/* */

PDA

View Full Version : When Cartoons are no longer funny - Hassan Choudhury



babagrr
05-21-2006, 01:34 PM
When Cartoons are no longer funny

13 February 2006

A global crisis?

Muslim reaction to caricatures of the Prophet of Islam has both
shocked the world and produced a new level of tension between
Islam and the West. The Danish Prime Minister, Anders Rasmussen,
held a press conference and stated "we are now facing a growing
global crisis".

Moreover the scale of the response with boycotts, flag-burning
and the destruction of foreign embassies has forced many to
re-evaluate what they thought the view of the 'Muslim street'
actually was.

A clash of civilisations?

The Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, issued an apology on 31st
January, 2006, four months after initially publishing the twelve
offending cartoons but the row really took off after the
reprinting of the set by editors of twenty-seven different
newspapers across thirteen European nations co-ordinated for the
very next day. The line of reasoning was that self-censorship
due to Islam was unacceptable therefore they would uphold free
speech even if Muslims felt insulted. Others, including this
author, felt they had to insult Islam in order for free speech
not to seem to have been devalued, diminished and cheapened by
Jyllands-Posten's apology. Anger at this move has not yet
abated, condemnation of the artist's work is growing and Muslims
often ask why depict their beloved Prophet at all?

There are those on both sides who keenly perceive the need to
engage in a more productive debate than is currently the norm
with more tasteless cartoons due to appear. It is clear the way
forward for those who wish for a genuine debate lies neither
with malicious and offensive cartoons nor with violent protests.
So where could one begin in order to piece together why Muslims
reacted in such a manner and what is the way forward?

Freedom of speech?

The first question to ask is whether this issue is truly about
freedom of speech. After all isn't there always some element of
sensitivity about the application of the principle?

Anti-Semitism is rightly condemned and opposed despite freedom
of speech and decisions are routinely taken in consideration of
the feelings of others such as the censorship of images of dead
British soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan out of
respect for their families.

In fact there is no shortage of laws and norms that restrict
free speech. Where was the outcry when the British Government
took out an injunction against the infamous Al-Jazeera memo
(where Prime Minister Blair is said to have talked President
Bush out of launching "military action" on the television
channel's headquarters in Doha, Qatar)? What about the Official
Secrets Act, 'Spycatcher' and proposals for Anti-Terror
legislation that makes 'indirect glorification' of terror a
crime?

All nations limit free speech. President Ahmedinejad of Iran
recently sparked a furore over the reality of the Nazi Holocaust
and British historian, David Irving, is currently in jail in
Austria charged with Holocaust denial for a speech made
seventeen years ago. Film censorship is taken for granted
(Reservoir Dogs, Natural Born Killers, A Clockwork Orange, Boy
Eats Girl etc. etc.) and confidentiality agreements common Adel
Smith, President of the Italian Muslims Union, was sentenced to
eight months in prison in January, 2006 for contempt of the
Catholic religion. His crime was to object to the presence of a
crucifix in his mother's hospital room in L'Aquila, Italy. When
medical authorities refused permission to remove it he threw it
out of a nearby window and was soon arrested. The question is
not whether to set a limit on freedom of speech in Europe but on
where exactly to set the limit. French schoolgirls wearing
hijaab (a covering over the hair and bosom) will also testify
that limit often excludes Muslims and Muslim women have already
been banned from wearing the hijab, jilbab (a bulky, draping
overgarment) and the niqab (a face veil) in public in the
Belgian cities and towns of Ghent, Antwerp, Sint-Truiden,
Lebbeke and Maaseik.

So can free speech be used to defend the (re-)publication of the
caricatures? The answer must surely be no especially since
Section 140 of the Danish Criminal Code prohibits any person
from publicly ridiculing or insulting the dogmas of worship of
any existing religious community in Denmark. Section 266b of the
same code criminalises the dissemination of statements or other
information by which a group of people are threatened, insulted
or degraded on account of their religion. The cartoons are
therefore potentially unlawful under the Danish Criminal Code
but nothing was done. The existence of these two examples alone
on the statute book highlights the fact that the Danish
Government made a choice not to limit freedom of speech in this
instance despite Rasmussen's consistent claims that his
Administration could not interfere with the media.

