There are three things we have to bear in mind about the controversy over the cartoons published in the European media depicting the Prophet Muhammad.
First, it is against Islamic principles to represent in imagery not only Muhammad, but all the prophets of Islam. This is a clear prohibition.
Second, in the Muslim world, we are not used to laughing at religion, our own or anybody else’s. This is far from our understanding. For that reason, these cartoons are seen, by average Muslims and not just radicals, as a transgression against something sacred, a provocation against Islam.
Third, Muslims must understand that laughing at religion is a part of the broader culture in which they live in Europe, going back to Voltaire. Cynicism, irony and indeed blasphemy are part of the culture.
When you live in such an environment as a Muslim, it is really important to be able to take a critical distance and not react so emotionally. You need to hold to your Islamic principles, but be wise enough not to overreact to provocation.
For Muslim majority countries to react emotionally to these cartoons with boycotts is to nurture the extremists on the other side, making it a test of wills. On one side, the extremists argue: « See, we told you, the West is against Islam. » On the other side they say, « See, Muslims can’t be integrated into Europe, and they are destroying our values by not accepting what we stand for. »
This way of opening a debate on emotional grounds is, in fact, a way of closing the door on rational discourse.
What we need now on both sides is an understanding that this is not a legal issue, or an issue of rights. Free speech is a right in Europe and legally protected. No one should contest this. At the same time, there should be an understanding that the complexion of European society has changed with immigrants from diverse cultures. Because of that, there should be sensitivity to Muslims and others living in Europe.
There are no legal limits to free speech, but there are civic limits. In any society, there is a civic understanding that free speech should be used wisely so not as to provoke sensitivities, particularly in hybrid, multicultural societies we see in the world today. It is a matter of civic responsibility and wisdom, not a question of legality or rights. In that context, I think it was unwise to publish these cartoons because it is the wrong way to start a debate about integration. Such a move inflames emotions; it does not court reason. It is a useless provocation.
How does one imagine that the average Muslim in Europe who opposes terrorism will react seeing the Prophet Muhammad depicted with a bomb in his turban? Publishing these cartoons is a very stupid way to address the issue of freedom of speech.
Now it is a power struggle. Who will have the final word? Who is right? Who will have the upper hand? What do we want, to polarize our world or build bridges?
Look, let’s have a true debate about the future of our society. Muslims have to understand there is free speech in Europe, and that is that. On the other side, there needs to be an understanding that sensitive issues must be addressed with wisdom and prudence, not provocation. Just because you have the legal right to do something doesn’t mean you have to do it. You have to understand the people around you. Do I go around insulting people just because I’m free to do it? No. It’s called civic responsibility.
(Tariq Ramadan is a visiting professor at Oxford‘s St. Antony’s college and a senior research fellow at the Lokahi Foundation in London. He is author of « Western Muslims and the Future of Islam . This Global Viewpoint article was distributed by Tribune Media Services International. His comments are adapted from an interview with Global Viewpoint editor Nathan Gardels.)
Source: The Herald Tribune
I think that Prof Ramadan has made some excellent points.
Free speech is important in Western society but it should not be abused. (And, of course, the British government recognises this–that is why incitement to terrorism is illegal. I would be interested to know whether blashphemy is still illegal; and, if it is, how it is defined and whether it applies to all religions or just Christianity. There is certainly a great deal published that is offensive to Christians which goes unchallenged. I don’t know anything about the legal situation in Denmark.)
I think that the way that society treats minorities is a mark of how civilised we are: and I am afraid that our score is not good at the moment.
« I would be interested to know whether blashphemy is still illegal ; and, if it is, how it is defined and whether it applies to all religions or just Christianity. There is certainly a great deal published that is offensive to Christians which goes unchallenged. »
In Western countries blasphemy is not illegal, i.e., it violates no civil or criminal law. Christian denominations each deal with blasphemy according to their respective constitutions, but none are permitted by the civil governments to execute capital punishment – Biblically, the civil authorities « wield the sword, » not the church. The most serious punishment meted out by an ecumenical authority is excommunication. This yielding of one sphere of authority to another was the result of much debate and biblical scholarship. However, the yielding was to work both ways – the state should allow the church to inform its collective conscience and laws. As another post recognizes, though, at the Enlightenment all biblical influence on state matters was cast aside (a well-known example: the famous painting of Napoleon’s Self-Coronation – until that point it was the Church that crowned the king). Even so, the church must recognize the state’s legitimate authority.
