded by legal and ethical palisades. These include the laws of libel and slander and concepts such as fair comment, right of reply and not stirring racial hatred.

None of them is absolute. All rely on the exercise of judgment by those in positions of power. All rely on that bulwark of democracy, tolerance of the feelings of others. This was encapsulated by Lord Clark in his defining quality of civilisation: courtesy.

Too many politicians would rather not trust the self-restraint of others and would take the power of restraint onto themselves. Recent British legislation shows that a censor is waiting round every corner.

This past week must have sent his hopes soaring because of the idiot antics of a few continental journalists. The best defence of free speech can only be to curb its excess and respect its courtesy.

Courtesy : Guardian UK

Global Resposnes

BBC - Wed Feb 8 2006

Key figures from the UN, the EU and a prominent pan-Islamic body have jointly called for calm in the wake of outrage over cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and his counterparts called the drawings offensive, but expressed alarm at the violent worldwide reaction to them.

The prime minister of Denmark, where the cartoons were first published, said they had led to a "global crisis".

Several people have been killed in angry protests, mostly in Afghanistan.

In France, a court threw out on technical grounds an application for an injunction against a satirical publication that planned to print the 12 caricatures in its Wednesday edition.
Freedom of the press entails responsibility and discretion

The editor of Charlie-Hebdo welcomed the ruling.

"Criticising religion is legitimate in a state of law and must remain so," Philippe Val said.
But the Union of Islamic Organisations of France, one of the groups that applied for the injunction, said "one cannot insult a religion".

"To defend the dignity of one's religion does not mean one is radical," Fouad Alaoui said.
'Dialogue not violence'

The statement by Mr Annan, the EU's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, and the head of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Ekmelettin Ihsanoglu, called for restraint from all sides.

CARTOON ROW
30 Sept 2005: Danish paper publishes cartoons
20 Oct: Muslim ambassadors complain to Danish PM
10 Jan 2006: Norwegian publication reprints cartoons
26 Jan: Saudi Arabia recalls its ambassador
30 Jan: Gunmen raid EU's Gaza office demanding apology
31 Jan: Danish paper apologises
1 Feb: Papers in France, Germany, Italy and Spain reprint cartoons
4 Feb: Syrians attack Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus
5 Feb: Protesters sack Danish embassy in Beirut
6-7 Feb: At least eight killed in Afghanistan as security forces try to suppress violent protests
How the row unfolded
Cartoon row: Your views

"We believe freedom of the press entails responsibility and discretion, and should respect the beliefs and tenets of all religions. But we also believe the recent violent acts surpass the limits of peaceful protest," it said.

The statement came as Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen called for a resolution "through dialogue, not violence".

Extremists seeking "a clash of cultures" were exploiting the dispute, he said.
Some Muslim countries have enacted sanctions against Denmark, while its embassies have been attacked and its exports boycotted.

Mr Rasmussen thanked international leaders who had offered support, including US President George W Bush.

Iranian retaliation

The satirical cartoons - which have been reproduced in a number of European newspapers - have been denounced throughout the Islamic world. They include an image portraying Muhammad with a bomb in his turban.

Islamic tradition explicitly prohibits any depiction of Allah and the Prophet.
European papers have defended their decisions to publish on free speech grounds.
An Iranian newspaper cited the same justification as it launched a competition, asking artists to submit cartoons about the Holocaust.

Protests against the cartoons continue worldwide:
In Afghanistan on Tuesday at least three demonstrators die as they try to storm a Norwegian-led Nato base

Nigerian politicians in the mainly-Muslim Kano region burn Danish flags
Tens of thousands of Muslims protest peacefully in Niamey, the capital of Niger, waving placards reading "Down with Denmark and her allies"

About 5,000 people take to the streets in Peshawar in Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province
Several hundred Muslims protest in Muzaffarabad, capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir

Bigotry as European Chic

Arab News - Wed Feb 8 2006
Fawaz Turki,
disinherited@yahoo.com

The Danish government last week apologized to Outer Mongolia.