War on Terror

We must examine the thinking behind the reprinting. Was it
really about freedom of speech? Muslims rightly ask why little
sensitivity is offered where they are concerned. The cartoons
echo Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses and Ayaan Hersi Ali's
Submission in directly targeting the Prophet. One caricatures
depicts him as a terrorist with a bomb in his turban. Others are
worse.

These cartoons reinforce the spurious and deceitful link between
Islam and terror and are widely regarded as yet another
provocation in the brutal War on Terror (known in the Muslim
world as the 'War on Islam').

Outrage at the Muslim response appears to centre on the question
of violence however, context is always necessary to gauge any
issue. So while such protests are always unfortunate it should
not be a complete surprise they reached such intensity
especially since the War on Terror has had an obvious impact on
relations between Islam and the West.

It would also be unwise to imagine such a broad outpouring of
anger and emotion could be bought about purely by this one
incident. It is clear the sensitivities of Muslims are not held
in the highest regard and it is widely argued that the free
expression card is a diversionary tactic from the real issue.
One aspect of this argument is that the banner of 'freedom of
speech' is raised vigorously when it comes to insulting Islam
and Muslims but not with all others. Grossly offensive
caricatures should be viewed from this context. Cartoons have
always represented a very effective and powerful device on
disseminating ideas and it should be no surprise that thy have
been an integral part of racist representation from Goebbels to
the KKK.

A shocking over-reaction?

While it is a core aspect of Islamic belief to love the Prophet
more than anything else the Muslim world is increasingly
frustrated at what is generally regarded as over two centuries
of colonial interference in its affairs.

With repeated calls for regime change and the democratisation of
the Middle East, the Muslim world is fully aware of attempts to
install and cement a new way of life upon it. Islamic rules and
customs from hijaab to the hudood (penal code) have been under
consistent fire in the liberal media since 9/11. Iraq and
Afghanistan labour under unruly occupation, bloodshed continues
in Dagestan, Chechnya, Kashmir and Palestine and threats to
Syria and Iran are commonplace. Riots followed news the Qur'an
had been desecrated in Guantanamo Bay only a few months ago and
the scandals are still fresh. Military bases and aircraft
carriers litter the region. Rendition and torture-lite
continues. Now video footage of British troops ferociously
beating unarmed Iraqi youths is on heavy rotation on Arab T.V.

So could it really have been such a surprise to witness such a
reaction to an attack based on a defence of 'Western' secular
freedom upon the personality of the man held most dear by well
over a billion Muslims all over the world?

An 'uncomfortable' society

Even if Muslims did accept the argument that the reprinted was
truly motivated by freedom of expression it leads us to a
disturbing vision. Western society, supposedly built upon the
four freedoms (of speech, of religion, from want and from fear)
appears to contradict itself since nothing is sacred and respect
for others is at an absolute premium. Why else would Prime
Minister Blair have to hold press conferences unveiling a new
'Respect Agenda'?

Societal decay in the West is an alarming fact of life for any
with the inclination to venture out late at night. Violent crime
and sexually transmitted diseases compete to be the most
endemic. Delinquents defy the ASBOs placed on them by overworked
courts, drug abusers steal to feed their habits, countless
partners indulge in infidelity and families abandon their
elderly, all citing their liberty to do so. Pick up a tabloid
newspaper at random and read of another person's private life
splashed out in full colour for the rest of the world to mull
over. Gossip magazines routinely herald exposés where suspicion
and intrigue mean no one is safe from lies and character
assassination and only the very rich can afford to take their
cases through the courts to bitter end and avoid bankruptcy.

