When I first saw them, I was struck by their crudeness. Surely Jyllands-Posten could have hired better artists. Surely cartoonists and editors know the difference between Indian and Arab turbans. That was the problem to start with — a patronising tendency, stronger in Denmark than in countries such as Britain or Canada.
The matter took a turn for the worse when, late last year, the Danish prime minister refused to meet Arab diplomats wanting to register protest. In most other countries they would have been received. The government would have expressed ”regret” and told them it could not put pressure on the media because of law and policy. Having done their Muslim duty, the diplomats might have helped lessen the reaction in their countries. By not meeting them, the prime minister silenced moderate Muslims as effectively as they would later be silenced by militant Muslims worldwide.
Like many other moderate Muslims, I have been silent on the cartoons and protests. Not because I have nothing to say, but because there is no space left for me.
In Denmark, the controversy is raging between two ”Danish Muslim” public figures: Abu Laban, the Copenhagen-based imam who has coordinated much of the protest, and Nasser Khader, a Danish MP. On the one hand, Khader — liberal and clean-shaven — is posited against the bearded Abu Laban and seen as standing for ”Danish” values such as free speech and democracy.
In fact, both Khader and Laban make it harder for moderate Muslims to be heard. Laban is not afraid of being deported because Denmark is not his political territory. Khader depends on the mainstream Danish vote, not on Danish Muslims, for his political survival, and his politics are geared to that.
The prime minister’s refusal to meet the diplomats was also partly based on local political considerations: his government is backed by the xenophobic and anti-Islamic Danish People’s party.
In Muslim countries, too, there are local considerations. Surely the tensions between Hamas and Fatah played a role in the West Bank disturbances, as well as Islamic and pro-Iraqi frustrations with an ally of the US?
One could, of course, follow the injunction against portraying Allah or Muhammad without forcing it on people who do not share one’s faith. But then the question arises: Why should people who do not share one’s faith bother with images of one’s prophet? For the sake of freedom of expression, said Jyllands-Posten. In fact, the only thing the cartoons expressed was contempt for Muslims.
Why should Islamic fundamentalists worry about respect from a West they mostly find unworthy of emulation? As a reaction to European imperialism, Islamic fundamentalism is a modern phenomenon. In their own way, the fundamentalists are much more bothered about the opinion of ”the West” than I am.
The Danish government should have apologised long before it did, but was right not to act against Jyllands-Posten. Freedom of expression is necessary, because if you let the authorities start hacking away at it, you are liable to be left with nothing. But with that comes the duty to consider others’ rights. This applies as much to Jyllands-Posten as to the mobs in Beirut.
Between the Danish government and Islamist politicians, between Jyllands-Posten and the Beirut mobs, between Laban and Khader, the moderate Muslim has again been silenced. She is forced to to stay home and let others crusade for causes dear to her: freedom and her cultural heritage, Islam.
In the manufactured clash of civilisations, she is caught in the middle. — Â