Well, not quite. But since the apology was extended to “all Muslims,” and Outer Mongolia has a substantial number of people who embrace Islam as their faith, it may as well have.

The apology came in the wake of those now infamous cartoons in the country’s newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, depicting the Prophet (peace be upon him) in various offensive postures, which were later reprinted by other European papers, allegedly to make a point about the sanctity of freedom of expression.

Freedom of expression is indeed sacrosanct, and the illustrative effusions of a political cartoonist are as much a function of good journalism as those of his textual counterpart. But the first thing a budding journalist learns in Journalism 101 is that a news story, or a news image, is governed by its newsworthiness. Does it have news value, relevance to the objective world it is reporting or commenting on, or is it motivated by a mean-spirited intent to defame? Does it go beyond satire into the realm of racial stereotyping, contributing to the demonization of a community in the eyes of another, and the hardening of the cultural divide among groups of different ethnic, spiritual and racial backgrounds?

That’s why we have editors looking over our shoulders, not to censor our work but to make sure that freedom of expression is not abused, that it is not license to publish, in this case, tasteless and inflammatory cartoons depicting the Prophet of Islam in a pejorative manner.

The editor of H.L. Mencken let slide the uppity journalist’s observation that “you can’t go wrong underestimating the intelligence of the American people,” but no self-respecting, professional editor would have done the same were an article by, say, David Duke, the southern supremacist, to come his way claiming that blacks are an inferior species of men.

Not only Muslims, but people of other faiths as well have in the past reacted viscerally when they felt that their religious sensibility was debased, cheapened or demeaned in textual, cinematic or artistic depictions. Jews, for example, were offended by Mel Gibson’s “The Passions of the Christ,” a kind of Marquis de Sade version of the Bible, with more blood and gore in it than your local butcher shop, released last year.

In 1988, Martin Scorsese’s “The Last Temptation of Christ” offended Christians because it showed Christ, at his execution, as being tempted by a lustful image of a life on earth with Mary Magdelene instead of the sacrifice he should make. Catholics were incensed at a showing of “Popetown.” Sikhs recently stormed a theater in England to prevent the presentation of a production they considered sacrilegious.

And in January 1999, David Howard, a top aide to the mayor of Washington was made to resign (read, fired) because he had haplessly said that he would use his budget “in a niggardly manner.” Niggardly, of course, is a perfectly legitimate word, with etymological roots in old Swedish, that simply means to be parsimonious or frugal. Unfortunately for the mayoral aide, who is white, “niggardly” sounded too much like the racial slur associated with the N-word, and thus his fate was sealed. The resulting debate, which became national after the story broke, finding its way to the Op-Ed pages and the talk shows, went beyond the incident and touched on the issue of political correctness.

Was that an improbable case where racial sensitivities were taken to an extreme? Yes, but it shows you how one should not mess with the self-definitions of a minority.

And so on with these tales. But brandishing guns and burning down embassies, assaulting EU buildings and sending bomb threats? I don’t think so.

It is clear that the Danish editors, along with others in Western European papers that reprinted the cartoons, were reflecting not just a penchant for freedom of expression but giving voice to that undercurrent of anti-immigrant and Islamophobic sentiment endemic on the continent today.

But they were playing with fire. Not only were those cartoons distasteful and needlessly antagonistic, deserving of both the contempt of those engaged in civilized discourse and of social opprobrium, but they contributed to the emergence of a scurrilous view of the Other.
We know what happened in Nazi Germany when the mass of Germans were incrementally fed venom about the Jewish community in their midst, and how, over the years, they found it easy to give massive echo to Hitler’s bellowing. Because these Germans became socialized to believe Nazi myths about the inferiority of the Other, they bellowed back these myths out of a million throats, a million smashed-down boots and a million brown shirts.

No one is saying that a holocaust awaits Muslims in Europe, but when you create reservoirs of hatred and moral illiteracy in a society, you are reducing what is of man in man and restoring in him what is of beast.