So is freedom of speech really such an important aspect of
western society if only libel lawyers really benefit? If this
principle means the freedom to insult and offend, if it means
the right to distress and dishonour others then aren't we right
to say no? No one is advocating dictatorship or the closing of
debate. There is no doubt we must welcome the right to openly
inquire and criticise but one must ask if people can live
happily and productively together without dignity and respect.

A healthy debate

For a start infantile insults can play no role in serious
dialogue. This is especially true in the necessary engagement
between Muslim and non-Muslim society since it is obvious a fair
interchange of ideas can never begin with an insult. The western
obsession with facets of Islam such as the pure companions in
paradise, the veiling of women and the segregation of the sexes
in public life is evident and must be addressed and Muslims have
no issue discussing them at length and in detail. There is
however no reason for the most emotive symbols which every
culture, religion, society and civilisation hold to be molested
since they do not advance any understanding of anything let
alone Islam. The use of caricature for naïve sensationalism will
only increase a divide that a minority are keen to exploit. The
straw-man argument that the right to offend must be protected
makes no sense when the only product is offence itself and
Robert Fisk was correct to call such a path the 'childishness of
civilisations'. History is testament to the track record of the
Islamic civilisation in building a society where productive
debate (without insults) was encouraged and respect was the
norm, not the exception. Muslims cleave to a vision where such a
society will one day emerge where they can display a working
model of this holistic way of living to humanity.

It can only be through dialogue that Muslim and non-Muslim
society can begin to understand each other well enough to
proceed to answer the real questions of the day. Muslims stand
ready to discuss how Islam provides a genuine political,
economic and social alternative to the secular, liberal model
but often wonder if a discussion on the subject will ever have
the opportunity to emerge in such an emotional environment.
There is little doubt the time for this is now. If we fail to
engage soon we may find ourselves facing a bleak future with two
very different worlds on a single planet and even more trouble
to come.

Hassan Choudhury, 2006

About the author:
A writer focusing on Islam and issues of interest to Muslims in
the West particularly belief, identity and ideology.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Fishman
05-21-2006, 01:43 PM
:sl:
If you ask me, whilst the cartoons were offensive, what I find more offensive is people lying and decieving to try to kill Islam. But thanks to Gary Miller, Ahmad Deedat and MENJ, we have an affective resistance against them. But we still need to work a lot more to stop the orientalists (those who think Islam is just a thing in a jar to be studied), and the televangelists (those who think the Muslims are all followers of the Antichrist).
:w:
Reply

babagrr
05-21-2006, 03:05 PM
Well said
Reply

Merzbow
05-22-2006, 04:49 AM
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from speech. If one uses means other than speech to oppose another's speech, such as violence, blasphemy laws, or the like, one is conceding the upper ground. Remember, once a society becomes used to restricting speech from a certain group of people on a certain subject, this can easily be turned around and applied to another group, and soon, nobody is free.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Fishman
05-22-2006, 06:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Merzbow
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from speech. If one uses means other than speech to oppose another's speech, such as violence, blasphemy laws, or the like, one is conceding the upper ground. Remember, once a society becomes used to restricting speech from a certain group of people on a certain subject, this can easily be turned around and applied to another group, and soon, nobody is free.
:sl:
Freedom of speech also means that you should speak responsibly. I have yet to see how publishing these cartoons is in anyway responsible.
:w:
Reply

primitivefuture
05-22-2006, 08:07 PM
It clearly shows that Europeans don't care about Muslims. You don't see them printing Holocaust cartoons, do you? In fact, you'll get arrested for even questioning the Holocaust.
Reply

wilberhum
05-22-2006, 10:44 PM
Freedom of speech also means that you should speak responsibly. No, It means you are free to speak your mind. If you limit free speach, it is no longer free.
Reply

Ghazi
05-22-2006, 11:15 PM
:sl:

Seriously look at what your typing, and your accusing islam of hostilty.
Reply

primitivefuture
05-22-2006, 11:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
No, It means you are free to speak your mind. If you limit free speach, it is no longer free.
Too bad it doesnt exist in Europe based on that reasoning.
Reply

Merzbow
05-23-2006, 01:30 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by primitivefuture
It clearly shows that Europeans don't care about Muslims. You don't see them printing Holocaust cartoons, do you? In fact, you'll get arrested for even questioning the Holocaust.
I agree that European countries are wrong to limit discussion about the Holocaust - not because I have any doubts about the Holocaust but on strictly free speech grounds. In America, any such laws would be struck down immediately by the courts.