Finally, I disagree with the writer’s statement that offenses against Christianity go unchallenged, at least in the U.S. These battles are often joined, either in peaceful demonstrations, in the press, in the legislatures or in the courts, as the occasion requires.
Maybe, you can precise that the free speech is not for everyone. How many of your conferences in France were intentionally « cancelled » by the government?
Where is the freedom of speech here?
The interveiw with the iman and the editor in Hrd talk regarding the Cartoons published in Damemark..
the interview was most interesting .. and it confirmed that both were wrong and irresponsible when they both disregarded the consequences of their actions ..
The Imam behaved in most irresponsible manar when he escelated the matter knowing in advance of the consequences ..and when he tried tocover up for his collegue lie where his collegue added a new cartoon with a pigs head .. and went around together to Arab countries urging them to boycott Danish products .. it questions as well his loyalty to the country where he lives .. and the economical harm he knew it will bring to his own community if a boycott is to be carried out.. where they enjoy democratic rights they never dreamed of in their countries of origin
in every respect..
in Return
No matter how free we are there should be self desplined ethics and concounsous lines that should have governed the publishing of these caricatoors.. particularly at these sensetive times..
Both desplayed ignorance and should not hold any reponsible postions for lack of vision and insight of results to harmful actions we can do without ..
Ahlam Akram
Brother Tariq,
Sarkozy comment about excess of sensure and excess of cartoons is a ‘false assumption’ of choice giving to people who can at least think. But its clear now that the hatred of some people in the west about Islamic values has become so apparent. These cartoons were expression of hatred. Not even funny. We need to do a lot to explain what Islam is all about. Unfortunately, the education they have received has not even allowed them to think and express their ideas responsibly. It’s sad that even high profile politicians are in these categories. At the end of the day the conflict will continue to grow to threshold and we better prepare ourselves for what our prophet (pbuh) has predicted if we want to pay our respect.
Reducing the issue of free speech to the caricature of somebody that cries « fire » in a theatre, therefore doing something totally irresponsible, is silly; worse, it does not get to the point of the controversy. I usually do not shout bad words to the person studying next to me, neither I find pleasant to make fun of others’ personal religious feelings (I have Christian and muslim friends). However, I find essential to criticise the catholic church as an oppressive institution, in a way that some catholic could define blaspheme. (who decides what blasphemy is? apart that the very word makes be laugh, it sounds the middle age inquisition is at work again) I do not think that re-discuss freedom of speech is any good for progress, neither for us, nor for the rest of the world. I feel really tired and sick of seeing fundamental rights re-questioned every day. There are more important issues here, like poverty – that’s really touches my sensitivity. In my opinion the real moral of this events is that democracy cannot be exported in anyway, let alone with wars.
Europe has changed and become more diverse, but ALL religions are subject to satire and ridicule. There was a time when the Christian Religion had the same status in Europe that Islam does in the Middle East. That situation no longer exists.
Asallam Alaikoum! Am feeling ambivalent about this post. How do you go about advising people about about « critical distance » when emotions are involved.
Civic responsibility? No one seems to care about being civil, in the name of what? in the name of that same Freedom of Speech.
It all goes up to educating people which we unforunately realise only when such a situation arises. So much we could achieve only if we didn’t procastinate.
was Salam!
Fitèna
A good idea would habe been not to react so emotionally as we have seen through muslims countries. Instead the media should have proposed an international call to produce comics representing European colonisation , American imperialism, Israel etc…
Just today an Iranian Newspaper took the baton of “testing the limits of free Speech-A.K.A to insult and defame in this case- and commissioned a contest to depict various caricatures of the holocaust; of course bearing in mind the need for satire at times. On Feb-13th these pictures will be published. So here is my legal, civil and moral perplexity regarding this; would this sort of contest ever be contemplated in western countries. Indeed, would they even be published in mass media or reproduced provocatively (as those of the blessed prophet may peace and blessings be upon him) all in the name of “testing the limits of free speech”. Or are there instead legal bars erected well in advance, notifying people of where the limits are. I think we have to stop being naive, and wake up to the reality that something went seriously wrong here and doorstep of those who preach tolerance and respect for others to do just that. Please allow me to respectfully disagree that there is plenty of room to argue that there is a legal issue here. A picture of the founder of Islam wearing a turban that has a bomb mined in it, certainly depicts the 1.3 billion followers of that faith as nothing more than adherents of a faith that perpetuates terrorism and acts of mass carnage against civilians that amount to crimes against humanity. Simply said, it is racist, and pitches one community against another and as Muslims not only should we not tolerate it, but pursue every legal means to make our points heard and ensure that such a thing is never repeated; neither in the east nor in the west.