When the Taleban destroyed those precious 1,600-year old Buddist statues in Bamian in March 2001, the overwhelming majority of Islamic governments, commentators, editorialists, intellectuals and institutions, along with the Azhar University, the oldest extant Muslim seminary in the world, condemned the act. In like manner, we expect Europeans to show similar concern at the affront to Muslims represented in those egregious cartoons.

Being polite toward other people, respectful, as it were, of their sensitivities, is the mark of a civilized society. It is, if you will, civilization writ large. For what is war or conflict among nations, the converse of that, but the breakdown of civilization, as the last two world wars would attest.
Darn it, it’s one planet we inhabit — and it’s not a big one at that. And like it or not, we, men and women of all faiths, have to share it. As simple as that. Sponsoring a cartoon contest to make fun of Muslims! Oh, grow up, will you? Get a grip.

And guys, guys, you out there behind the arson and the guns and the bomb threats, get a grip.
Stop buying Danish products, if you must. Register your peaceful protest at a forum, in an Op-Ed, at a rally, if you’re so inclined. Whatever. And yes, by all means, cancel your subscription to Jyllands-Posten.

No bullies needed here — just a calm dialogue, not a rancorous clash, between our two cultures.

Boycott hurts Danes

Danish-Swedish dairy giant Arla Foods say's the ongoing boycott of Danish products in the Middle East had so far cost it between £40m and £50m.

Arla is losing £1m a day.

Arla has also had to send home 170 employees across Denmark due to the impact of the reduced sales.

Arla Foods, one of Europe's biggest dairy companies, normally sells products worth $480m (£272m) a year to the Middle East.

Boycott of Danish firms across the region has reduced the company's sales there to zero in a matter of days.

"We have built up our business in the Middle East countries for 40 years, and have had production in Saudi Arabia for 20 years, and then within five days or so this is all in ruins " Arla spokesman Louis Honore

Nordic firm hit by Arab boycott, The firms said it had to lay off 100 people because of the fall in demand.

Protest but With Restraint

by Dr. Ahmed Saad Al-Mofareh, Arab News Tue Feb 7 2006

Muslims around the globe have been deeply hurt by the negative portrayal of our beloved Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in a Danish newspaper. Some Muslims felt so outraged that their intellectual faculties failed to help them to deal with the matter prudently.

Others were stunned — not knowing what has happened to a country claiming to be a forerunner of freedom and human rights. The third group took a longer time to think of their response — may be giving more time to the Danes to realize their big mistake and back away. But this did not happen and it seems that it is not going to happen at all. The Danish officials as well as the public have insisted that the issue concerns only the freedom of expression!

Do the Danish people think that Muslims would let go such a blasphemous act? Don’t they calculate the consequences of such a profound insult? Do they think that the Islamic societies would accept their justifications? No, this is a great sin and unforgivable mistake and Muslims cannot compromise and sit back idly. It is a crystal-clear offense that deserves swift and precise response. And this is what has happened in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.

The majority of non-Muslims in Denmark and some other Western societies do not know that insulting or denigrating any prophet or messenger of God — let it be Noah, Abraham, Moses, Aaron, Lut, Jesus or Muhammad — is a great sin in Islam. Of course a large number of people in those Western societies do not believe in God, and ultimately do not recognize His prophets and messengers. Those who have some kind of faith do not recognize our religion or Prophet.

But the Holy Qur’an — revealed by God to the Prophet Muhammad 14 centuries ago — teaches Muslims how to deal and relate to all prophets and messengers. It teaches us to respect all prophets and messengers of Allah and makes no distinction among them. For example we read in the Qur’an:

The Messenger believes in what has been revealed to him from His Lord, as do the men of faith. Each one (of them) believes in Allah, His Angels, His Books, and His Messengers. “We make no distinction (they say) between one and another of His Messengers.” And they say: “We hear, and we obey, (we seek) Thy forgiveness, our Lord, and to Thee is the return of all. “ (2: 285).