The problem with deciding if any type of speech is responsible or not is that different groups have different opinions on the matter. If every person's private definition of what is responsible was enshrined in law, nobody would be allowed any speech whatsoever. If you think something somebody else said is irresponsible, respond with speech of your own in the public arena, and show them why they are wrong by the force of your arguments.
Reply

Skillganon
05-23-2006, 03:16 AM
Their is no such thing as freedom of speech, their is alway's a limit and what you can say, certain expression of speech can end you up in court, and Jail!

Who decide what is freedom of speech is not the people in general, as many assume, but it is the goverment (in a dictator fashion). Don't assume freedom of speech to be civil in anyway.

For example in the UK, any velifying against (minority) black or asian can end you up in court, but if it is muslim's than their is no law against it hence the rising ISLAMOPHOBIA in the west, this has been exploited by the BNP group in britain, and it is perfectly lawfull.
Reply

Fishman
05-23-2006, 03:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Freedom of speech also means that you should speak responsibly. No, It means you are free to speak your mind. If you limit free speach, it is no longer free.
:sl:
If people had the right to say anything they liked, any time, no matter how offended people would be, then the world would go crazy. Even in Parliament, people aren't allowed to do that. People still have the right to free speech there though.

And those cartoons were just intended as insults anyway. No one has the right to insult anyone.
:w:
Reply

Muezzin
05-23-2006, 03:20 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Freedom of speech also means that you should speak responsibly. No, It means you are free to speak your mind. If you limit free speach, it is no longer free.
You are a poopoo head who spelled 'speech' incorrectly. This can only mean you are possessed of a low intellect, and are thus inferior. If you ever have children, I hope they are killed by a falling piano and are eaten by vultures.

Freedom of speech.

:p
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
05-23-2006, 03:26 PM
Lol Muezzin.
Freedom of speech has to have a limit. The queen visited my town a while ago. I bet if i just stood there swearing at her i would have been removed. There is a limit to how much you can say!
And anyway... how comes I will can get arrested if I show support for resistance in places like Iraq and Palestine? Where's the freedom of speech there?
:w:
Reply

KAding
05-23-2006, 04:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Fishman
And those cartoons were just intended as insults anyway. No one has the right to insult anyone.
:w:
Actually, people do have the right to insult.

Muslims should be careful what they wish for. If we start encroaching on freedom of speech who's freedoms will be the first to be removed do you think? Those of the majority or those of the minority?
Reply

KAding
05-23-2006, 04:29 PM
Of course there is a limit to free speech. Even many dictatorships have a certain level of free speech, it is all a matter of gradations. The debate is on where to set the limit, whether we accept the principle that free speech in the long run is beneficial to society and whether we believe freedom of speech is a fundamental right.
Reply

Muezzin
05-23-2006, 04:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by KAding
Of course there is a limit to free speech. Even many dictatorships have a certain level of free speech, it is all a matter of gradations. The debate is on where to set the limit, whether we accept the principle that free speech in the long run is beneficial to society and whether we believe freedom of speech is a fundamental right.
This is what I would call a balanced response.

As for free speech, I think people should adopt a basic common-sense approach. It's really not that hard. Treat others as you wish to be treated yourself, but if there is injustice, make sure you point it out. Crucially, however, only blame the wrongdoers, not everybody in that particular group. On a day to day basis, people adhere to these rules, not necessarily because they are told to, but because they understand the principle, as the song says:

'Don't start nuttin
Won't BE nuttin'
Reply

Fishman
05-23-2006, 04:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by KAding
Actually, people do have the right to insult.

