Special Report
Insulting Danish cartoons of the Prophet (peace be upon him) – Worldwide protests demand for apology
By Dr. Mozammel Haque

Views and comments of Muslim parliamentarians and scholars
Lord Nazir Ahmed of Rotherham, the first Muslim to become a life peer and
a leading human rights campaigner, said to me, “The derogatory and vicious depictions published in the Danish newspaper of someone hiding a bomb in his turban were clearly intended not only to cause grave insult, but to provoke a reaction.”

“Freedom of expression and freedom of the press have to be balanced with responsibility, and although I am a firm believer in these essential freedoms, I am also a firm believer in freedom of religion, and the right of law-abiding people to live their lives free of fear of being abused or victimised by any individual group or school of thought,” Lord Ahmed said and added, “I think if we are to defend our freedom of speech and the right of a free press, then we have got to ask if insulting cartoons or articles in any way help to promote intellectual or civilized discussion. After all, as I understand it, a civilization is a cultural entity, guided by certain basic principles, rules and morals, which include mutual respect.”
Lord Ahmed also said, “Freedom does not mean we can just walk up to someone and insult them in their face and expect no reaction. That is not civilised behaviour; it would be Wild West anarchy.”

Lord Ahmed also acknowledged “There is confusion and debate is the way to clear it up and create a more harmonious society, but we must do so within the constraints of civilised behaviour.” He also said, “The Muslim world and Muslim communities have no desire for confrontation with the West. The terrible events of 9/11 and 7/7 cost over 3,000 innocent lives; but the lies and deception from certain Western leaders which followed those outrages have cost the lives of over 150,000 innocent Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have a duty to resolve political issues through dialogue, in a civilized manner that respects our different faiths and cultures.”

Lord Patel said, “I am absolutely disappointed and disgusted that in the name of freedom of expression, Western media, apart from UK media, are going against the feelings of the entire Muslim world. It is totally unacceptable in the name of freedom. They don’t consider their own responsibility to respect the feelings of other faith communities. It is totally disrespectful and not acceptable by any good thinking people of the world.”

Speaking about the reaction of the British Muslims, Lord Patel said, “They have got every right for peaceful non-violent demonstrations and protest, even without using any insulting or insensitive language.”

Sir Iqbal said, “Freedom of expression can never be absolute. It always goes hand in hand with responsibility. In the same way we respect freedom of expression we should not allow freedom to abuse and vilify in a civilized society.” Sir Iqbal also said, “There is a deliberate attempt from certain mischievous quarters to provoke Muslim community so that they can respond with emotions and thereby giving the opportunity for the same elements to attack the Muslim community and Islam as being intolerant.”

Zia Sardar said in the Sky News on Friday (3rd of February) night, “To claim that one sacred territory, for example, freedom of expression, is superior to another sacred territory, for example, the depiction of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is Eurocentric and arrogant.”

Sardar said, “This is a very deliberate attempt to insult Muslims. They have gone out of their way to commission cartoons and paint all the Muslims with colour violent. This is not an issue of exercise of freedom of expression but an exercise in power. They want to show that with their power they can do whatever they want to do and to demonstrate the powerlessness of Muslims. They want to show how powerless Muslims really are.”

While writing an article entitled “A ‘Freedom’ whose home is the jungle” in The Independent on Sunday, 5th of February 2006, Zia Sardar wrote, “On one side, we have liberal extremists defending “freedom of expression” as a sacred and absolute territory. The right to offend is advanced as the essential liberty of a secular society. On the other side, we have bearded and masked men protesting against the outrage in the language of absolute fanaticism….Both are cast in the language of extremism and violence.”

“Let us be clear about one thing: this is not an issue of “freedom of expression”. It is about power, domination and demonisation. The offence is not just the representation of the Prophet Mohammed…The outrage is that the Prophet is represented as a terrorist with the clear implication that he preaches a violent creed and that all his followers are intrinsically violent. This is painting Islam and every Muslim in the conclusive colours of absolute darkness. No culture or people can accept such representation no matter how it is justified,” Sardar said and added, “When the powerless are ridiculed in this manner, “freedom of expression” becomes an instrument of oppression.”