Allah admonishes us to stand firm against any evil acts toward any one of His prophets and messengers. We must defend them and their messages as they have come originally from one source, our Creator, Allah. The Qur’an says:

Say: “We believe in Allah, and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Ibrahim, Ismail, Ishaq, Yaqub, and the Tribes, and in (the Books) given to Musa (Moses), Isa (Jesus), and the Prophets, from their Lord: We make no distinction between one and another among them, and to Allah we have submitted (in Islam).” (3: 84).

Therefore, we Muslims would not accept any type of defamation or humiliation of any prophet and messenger. This is why we are disturbed and angry at what the Danish newspaper had published. It is our duty and responsibility to react to this sacrilege. We should denounce it openly but with total restraint lest we lose our just and fair right of defending our Prophet.
Second, by condemning the action, the actors and their supporters by all peaceful means till they back off we receive tangible evidence that such things do not happen again. In doing so, we should take into account what Allah has instructed us in the Qur’an:

Revile not those unto whom they pray beside Allah lest they wrongfully revile Allah without knowledge. Thus unto every nation have We made their deed seem fair. Then unto their Lord is their return, and He will tell them what they used to do. (6:108)

And the Qur’an adds:

Thus have We appointed unto every prophet an adversary — devils of humankind and jinn who inspire one another plausible discourse through guile. If thy Lord willed, they would not do so; so leave them alone with their fabrications. (6: 112)

Thirdly, we should work harder to convey the message of Islam to nonbelievers by inviting them to study the life and history of the Prophet.

The Holy Qur’an says:

Say: O People of the Scripture! Come to an agreement between us and you: That we shall worship none but Allah, and that we shall ascribe no partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords beside Allah. And if they turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are Muslims. (3: 64)

But we should invite them in the manner Allah has prescribed for us in the Qur’an:
Call unto the way of thy Lord with wisdom and fair exhortation, and reason with them in a better way. Lo! thy Lord is Best Aware of him who strayeth from His way, and He is Best Aware of those who go aright. (16: 125)

Also we should remember that there is no compulsion in religion.

There is no compulsion in religion. The right path is henceforth distinct from the wrong path. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower. (2: 256).

Fourth, we should not forget that there are fair-minded individuals among the non-Muslims around the world who are also offended by such an act. We should not blame them for an action they are not responsible for. Rather we should appreciate their effort and help. The Qur’an says:

O ye who believe! Be steadfast witnesses for Allah in justice, and let not hatred of any people seduce you that ye deal not justly. Deal justly, that is nearer to your piety. Fear Allah. Lo! Allah knows of what ye do. (5: 8)

All the above verses are clear evidence that the message of the Prophet Muhammad is comprehensive, makes no distinction among people or the message of all the prophets and messengers. This message has come after a long series of messages and prophethoods, beginning with Adam (peace be upon him), the father of all human beings, passing through Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and finally Muhammad. The Qur’an says:
We sent thee not save as a mercy for the mankind. (21: 107)

And We have sent thee (O Muhammad) only as a bearer of glad tidings and a warner. (25: 56)
And We have not sent thee (O Muhammad) save as a giver of glad tidings and a warner unto all mankind; but most people know not. (34: 28)

— Dr. Ahmed Saad Al-Mofareh is a member of the Shoura Council, Saudi Arabia.

Gulf Muslims step up Danish boycott

JEDDAH, 7 February 2006 — Arab News Tue Feb 7 2006

People in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries intensified their boycott of Danish goods as the uproar over caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) raged unabated yesterday.

Scholars and regional trade groups also urged Muslims to use this economic weapon to punish other European nations whose dailies printed the inflammatory caricatures.

Yemen shut down a weekly newspaper yesterday for republishing the cartoons.

The official Saba news agency said Prime Minister Abdul Qader Ba-Jammal ordered the closure of the Al-Hurriya (Freedom) weekly after it reprinted four of the 12 drawings that originally appeared in Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten daily last September.

The paper reproduced the cartoons on Feb. 2 as part of coverage on the protests and boycotts sparked by the drawings.

