‘Muslims up in arms over all over the world at irreverent Danish newspaper cartoons of Mohammed’, ‘Death threats received by Danish and Norwegian newspapers for publishing cartoons of the Prophet', ’ ‘Middle eastern Muslim countries boycott Danish goods’, ‘Armed Fatah militia surround EU offices in Gaza after EU defends Danish Prime Minister for refusing to condemn or prosecute editor of Danish newspaper’ etc, etc, scream newspaper headlines around the world.
These headlines, or words to their effect. report the latest twists and turns in the long-running and still on-going saga of the widespread outrage that has been provoked within the Muslim world by the publication of irreverent cartoons of Mohammed in a Danish newspaper last September and since in other European newspapers.
Time was when I would have been appalled by how out of all proportion to its ostensible cause was the scale of this latest outburst of Muslim outrage and indignation. But if there is such a thing as jihad-fatigue, I am beginning to suffer from it.
By this I do not mean to imply that the death threats and boycott threats should not be taken seriously by those at whom they have been directed, as well as by the authorities whose job it is to protect their recipients. I mean that it has become all to sickeningly clear that the numerous Muslims throughout the world who have responded so disproportionately to this latest perceived failure by non-Muslims to extend towards their religion the deference that they consider it due are no longer worthy of being taken seriously, intellectually or morally.
The disproportion of their sound and fury to what they claim has been its cause reveals that there is simply no other way in which to respond to them, save to say:
‘Look, brother! I don’t give a damn that you may claim to be feeling as outraged as if someone had issued the gravest personal insult about your parents. Mohammed was not your parent. Nor can the cartoons of him you claim to find so offensive remotely be thought to be ‘dissing’ him. By showing an exploding bomb on his head, all the cartoon was alluding to was the fact how conducive the religion that he founded appears to be, whether by accident or design, to militancy. This is something your reaction of outrage to this cartoon of him rather confirms.
‘You claim it is offensive to Muslims even to depict the prophet. This is untrue, or at least it is by no means true of all Muslims. Hundreds of drawings and paintings of the prophet have been made, copied ,and displayed in the Muslim world for centuries before without having triggered this reaction. Some are in Mecca to this day.
‘If it is not the representation of the prophet as such but the irreverent manner in which the cartoons depict him to which you talke exception, all one can say is: you are over-reacting. To compare their publication, as have some of those who have reacted like you, to a decision by that or another newspaper to fill one of its pages with Swastikas, given of what that sign became a symbol during that recent ghastly episode in European history, is to fail to distinguish between making a serious, critical point about a religion, albeit in an intentionally humorous fashion, and incitement of hatred towards, and ultmately the systematic murder of, an entire people on account of their race.’
But I fear that even to offer such a reply is already to dignify the Muslim outrage by extending to it more respect than it deserves.
The clash of civilisations between the Muslim and non-Muslim world shows every sign of having recently intensified, what with the latest posturings and brinkmanship of the Iranian president, the victory of Hamas in the recent Palestinian elections, and now the flag stamping and other rantings of the zealots with which we have become sadly all too familiar of late.
Mercifully, by no means all Muslims are as petulantly intolerant as those of their brothers who have kicked up this latest storm in a turban. Mona Eltahawy has very sensible things to say about the subject as a Muslim in her comment 'For many Muslims, cartoonish excess', published in an issue last week of the Lebanese-based paper, ‘The Daily Star’.
Likewise, Hamid Karzai is reported as having responded to the cartoons with similar restraint and moderation. He is quoted as having said of their publication: ‘Prime Minister Rasmussen explained Denmark’s position on that which was very satisfactory to me as a Muslim’.
People who go throwing their weight about to extract respect from others are, typically, people deserving of very little of it. When Muslims are able to shrug their shoulders at the publication of irreverent cartoons of their prophet will be the day their publication will have ceased to serve any useful function … or to be funny. Until that day comes, they do and are.
Comments (2)
David,
Spot on.
Context is everything here. The failure of the BBC to report the context is in effect suggesting that the original publication was entirely malicious - that there was NO justification.
We recognise the Muslim position, but they refuse even to acknowledge ours.
It is up to them to understand that we are not acting in bad faith before we can have any basis to mollify them.
And whilst we are at it, let us not forget the people at the bottom of the pile: ordinary muslims. There can little hope of them exercising their freedoms for fear of "breaking ranks".
FREE SPEECH FOR MUSLIMS!
Everyone should have it. Everyone should use it.
Toodle Pip!
PG
Posted by The Pedant-General | February 6, 2006 9:32 AM
Posted on February 6, 2006 09:32
I agree, but not everyone seems equally confident as to the correctness of this position. Watch Kirsty Wark during the debate ' Cartoon Row' on Newsnight
02/02/2006, for instance. She appears astonished, and protests accordingly, when someone uses the expression ' our culture'; it looked to me as if she already considers this notion obsolete.
Posted by Marin | February 3, 2006 9:03 PM
Posted on February 3, 2006 21:03