I agree with you completely. I believe Professor Ramadan has a point about the counter-productivity of overreacting by burning buildings, for instance, but I disagree with him about the need to boycott. An economic boycott of nations who are deliberately being offensive to test how far Muslims will accept free speech by insulting the Propher Mohammed, is the most civilized and effective way of dealing with such a situation. When the Danish PM refuses an audience with 11 ambassadors of Muslim countries to discuss the pending crisis, what does that tell us? Ramadan is right in trying not to nurture the « us » against « them » mentality but how do we deal with those who aggressively promote it by inflaming Muslims in this arrogant and insensitive way. They are not only telling us to accept the insult lying down, but also to react to it the way they want us to. Enough of that. Boycotts and peaceful demonstrations are the solution until there is an official apology. As for Iran’s plans for holocaust cartoons, I wish they would just drop it. We cannot sink to their level. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
In fact, here in Europe there are boundaries. Nobody is denying that. Only thiese are not defined by religion. I am very proud of the fact that boundaries are defined by something that killed 10.000.000 people, and not by the religious sensitiveness. However, I respect the point of view of people saying they were offended by the cartoons, even if I do not agree. What I cannot accept is the equation above.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007934
ther is a provrb in our arab language says you r fre as long as u didnt harm
« Europe/Cartoons/Racism » « Danish paper pursues Holocaust cartoons » »Posted: 2006/02/08″ »From: Guardian » »The Danish paper responsible for the original caricatures of the prophet Muhammad is set to run cartoons satirising the Holocaust »(John Plunkett). »Flemming Rose, the culture editor of Danish daily Jyllands-Poste said today he was trying to get in touch with the Iranian paper, Hamshari, which plans to run an international competition seeking cartoons about the Holocaust »(John Plunkett). » »My newspaper is trying to establish a contact with the Iranian newspaper, and we would run the cartoons the same day as they publish them, » Mr Rose told CNN »(John Plunkett,The Guardian, 9ieme fevrier 2006, comparez « mathaba.net », Inde).Neanmoins des heures apres ce report du journal Anglais en reference au dessus que le
redacteur en chef des affaires culturelles du journal Danois « Jyllandsposten » publiera en meme temps »
les carricatures Iraniennes sur le theme
Zioniste comme « Hamshari »(Mahmud etait
a Teheran son editeur) il y a le journal
« news.scotsman.com » avec la negation et
le « news.scotsman.com » dit exactement le
contraire.
Dear Mr Ramadan
I think part of the difficulty with regard to reconciling East and West that the cartoon controversy has raised is that in the matter of satire, the two civilisations are not equal. Western civilisation in Europe (as opposed to the religious US) has largely dumped religion of any sort. You cannot even say it is reverted to « paganism » since that is the persuasion of a tiny minority of counter-culture people only.
The only remaining religions in the post-Communist world ( in the broad sense of a basic belief system) are consumerism in the sense pf a dedication to the consumption of a maximum amount of goods, plus, of course, old-fashioned racism. There’s still plenty of that still left.
The result is that there is no realm of the sacred in Western civilisation that can offend their sensibilities in the way that religious civilisations can be offended. Satire, in fact, is itself the centre of Western cultural thought. This and hedonism (or at least, the cult of consumption) are what European Westerners believe in which is patently obvious if one looks around at all its manifestations.