Qatar’s Chamber of Commerce said it had halted dealings with Danish or Norwegian delegations, urging Muslim states to do the same. In Bahrain, Parliament formed a committee to contact Arab and Islamic governments to enforce the boycott.

“I think a boycott is the decent way of responding to the attack. Anything that has to do with money is very effective,” said Ayman Abdulrahman, an Egyptian executive in Dubai. “I might expand my boycott to include other countries who insist on escalating the situation.”
Supermarket shelves remained void of Danish dairy products and Muslim scholars, social organizations and text messages rallied people to maintain their stand. Many scholars urged Muslims to stick to peaceful protest.

The ban showed signs of harming more Danish firms as Novo Nordisk, the world’s biggest maker of insulin, said pharmacies and hospitals in Saudi Arabia had been avoiding its products. “Some customers ask about what’s Danish and avoid it,” said one pharmacy owner in Riyadh.
“Not a single sachet of a Danish product is left on our shelves,” said the director of a Kuwaiti supermarket.

“They have to respect our religion,” added Khaled Abdulrahman, a civil servant who was shopping at the store.

Danish-Swedish dairy company Arla Foods said it is losing $1.8 million of sales a day in the Middle East. Its products were removed from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait.

Branches of French hypermarket Carrefour in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates have also stopped selling Danish goods. “Danish products have been removed from all (UAE) branches of Carrefour,” one official said.

“I’ve joined the boycott from the first day ... economics affects politics,” said Bahraini trader Ghassan Al-Shehabi.

Some Muslims, however, said the boycott was not the best way to resolve the crisis.

“I think we should seek dialogue, not boycotting products or burning flags in the street which only escalates the problem,” said Suha Krimeed, a Lebanese marketing manager living in Dubai.

Europe's Uncivilized Act

by Nasim Zehra - Arab News Tue Feb 7 2006

There is no battle to be fought with those who indulged in the ugly act of deliberately insulting my Prophet (peace be upon him). I am numbed with outrage over this uncivilized act they have committed. I would simply say to them yours are no civilized ways. Whatever your claims to the contrary, they actually betray a people with a reactionary mindset.

Those who become possessed by anger when confronted with difficult and challenging situations.

Anger halts our ability to probe and to reflect. Instead, depending on our location in life, if we are advantageously placed, we self-righteously give ourselves the license to pronounce verdict and take action to right a wrong. As many European publications have done. This is their crass response to the growing post-9/11 anti-Islamic sentiment. And for people in the business of opinion making to indulge in such reactive acts is extremely dangerous. It is highly irresponsible. These are people who must play the role of promoting greater understanding - pulling people away from extremist thought and action. Not join the vanguard of anger-prompted extremism.

Policy-makers and opinion-making community in the West have opted to conduct the discourse on terrorism using a terminology that has unwittingly but dangerously indicted the 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. Terms like Muslim terrorists, Islamic terrorists and Islamic terrorism have led to the demonization of the Muslims and of Islam. Whatever the European papers may claim they are upholding by ridiculing the Holy Prophet, they would have not contemplated doing so in a pre-9/11 environment.

Social tensions may have existed in pre-9/11 Europe but in post-9/11 the tensions have vastly augmented. Muslims make for easy targets. So does their faith. This is how a section of the Europeans have opted to express their resentment against the terrorist attacks, as is evident from the contents of the cartoons.

This is a season of acute polarization. For example if the on-line responses of the public are any guide, this act of insulting the Prophet has unfortunately received widespread public support in many European countries. The thrust mostly is that there is no reason to compromise on our value of freedom of expression, that if Muslims can't deal with this they must leave, that Muslims are hypocrites because they show no tolerance toward minorities but expect to be shown tolerance.

In some cases individuals have argued that such cartoons should often be printed to get the Muslims to ultimately be more accepting of freedom of expression! They say this is what we do to our own. Sadly so, we would say. But please do not drag our revered ones in your messy notion of the freedom of speech. You have evolved into a culture which licenses unlimited permissiveness. In spite of our own mistakes, our many shortcomings, our morally and intellectually anemic leadership, there are some touchstones of our civilization. It includes the respect of religion and our faith in God Almighty.