Muslims should be careful what they wish for. If we start encroaching on freedom of speech who's freedoms will be the first to be removed do you think? Those of the majority or those of the minority?
:sl:
Well, people shouldn't have the right to insult, if we lost that right, the world will be a better place.

Non-Muslims should also be careful what they wish for. If they want the right to insult anyone they want, they will no longer be considered the tolerant people that they want to be.
:w:
Reply

KAding
05-23-2006, 05:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Fishman
:sl:
Well, people shouldn't have the right to insult, if we lost that right, the world will be a better place.
I strongly disagree. 'Insult' is such an incredibly subjective concept. Muslims are 'insulted' if I deny Mohammed was a prophet for example. So who will decide what is insulting?

Non-Muslims should also be careful what they wish for. If they want the right to insult anyone they want, they will no longer be considered the tolerant people that they want to be.
:w:
I disagree. Tolerance is exactly letting people speak their mind. Letting Muslims calling me a kaffir or infidel for example.

Making insults (which are completely subjective!) a punishable crime enforced by the state will be an enormous disaster for tolerance.
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
05-24-2006, 02:38 PM
Well you should know that I'm still free to vouch my support for the IRA.
Wow... so i guess some freedom of speech is allowed. Whoopee!

(sarcasim)
Reply

x Maz x
05-24-2006, 02:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
No, It means you are free to speak your mind. If you limit free speach, it is no longer free.
So then how come Abu Hamzah got bannged up for 'inciting racial hatred' ...surley he was just flexin' his right to 'freedom of speach'??..
With 'freedom of speach' comes boundries, the reaction given by the MINORITY of Muslims regarding the charicatures were both shocking and shameful, Quite shocking how whilst they tried portraying the message of Islam they still managed to cause coruption and havock in the land whilst going out to defend the Prophet [Pbuh]'s name and honour but went against his Sunnah...SubhanAllah!...Nevertheless these are the MINORITY and do not represent Islam InshAllah [God-willing] they will be guided to deen-ul-haaq [true way of life] Peace and Blessings x
Reply

searchingsoul
05-24-2006, 03:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by x Maz x
So then how come Abu Hamzah got bannged up for 'inciting racial hatred' ...surley he was just flexin' his right to 'freedom of speach'??..
With 'freedom of speach' comes boundries, the reaction given by the MINORITY of Muslims regarding the charicatures were both shocking and shameful, Quite shocking how whilst they tried portraying the message of Islam they still managed to cause coruption and havock in the land whilst going out to defend the Prophet [Pbuh]'s name and honour but went against his Sunnah...SubhanAllah!...Nevertheless these are the MINORITY and do not represent Islam InshAllah [God-willing] they will be guided to deen-ul-haaq [true way of life] Peace and Blessings x

I agree. Actions often speak louder than words.
Reply

HeiGou
05-24-2006, 03:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Fishman
Well, people shouldn't have the right to insult, if we lost that right, the world will be a better place.
Well not really as "insult" is defined by the person being insulted. People all over the world get thrown in jail for "insulting the nation", "insulting the Constitution", "insulting the President". I don't see throwing someone in jail for "insulting Islam" makes much of a difference. All you do is encourage play-ground lawyers to strut about with a chip on both shoulders, an attitude and a firm determination to be insulted.

Non-Muslims should also be careful what they wish for. If they want the right to insult anyone they want, they will no longer be considered the tolerant people that they want to be.
Well we are tolerant because we all religions to be insulted. And whose leg are you pulling? Find me a thread that even hints that the Muslims here (or at any Muslim site of your choosing) think the Kafirs are tolerant.
Reply

Fishman
05-24-2006, 03:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
Well not really as "insult" is defined by the person being insulted. People all over the world get thrown in jail for "insulting the nation", "insulting the Constitution", "insulting the President". I don't see throwing someone in jail for "insulting Islam" makes much of a difference. All you do is encourage play-ground lawyers to strut about with a chip on both shoulders, an attitude and a firm determination to be insulted.