If, for example, we were to draw Jesus as an Inquisitor holding the heads of heretics in one bloody hand, a sword in the other, and trampling on, say, Native Americans with his feet, such a cartoon would only interest a minority of Europeans. The British, for instance, have turned Monty Python’s Life of Christ into a cult film. It is a more cherished part of the national heritage today than Jesus Christ or the Anglican Church is. The film, in an amiably satirical way, turns the life of Christ into a silly joke. The dominant motif in Western thought today is science, and science is an essentially probing tool. Emotionally, it is like a kind of intellectual rape of the natural world and has turned also into a virulent denial of the sacred, of mysteries and of any basis for religious truth through the ideology of Darwinist evolution. In the battle between a somewhat primitive and literalist Biblical religion and modern science in Europe, science won the day. It’s triumph is not independent of its hostility to religion but is integrally a part of it, as you know. European thinking, therefore, is actually hostile to religion, having integrated and absorbed the implications of its acceptance of Darwinian thought. In the US, the picture is much more muddled. Christian literalists battle it out with ID advocates while being fully committed to the fruits of science and technology, including a rate of consumption that the Europeans cannot match!
Mature-minded Europeans have been recognising for some time that whether or not there remains a specifically religious element of the sacred left intact in European civilisation, it is fairly obvious that the balance between freedom and responsibility is seriously disturbed. The general behaviour of the delinquent young who in European countries can commit almost any type of crime without facing the consequences, some of the mainstream products of modern art, and the general laxity of penal systems in which the law rushes in to protect the rights of criminals and leaves the victims to defend themselves, all point to a tendency to give people rights and forget about responsibilities. People in Europe are being brought up not to respect anything or anybody.
This is part and parcel of the conviction in Europe that freedom of speech and expression must be absolute if it is to hold at all. The political and judicial institutions in Europe do not in fact recognise the rights of people’s cultural sensibilities to be respected.
In fact there is much confusion here. In Britain, for example, the policy and thinking of « multiculturalism » promoted uncritical acceptance of other cultures within British society, without recognising, as you do, that culture must engage each other. Political pressures led from this to the political correctness culture in social life and employment. Yet, nothing was done in the judicial procedures or the laws of the country to counter racial prejudice or denigration of other cultures. Thus, insulting the Prophet is defended in the name of freedom of expression. The rights of people like the cleric Abu Hamza in Britain to preach racial hatred was allowed for a long time. In Germany, neo-Nazis are allowed to deny the holocaust and write anything they like which is anti-Semitic. In France, people like Le Pen are allowed to become major political forces despite his racism and cultural arrogance. And in Europe, the violence permitted against Bosnian Muslims (which ironically was stopped only by US action in the end, not by Europeans)showed only too clearly the cynical disregard of Europeans for other cultures and persuasions.
The integration of Muslim with European civilisation is an admirable and bold objective and I want to express my heartfelt admiration fro your espousal of it. I just wonder where one will find a common platform in which one can agree to debate between the two.
Muslims need to learn to be strong (but not violent) in the face of satire and criticism. Immature satire like the Danish cartoons should be answered with dignified contempt and cutting rejoinders about falsely blaming the Prophet for misdeeds done in his name (shall we blame Jesus for the Albigensian Crusade, the Spanish Inquisition, the genocide of the Native Americans, etc?) rather than by violent outrage. All this does in European eyes is to make Muslims look pompous and standing too much on their dignity instead of exposing the cartoons for their HYPOCRISY which is actually the more effective (intellectual) weapon in
dealing with European arrogance than violent demonstrations and threats. Such demonstrations may make some Europeans fear Muslims reprisals but it will not make Europeans respect Muslims. The only thing that can is a mmeasured and cutting exposé of the hypocrisy of Europeans, both historically, and in the contemporary world, in dealing with other cultures. Also, the absence of the sacred leaves a deep wound in the European psyche which Europeans try to fill with satire and making a mock of everything. This is actually a weakness and can be probed effectively by using the dharp knife of intellectual and cultural criticism, not by violence.
Europeans themselves are starting the question the excessive gap between rights and responsibilities in cultural and social life. Many Europeans question the right of newspapers like to Danish newspapers in the cartoon controversy to insult other religions (or anyone, for that matter).
