The cartoons had a clear agenda and were a subtext to a larger problem. The growing number of immigrants to Europe and the challenge they pose to Europe’s institutions as well as the Christian ethic has provoked a counter-reaction in Europe and if anything one should investigate what would grab a cartoonist to draw offensive cartoons of a community that is already stereotyped as terrorist ragtags?

The cartoon incident has hit hardest the friends of Europe within the Islamic World. For long we argued with our co-religionists that one should not be suspicious of the west for they are no longer on a religious crusade against the Islamic world. We have pointed towards western education and democratic institutions as examples we should follow, not just to come into our own as pluralistic modern societies but to rediscover the tolerance and progressive spirit of Islam that Muslims have shunned in recent years.

And then this- this I am afraid is not going to blow over no matter how optimistic one might want to be. Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilisations is here and this clash will crush moderates on both sides first.

If this were about freedom of speech, the parameters would have been different and perhaps the location would also be different. Lets make no mistake about it. We are not against freedom of speech. Freedom of speech and expression is absolutely essential for any society be it Islamic or Western, because without these fundamental freedoms, universities and academics institutions turn into mounds of the intellectually dead. The society stagnates in face of religious dogma and in time all vibrancy is sapped out. Many Muslims understand this. 

This is precisely why when the British sought to introduce a blasphemy law in subcontinent, the voice of dissent came from Mahomed Ali Jinnah, a Muslim leader who later founded Pakistan. He said: “We must also secure this very important and fundamental principle that those who are engaged in historical works, those who are engaged in bona fide and honest criticisms of a religion, shall be protected.” Today sadly the country he founded, my country, has gone in the other direction and we can see how ignoring his advice has distorted our intellectual growth.

But was it really freedom of speech that Jyllands Posten was promoting when it published those cartoons?

The cartoons had a clear agenda and were a subtext to a larger problem. The growing number of immigrants to Europe and the challenge they pose to Europe’s institutions as well as the Christian ethic has provoked a counter-reaction in Europe and if anything one should investigate what would grab a cartoonist to draw offensive cartoons of a community that is already stereotyped as terrorist ragtags?

If questioning religious dogma was the issue, perhaps the way was to write a serious academic critique of Islam and Islamic way of life. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is a revered figure for muslims, but that does not mean that others can’t disagree with his message. After all from a secular perspective while Muhammad was an extremely influential figure in history, responsible for making Arabs a united nation and therefore subject to the same criticisms as any other historical figure. As Montgommery Watt concluded, in his biography of Muhammad, a man must be judged by warts of his time, and if anything Muhammad spoke of tolerance, equality of man and freedom of religion albeit limited at a very barbaric time. A view that his teachings may not be relevant does exist today and Muslims disagree with this view civilly, accepting that if this was not the case, everybody would follow one and only one religion.

The cartoons however were deliberately provocative and merely reinforced the commonly held misperceptions about Muslims. Would Ahmadinejad, whose views are equally outrageous, be allowed to speak against holocaust in Europe? Is that not covered then under the freedom of speech? The fact of the matter is villification of any community, especially the central motif of their very identity is a very serious matter. Is crying “Fire” in a crowded hall “freedom of speech” ? Well then provocation in this case was much greater and noow there are voices in Europe calling


for blatantly anti-Islam publications routinely to “de-sensitise” the Muslims. Perhaps they don’t understand this is not going to work. An attack on the Prophet’s life will only weaken the hands of those who stand for cooperation and amity between West and Islam. Or is this what the intention of those behind the cartoons really was? Was it perhaps a well thought out right wing conspiracy to forcefuly argue against limiting immigration from the Muslim world? Will there now be a “Muslim problem” in Europe begging for a “final solution”?

I accept that the Muslim reaction to blasphemy, real or imagined, is getting progressively worse each passing year. Common folk, with no trace of religious bigotry turn into raving lunatics. I would have liked it if Muslims dismissed this and proved to the world that we are not crazy and our Prophet’s honour is not threatened by a few cartoons. But this is not the case and we are being pushed into an open clash with the west. Mindlessness on both sides has brought us to the threshold of a great tragedy- a tragedy not just in human terms but which will sow the seeds of bitterness and hostility for many decades to come.

Originally published at http://www.naseeb.com/naseebvibes/prose-detail.php?aid=4699&pg=1&PHPSESSID=44db27da27da029509e23ffda863df4f and reprinted in The American Muslim with permission of the author.