Deliberately defiling the Prophet is a highly irresponsible act. It is bound to have negative social and political fall-out. It exacerbates the existing social tensions among the locals and the Muslim population. Within the Muslims it is bound to create more alienation and resentment toward the Westerners who, have chosen to be completely indifferent toward the faith and feelings of the Muslims across the world. It is the arrogance of these Westerners they will resent. Like millions of Westerners who have opted to not view terrorists as a fringe phenomenon within the Muslims and instead referred to terrorism as Islamic terrorism, many Muslims too will wrongly implicate the Westerners across the board for this blasphemous act against the Prophet.

At the popular level we require a rollback of the school that promotes the dangerous talk of clash of civilizations. For now the cartoon incident will merely serve to reinforce the worst of what many Muslims may believe of a growing intolerant Europe.

The framing and the discussion of the issue of terrorism has created a permissive environment which is responsible for this caricaturing of the Prophet; of hurting the feelings and ridiculing the faith of a huge section of the entire human race. They paid no heed to the protests. Instead they resented and condemned the nature of the protests. True the protests should have been calmer.

Frenzied outrage was unnecessary and as were threats to kill. But nothing justified the reprinting of those insulting cartoons across many European countries including France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Switzerland.

The leadership in most of these countries has not been willing to contest the wisdom of publishing cartoons that are highly disrespectful to another people's faith. In fact the degree if insensitivity of the Danish prime minister can be gauged from the fact that when after the September publication the Muslims in Denmark sent repeated requests to meet with the prime minister, he repeatedly ignored their request. Essentially conveying "I really don't give a damn". Subsequently the Muslim leaders repeatedly went to the Middle East and other Muslim countries and showed them what the Danish papers had done. Subsequently the reaction acquired these proportions.

In Denmark the anti-Muslim sentiment has been growing at a rapid pace for the past ten years. The Fogh Rasmussen government has actively sought to dispel and block Muslim residents from Denmark. The cartoon is just the tip of the iceberg.

However that the notion of freedom of expression cannot be translated into unlimited freedom to abuse another's faith is basic common sense. But also the way many Europeans have selectively applied the principle of freedom of expression is intriguing. When the ancient Buddhas in Afghanistan were criminally destroyed by the Taleban, the Europeans screamed murder the loudest. We all did too in the Muslim world.

What was that protest for? So destruction of history is blasphemous but the attempted destruction of a people's faith and deeply treasured symbols is not? This is the perversity of post-modernism which seeks the right to destroy and deconstruct selectively and give that right a sacred status. Also if the freedom of expression is so sacred how many European papers have dared to support what the Iranian president said about questioning the reality of the Holocaust?
Clearly the principle of freedom has to be practiced within some rationale and egalitarian framework. It cannot be an elitist concept that a special color or creed will have more right to exercise. Why does this right not respect another's right to choose what is sacred to them, since that what is sacred is not at the cost of undermining another's interests. Islam abhors suicide bombings and terrorism. Increasingly Muslim leaders are condemning this openly.

Are the Europeans so generous in applying their concept of freedom of expression at the cost of causing great pain and injury to Muslim world? Is it because their bohemianism has a method to it? The method is to attack and disrespect those who are generally viewed as the politically, scientifically and economically the downtrodden of the human race - the weak and the lambasted, the violated and the angry, the reactive and seething?

These are not the ways of a civilized people. These are ways toward pushing for a grand and mad conflict of civilizations. Will the European media see wisdom is stepping back and reviewing their dangerous notion of freedom of expression?

For now the limited apologies that have come were perhaps prompted by the widespread anger and protests emanating from the Muslim world. But wisdom and true civilized behavior demands that we internalize the limits of our own freedoms where it begins to undermine the freedom of another.

- Nasim Zehra is adjunct professor at School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), Johns Hopkins University, Washington DC.