Yours sincerely,
Arjun Sen
Well put Mr. Sen, but before you go ahead with a long argumentation, decorated with incontrovertible « as you know », and mainly based on, I am sorry, superficial observation and attempts of generalisation of an infitely diverse life in Europe or anywhere else, I would suggest that you familiarise youself with certain rules of courtesy towards such things as facts. For example, you may be surprised to learn that, contrary to what you said, denying the Holocaust is a crime in Germany and people DO go to jail for it. It may not change your opinion, but you may want to learn that a great number of European scientists were very religios people and sometimes even monks. Many of them pursuited science not only as a way to satisfy their curiosity, but as a way to complement their understanding of God. I agree that some of the scientists were atheists. But if we undertake a hard task of generalising what should we do with the former? Exclude them as non-representative samples? Finally, a very little fact about the movie « Life of BRIAN » is that Jesus Christ appears there only once, giving a speech which totally coincides with the Sermon on the Mount as it cited by the Evangelists. Unfortunatelly, in that scene Jesus was barely heard and totally misunderstood by some listeners. The rest of the movie, however, is about misadventures of Jesus’ fellow Jew Brian, who was born the very same day as him, became a fighter against the Roman yoke, and was mistaken for Messiah on several occasions. Thus, the film rather mocks the political situaton and the way the religion was practiced by people of Judea 2000 years ago. These little facts may not shake your theory, but, you know, if a clock strikes 13, it casts doubt not only on that, but also on everything that went before.
I am sorry, Dmitry, that I have offended your sensibilities on this issue. Over quite a long letter in which I made many important points, you managed to quarrel with one major and one lesser point which I made, without addressing effectively any of my main charges : European racism both political and socially endemic, the failure and hypocrisy of multicultural policies and strategies, and the absence of sacred space in contemporary European civilisation and its effects on modes of social, intellectual and artistic expression – including the Danish cartoons. You sound like a lawyer looking for technicalities to try and get the culprit off despite general evidence of his guilt!
Regarding the lesser point, the Life of Brian, however subtly superior your interpretation of it might be, it is the impression created in the public mind of general irreverence that is more striking and important. But I think you are less interested in things like that than in finding gaps in interpretation in order to undermine an essentially sound argument from a serious point of view.
Regarding the major point, are you going to deny that the majority of scientists are materialists and positivists and that most scientists are Darwinists whether or not they are experts on biology and utterly reject the implications of creation mysteries ? Do you deny the history of conflict between science and religion since the publication of the Origin of Species in 1859 and the direction of mainstream scientific thought since then ? I am not myself a supporter of creationism, and in fact agree with many aspects of evolutionary thory, but I am simply pointing out that the MAJORITY of scientists are hostile to religious mysteries or even the idea that there may be realities beyond the grasp of their instruments and theories. Exceptions, Dmitry, do not disprove the rule.
The other thing you need to take note of is that the law is one thing and its implementation is another. Many European countries have laws that ban behaviour they consider to be uncivilised or against human rights but they do not necessarily enforce them. If a law is not observed and enforced, it is no law at all. In Germany, it may be true that it is an offence to deny the Holocaust: in which case the neo-Nazis must all be in jail instead of out in the public airing their views, but this seems not to be so. Germany has laws against abuse of minorities, yet in recent years whole buildings full of asylum-seekers have been burned down in Germany by neo-Nazis while the state police stood by and watched. It is not enough to quote the law but to observe the ground realities.
Do you deny that the zone of the sacred has all but disappeared from contemporary European culture and that there is an intimate connection between this and the assertion of an absolute right to free speech and a imbalance between the principles of freedom and responsibility, or perhaps is it that you just don’t understand what I am talking about ?
Until Europeans are made to confront their hypocrisies and look to their weaknesses, it will remain difficult to have a proper dialogue with other cultures, or expect them to exercise or cultivate a proper reasonableness without difficulty.