Sardar also wrote, “The choice of so many newspapers across Europe to republish the cartoons is definitely a gauntlet directed at all Muslims. It is a practical demonstration of President Bush’s diktat that you are either with us or against us – accept what we do or and join civilization; object and be categorized as barbarians.”
“Freedom of expression has now become a precursor to the banality of evil. In other words, Muslims are being set up for the next holocaust.” Sardar said and added, “In a civilized society, freedom always comes with responsibility. In many European countries, free speech does not extend to the denial of holocaust. Indeed, anyone denying even the methods by which Jews were put to death by the Nazis can end up in jail. We are not free to glorify child pornography. We are not even free to drive on the road the way we want to drive.”

Referring to Nick Griffin’s free expression, Sardar asked, “Am I the only one who can hear in his words the echoes of Germany in the 30s? Are the Danish cartoons not merely Griffin’s words in graphic form?”

Sardar concluded by saying, “Prejudice is not a basis for defending liberty. Ridiculing those whose liberties are most under threat is only adding fuel to wildfires our politics at home and abroad have unleashed. We all need to learn how to become firefighters, not arsonists.”

Writing an article “Cartoon Conflicts” in The Guardian on Monday, 6 February, 2006, Tariq Ramadan, visiting fellow at St Antony’s College, Oxford University and senior research fellow at the Lokahi Foundation, in London, “We are facing an incredible simplification, a gross polarisation: apparently a clash of civilisations, a confrontation between principles, with defenders, in one corner, of inalienable freedom of speech and, in the other, of the inviolable sacred sphere.”

Professor Ramadan urged to “create a space for serious, open, in-depth debate and peaceful dialogue” and said, “This is not the predicted clash of civilisations.”
“Instead of being obsessed with laws and rights - approaching a tyrannical right to say anything - would it not be more prudent to call upon citizens to exercise their right to freedom of expression responsibly and to take into account the diverse sensitivities that compose our pluralistic contemporary societies?” asked Professor Ramadan and added, “It is more about nurturing a sense of civic responsibility than about imposing legislation: Muslim citizens are not asking for more censorship but for more respect. One cannot impose mutual respect by means of legislation; rather one teaches it in the name of a free, responsible and reasonable common citizenship.”

Professor Ramadan advised: “We are at a crossroads. The time has come for women and men who reject this dangerous division of people into two worlds to start building bridges based on common values. They must assert the inalienable right to freedom of expression and, at the same time, demand measured exercise of it. We need to promote an open, self-critical approach, to repudiate exclusive truths and narrow-minded, binary visions of the world.”
Before I conclude I would like to quote Olivier Roy, the author of ‘Globalized Islam,’ Professor at the School for Advanced Studies of the Social Sciences in Paris, who explained free expression in his article ‘Holy War’ in Newsweek, thus: “Free expression is a right, to be sure. But Europe imposes many legal and social limits on expression. Anti-Semitic cartoons would almost everywhere be liable to legal prosecution. More and more European countries have passed laws banning homophobia or protecting minorities from degrading insult. Would cartoons mocking dwarfs or blind people be published in respectable European newspapers? No. Why, then, the social acceptance for mocking Muslims, which sometimes verges on racism?”

Conclusions
In conclusion, I would like to quote two advices: one to the non-Muslims and another to Muslims. Jamaal Zaraboza wrote in his article “Reflections on Hatred,” “I think all in the world can agree that mutual understanding, mutual respect, peace and justice certainly will never result from defamation, ridicule and insult. Therefore, there is no real benefit from defaming or denigrating the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) in a manner like the recent political cartoons in Europe. The only result that one can expect from such practices is more hatred, violence and fear. At the same time, we have to call upon all interested parties to show restraint and to consider what ramifications anything that they say or do might have. Muslim scholars should take the lead, as they have done in the past, to stress to the Muslims that the actions of the non-Muslims should never anger them so much that it leads them to do something that contradicts the Law of Islam.”

Essam Ahmed Mudeer, a leading Dawah worker and a columnist with the Al-Bilad newspaper in Saudi Arabia, said, “This (the publication of cartoons) was a calculated move to incite anger within the Muslim community and unfortunately, our response has been quite typical and predictable, as always.”

“Not all Danes hate Islam, those who profess hatred against Islam and Muslims are a minority. …The right response from our side would be to turn the tables on the hatred-mongers, Mudeer said. He said that the Muslims should do away their conventional typical, stupid method of responding to such controversies. “We should confront the attacks on Islam, the way the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) did,” Mudeer said and added,”The Muslims should take the message of the Holy Qur’an to the drawing rooms of the Danes. Don’t beg for respect, Islam is a faith which commands respect.” (Saudi Gazette, 4/2/2006).