Well we are tolerant because we all religions to be insulted. And whose leg are you pulling? Find me a thread that even hints that the Muslims here (or at any Muslim site of your choosing) think the Kafirs are tolerant.
:sl:
I mean big insults, like racism, or anti-semetism, or Islamophobia. I agree that you can't sue for calling someone something not very offensive.

You don't allow all religions to be insulted. In some counties in Europe, anti-semetism and holocaust denial are quite rightly punished. Islamophobia, which is definitely the cause of these cartoons, is not punnishable, and is in fact considered acceptable by many people.
:w:
Reply

wilberhum
05-24-2006, 06:21 PM
X Maz x
If you don’t understand the difference between putting people’s lives at risk and freedom of speech, you are beyond my help.

HeiGou
People all over the world get thrown in jail for "insulting the nation”. Not if you live in a democracy.
Reply

x Maz x
05-24-2006, 06:58 PM
If you don’t understand the difference between putting people’s lives at risk and freedom of speech, you are beyond my help.
Lol, that statement is both disturbing yet so hilarious...:rollseyes
It does exist...but then one must question to what extent are you allowed to express your 'freedom of speach'??
To the extent that you express your hatred of the government? ...Nay you are not able to do so, this would merely suggest your a terrorist...due to the famous sayin' "Your either with us or with them [terrorists]" >> dont know if its the exact words, but close enough!...so if i go saying i hate them does that imply i am a gloryfier of terrorism or a terrorist even?...
What the stupid ignorant being done by publishing such pictures expressing his 'freedom of speach' my left foot...He insults a man dearer to one than his ownself and labels it as 'freedom of speach'...wheres the boundries for that??...Double standards arising?
Your allowed to diss people's relgious beliefs and say Muslims are terrorists but you cant express how you dislike the government and their decisions??..
Well i say screw them Pshhhhh
Regards x
Reply

HeiGou
05-25-2006, 08:52 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Fishman
I mean big insults, like racism, or anti-semetism, or Islamophobia. I agree that you can't sue for calling someone something not very offensive.
But who defines "very offensive"? The government of course. No doubt Mubarrak thinks that insulting the President of Egypt is very very insulting.

You don't allow all religions to be insulted. In some counties in Europe, anti-semetism and holocaust denial are quite rightly punished. Islamophobia, which is definitely the cause of these cartoons, is not punnishable, and is in fact considered acceptable by many people.
Anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial have nothing to do with religion. Why do you think it is definitely the cause of these cartoons?
Reply

Musaafirah
05-25-2006, 09:01 AM
I personally think freedom of speech is such a loose term..it differs according to each individual I guess..
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
05-25-2006, 09:59 AM
Freedom of speech? I didn't know it existed.
Reply

Muezzin
05-25-2006, 10:09 AM
What if the cartoon had been of Charlie Brown with a bomb for a turban?

I'd laugh my socks off.
Reply

x Maz x
05-25-2006, 10:11 AM
^ Tis a shame it wern't, instead that wastehead decided to satiriarise the blessed Prophet!...Tskkk...shame!...
Regards x
Reply

HeiGou
05-25-2006, 10:12 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muezzin
What if the cartoon had been of Charlie Brown with a bomb for a turban?

I'd laugh my socks off.
It is always the quiet ones, the ones you'd least suspect!

Personally I think that that damned football would drive anyone to suicide.
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
05-25-2006, 10:15 AM
If they drew charlie brown with a bomb in his turban... it would be amusing... but it really wouldn't make sense... but i doubt any one would find that offensive.
:w:
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-03-2013, 02:06 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-05-2012, 05:52 PM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-03-2012, 12:41 AM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-11-2011, 05:13 PM
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-04-2006, 06:15 PM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!