In my turn, I am sorry for being excessively (and somewhat awkwardly) sarcastic where, perhaps, I just had to be clear. My point is that phrases like « European hypocrisy » are just as racist as phrases « Muslim violence », « Jewish greediness », or « American ignorance/arragance/whatever is a new fashionable sin ascribed to Americans ». To my opinion, the roots of any racism are in generalisations based on distorted facts. Europe, or European culture cannot be racist, or hypocritic, or atheistic. Some individuals can. Does majority of individuals in Europe think that they are better than others because of their European origin? Possible. Probable! But Europe is a diverse society where questioning and daring established concepts (including this one) is accepted and often welcomed. As any other culture or society, Europe has some mutually antithetic behavioural codes. When they clash, many Europeans (and non-Europeans) prefer to ignore it, but many are stuborn enough to try resolve the situation. Yes, sometimes the resolution is not what you or I expect or like. For example, I do find it wrong when the freedom of speech is used to offend groups people just « to start a discussion ». A court in Denmark did not. Should I label all Europeans or even all Danish, or even all Danish judges and cartoonists as racists? If I want a constructive dialog that WILL make a difference and WILL change the situation in future, I should not permit myself to do what I have just condemned. Maybe minor mistakes in facts are not very important, unless these facts are used to prove a GENERALISATION. Unfortunately, there will be some Europeans, who in private conversation would say something like « As you know, they (« Muslims »? « Africans »? « young people in general? ») are quite violent people, and I don’t understand why nowdays nobody dares to say it publicly. Just look at those guys who attacted that school in America. Oh, they weren’t muslims? It was in Canada? Ah, anyway, it doesn’t change the fact(!) etc… » , as long as there will be non-Europeans (and other Europeans), who are quite comfortable to say « As you know, European thinking is actually hostile to religion », or « You cannot deny the fact that the majority of … ». No, I cannot deny, and I cannot confirm. I am against any racism, any simplifying generalisation, and from your comment I can conclude that you don’t like it either. And the least we can do about it is not to show an example.
I understand what are trying to say, Dmitry, but I think the problem here in our discussion is that you do not understand the nature of a generalisation in social studies. A generalisation is distinct from a categorical statement. A categorical statement means that there are no exceptions to the rule. If a generalisation was the same as a categorical statement, then it would be wrong and we could only ascribe opinions and attitudes to individuals.
A generalisation in historical or social studies means that some aspect of culture or behaviour or law or whatever is found to be WIDELY PREVALENT, enough to dominate a culture or area. This does not mean that among INDIVUALS there are also plenty of exceptions to the rule.
If we were unable to make generalistions, we would be unable to make tough but valid generalisations such as :
1. The Han Chinese and the Japanese despise foreigners. (You may think this an unpleasant thing to say but it is generally true, and the evidence for it is well established historically. This does not mean that there are no nice and pleasant Chinese and Japanese people with whm foreigners can have good relationships. Of course there are!)
2. German public opinion during and before World War II was hostile to Jews and Slavs. (The evidence for this is overwhelming and has a history dating back hundreds of years to at least the time of the mediaeval Teutonic Knights. This does not mean that there were no Germans who were not like that. Of course there were! some gave their lives to save Jews and Poles, such as the great German Catholic priest Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and many ordinary Germans regarded Nazi practices with distaste but feared to speak up).
3. The Mongols in the 13th Century were fierce people who slaughtered their victims in huge numbers. Also, they were barbarians who destroyed the last great flowering of Islamic civilisation in Iraq from which it never recovered-. (The historical evidence for this is excellent, but I dare say some Mongols were kind to children and animals and maybe even adopted some of their victims in Russia, Iraq, Iran etc and made them into favoured household servants or whatever and there may have been a few who did not think it a good thing to burn books and destroy works of art. And of course today, after hundreds of years of Buddhist culture, Mongols are a peaceful and very civilised people).
4. Americans are arrogant because they think their way of life is the only right one, and they are greedy because they consume much more of the world’s resources per capita than other countries, and they are ignorant because due to their huge size and relative isolation, they have a very poor understanding of the rest of the world. If you think these generalisations are untrue, then you obviously do not have much experience of America. (But this does not mean that there are not plenty of Americans, especially along the Eastern and Western seaboards, whose levels of culture and social information rivals the best in any other part of the world, of course there are).
5. The Spanish and British invasions and occupations of North, Central and South America were arrogant, greedy and ruthless affairs based on narrow assumptions of cultural superiority and firearms technology, and resulted in the deaths of millions of Native Americans and the extinction of many peoples. I think the evidence for this is incontrovertible, but this doesn’t mean there were no good, peaceful, genuinely Christian and high-minded Britishers or Spaniards !
6. And finally, if you doubt the general prevalence of racist attitudes of Europeans towards their ethnic and culural minorities, you should talk a bit more to ethnic minority people around Europe and listen to what they have to say. Especially people who are not rich or in comfortable businesses or professions but people who have to live close to street realities. Be prepared to hear what may not sound comfortable to your ears.
For example, to pick on something topical, are you aware of the frustration among French ethnic and cultural minorities and the link between this and the recent street riots all over France ?
Do you realise what the French did in Algeria in 1956-62, how many people they killed there ? Of course this led to tit for tat brutality on the Algerian side also, but whose country were the colons occupying with all the blind arrogance of a white colonial power? Do you appreciate the connection between these events and the continuation of institutionalised racism in France (which seems to be behind the UK now) and the links between the Algerian conflict and phenomena such as Le Pen ?
Do you get the point ? If you cannot make general points you cannot understand anything properly that is occurring or has occurred on a massive scale. A generalisation does not have to be categorical in order to hold true.
To fail to make or acknowledge valid generalisations is to rob historical or contemporary studies of the power to draw meaningful conclusions about large-scale phenomena.
The cult of the individual, in popular Western culture, is an indulgence and a major source of weakness and blinds one to useful insights.
Mr Ramadan,
Everybody, including you(respectfully), keep repeating what the media wants us to hear : « Freedom of Speech »… »freedom of speech »!
But, WHAT IS « FREEDOM OF SPEECH » ???
Is « deliberate humiliation » considered « freedom of speech »??
Is « verbal or editorial insult » considered « freedom of speech »? in the civilized Europe?
Think about that, please!
Why is not a simple criticism of Israel or hallocaust NOT considered « freedom of speech » in Europe ??!!! Who are they fooling here?!
« freedom of speech » is pounded on our ears by the media over and over only to COVER their well planned, ugly, sinister intentions. Don’t be fooled by it.
You ought to consider that freedom of speech is a human right and as such a wonderful institution, that is capable of furthering other rights.
In some jurisdictions insult is a criminal offence and thus limits this freedom. It is clearly important to strike a fair balance between the rights of the speaker and the addressee. In the case of denying the holocaust (and that should in my opinion be the same for all genocides) there is a lie that insults and has no other purpose than to insult, not anyone, but the victims of a crime against humanity, survivors and their relatives. I do not think this compares easily to the cartoon.
I believe the media wish to see the exact opposite, namely violent reactions etc. Why let them win?
There are reactionary relation of power and feeling of supremacy elements involved in the issue. Superior-inferior. It’s the same like the white demonizing the black in western countries.
But why the editor strongly urged to publish the caricature? For a test of a free speech? Sure he know the results will be « See, Muslims can’t be integrated into Europe, and they are destroying our values by not accepting what we stand for. » There must be something behind it.
It’ll be different if the cartoonists and the newspaper are muslims.
What’s strange and nobody seems to notice,is that the ‘hurting’ on massive scale was not manufactured by the ‘europeans’ but by some arabic regimes themselves. I explain. The cartoons were originally published in the month of september 2005 in a danish newspaper. They passed unnoticed. If Europe really wanted to ‘hurt’ muslims, the major European newspapers would have copied en spread the cartoons in the western countries. They didn’t do so. The cartoons factually started a-hurting a lot of muslims after arabic regimes (for political reasons?) started publishing them. So they hurted their own peoples. Why ? It’s like a family father who takes up a knive, that all the time stayed unnoticed in a corner of the room, and starts stabbing around to his own family members, and afterwards blames the person who put the knive in the corner.
Joseph – youssef
« First, it is against Islamic principles to represent in imagery not only Muhammad, but all the prophets of Islam. This is a clear prohibition. »
what a weird way to start a depassionate debate : this first statement does not seem that accurate, and has not always been true.
Why staying put to old reforms that were buid in the middle-age? I believe there is more than that to extract from religious texts. Specially if you’re a progressist mind.
The message we have to give the world (including our muslim brothers who resorted to violence)is that Islam is Peace. We,as muslims, have a responsibilty to project this view in all our actions.
Allah says in the Quran :-
« Only he will prosper that brings to God a heart full of peace » (Quraaan 26:89)
« O you who believe ! stand out firmly for God, as witness to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to piety. » (5:8)
« Nor can Goodness and Evil be equal. Repel Evil with what is better: Then will he between whom and you was hatred become as it were a close friend » (41:34)
« Help one another in virtue and righteouness » (5:2)
« God does not forbid you with regard to those who do not fight you for your faith nor drive you out of your homes from dealing kindly and justly with them » (60:8)
My brothers and sisters in Islam, Allah the All-Wise has sent us guidance in the Quraan, a solution to every problem, a way of life that would lead to a peaceful world, the only way – the righteous way – His way. Let us in our every step, follow his guidance.
May Allah guide us all to the Straight Path.
Assalamu Alaikum(may peace be upon you),
Sausan Al Ayad.
Dear brother,
Can you make sure that your fine message gets to the Nigerian muslims, who, aroused by hate speeches in the mosques, go out an burn churches and kill christians. I think this isn’t exactly what you meant muslims should do.It isn’t very assuring either for people from other creeds.
Youssef
The message we have to give the world (including our muslim brothers who resorted to violence)is that Islam is Peace. We,as muslims, have a responsibilty to project this view in all our actions.
Allah says in the Quran :-
« Only he will prosper that brings to God a heart full of peace » (Quraaan 26:89)
« O you who believe ! stand out firmly for God, as witness to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to piety. » (5:8)
« Nor can Goodness and Evil be equal. Repel Evil with what is better: Then will he between whom and you was hatred become as it were a close friend » (41:34)
« Help one another in virtue and righteouness » (5:2)
« God does not forbid you with regard to those who do not fight you for your faith nor drive you out of your homes from dealing kindly and justly with them » (60:8)
My brothers and sisters in Islam, Allah the All-Wise has sent us guidance in the Quraan, a solution to every problem, a way of life that would lead to a peaceful world, the only way – the righteous way – His way. Let us in our every step, follow his guidance.
May Allah guide us all to the Straight Path.
Assalamu Alaikum(may peace be upon you),
Sausan Al Ayad.
In addition to Dr. Ramadan’s comments, globalization with news media playing king in our time – nobody anticipated that news in Denmark will have such an effect on people in Karachi, Cairo, Darus Salam, etc. Muslim community should learn from this event because I fear there will be more to come.
Unfortunately, we did not learn anything from Salman Rushdie incident.
The response to any ideological attack on Islam must be within the Islamic parameters. Whether it’s freedom fight, fundraising for earthquake victims, call for implementation of Shari’ah, response to the cartoons etc. all of our response should be within the guidelines given by Allah and His messenger (s).
Muslims are not like other communities; we are bound by our pledge to God and His messenger that we shall ‘hear and obey’.
However, majority of our actions are in disobedience…
Faraz Khan
New Jersey, USA
Assalamu Alaikum wa Rehmatullahi wa Barakatahu,
Brother, Tariq Ramadan,
I have heard your speeches in Reviving the Islamic Spirit, other functions and interviews.
I admire your courage to stand up to tell westerners and especially Zionist Jews/pro-Israeli in Media and governments in Power, not only the truth about Islam, but their hypocrisy, lies and double standard policies towards Muslim countries and Muslameens.
MashAllah, what you write and stand up for Islam and Muslameen is commendable. However with all due respect to you, I disagree with, when you say « Muslims have to understand there is free speech in Europe, and that is that.
You have to understand their history, background, and the fact and the truth about Zionists Jews.
They are not innocent as you think or portray or they portray.
They have this very evil sickness and evil smartness, from Musa (aws) days till today. One need to read Quran what Allah says about them, what they do will do. Of all people you should know better than anyone.
When you look at the timing (Suicide bombing in Israel and to silence re: occupation, that is) when the cartoons appreared and how the editor (went on un-specified holidays) and cartoonist disappeared (went into so called hiding), when they were asked to drawn cartoons of Holocaust as Freedom of Speech or even drawing Jesus Christ (which Muslameen would not want either)
Further, they have the law, inforced, it is illegal to deny Holocaust in some European countries. Is this Freedom Speech. Its is all farce, hypocricy and blowing sand in the eyes of the world.
So please do not potray them as innocent, naive, freedom loving. Be more bolder and tell the honest truth, for the world to see their evil trickery.
Jazak Allah Khairm Shukran Jazilan, Wassalam,
Mohammad Ataullah.