![](\"https:\/\/www.altmuslim.com\/ee_images\/norweigian_flag.jpg\")
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n
There have been numerous cases [1] where various religious communities have objected to films, art exhibits, books, songs, plays, lifestyles, etc. as being blasphemous, offensive, obscene, or \u2026. [1] Sometimes the protestors have threatened violence. [2] People have seen these issues as insensitive to their feelings, disrespectful, as an attack on their culture or values, as sacrilege, as blasphemy, or as intolerance or prejudice. [3] Sometimes there have even been protests against other religious groups, or the expression of their religion in the public square. [4]<\/p>\n
The Background<\/b><\/p>\n
The current Danish cartoon incident is different only in the intensity and variety of the reactions to the cartoons. The Jyllands-Posten, a Danish newspaper approached forty artists asking for depictions of Muhammad and received in response twelve cartoons of the Prophet \ufffd several playing on the perceived connection between violence committed by Muslims in the name of Islam around the world today. These 12 cartoons were published in the paper. The actual cartoons can still be viewed online<\/a>, and I hope they will remain there so people can see what it is that is causing all the trouble.<\/p>\n Why were these cartoons published in the first place. Reading through the hundreds of articles that have been published about this incident, the intention seems to have been to spark debate on whether there is still freedom of expression in Denmark and Europe (particularly after the murder of Theo van Gogh). The paper, commissioned the drawings because they believed that non-Muslim artists were self-censoring due to fear of reprisals and death threats, and the paper wanted to make a statement about free speech. However, if they wanted to make a point about press freedom, they should have also considered the possible effects such cartoons might have in an environment of growing Islamaphobia and anti-Semitism in Europe. Why choose this time to increase tensions and focus on negative perceptions of Islam. Even if they did not mean to cause such an uproar, they must have realized that in this age of the internet and instant communication they were publishing materials that would be seen around the world in a matter of hours and whose effect was not limited to an internal Danish discussion of free speech. <\/p>\n The bottom line is that these 12 cartoons were commissioned \u201con a dare\u201d that no paper would be willing to published material that insulted Islam, and they were published all at the same time, leading one to believe that there was at least an element of deliberate provocation involved.<\/p>\n In fact, if the goal was a discussion of free speech, why not commission cartoons attacking some cherished aspect of Christianity. Why not commission cartoons of Jesus? If they truly believed that \u201ctheir\u201d cherished value of free speech was being threatened by Muslim reactions to what Muslims considered blasphemy, what better way to show their own tolerance than by attacking their own religious beliefs. It is difficult to believe that they did not consider the possibility that in the current political climate these cartoons might be seen as a direct attack on the Prophet and on Islam, and that it might be an incitement to violence and an encouragement for a \u201cclash of civilizations\u201d.<\/p>\n The Response<\/b><\/p>\n Once the cartoons were printed, the reaction of Muslims worldwide to what they perceived as a direct attack on Islam was immediate. An apology was demanded<\/a> from the paper and initially refused. Boycotts<\/a> of Danish products were begun. Muslim Ambassadors to Denmark were recalled<\/a>. The editor of the newspaper has received threats<\/a>. Palestinian gunmen took over an EU office in protest, and threatened to blow up churches<\/a> if an apology was not received in 48 hours. The EU President defended<\/a> the right of \u201cfreedom of expression\u201d in the cartoons. The Secretary General of the OIC said that they would \u201cask the UN general assembly to pass a resolution<\/a> banning attacks on religious beliefs.\u201d The Editor of the newspaper did apologize<\/a>, but by this time the cartoons had been republished in papers all over Europe leading the Islamic Human Rights Commission to state<\/a> that \u201cthe republication of caricatures of Prophet Muhammad in Europe is indicative of the hatred that precedes genocide.\u201d The Jewish ADL issued a statement<\/a> pointing out their concern with both the offensive nature of the cartoons, and concern about the extreme reaction, and what it perceived as a double standard when anti-Jewish cartoons and statements in the press in some Muslim countries go unremarked. And, of course, Robert Spencer has reprinted<\/a> the cartoons with his usual Islamaphobic comments on Front Page.<\/p>\n Obviously, this is an emotional issue and people on both sides feel very strongly. There are many questions to consider. Does one have the right to make fun of religion? Of any religion? Any ethnic group? Any race? Where is the line between freedom of speech and censorship? Are there any limitations on freedom of speech? What are the limitations? What constitutes obscenity? What constitutes blasphemy? What is hate speech? What are appropriate responses?<\/p>\n Free Speech?<\/b><\/p>\n Whatever limitations we place on free speech require careful consideration in order to protect the rights of all. There is not unanimous agreement on the answers to these questions, and the laws vary from country to country, and even from state to state within the US<\/p>\n Europe has multiple anti-hate laws. For example, questioning any aspect of the holocaust is illegal in Germany, France, Spain, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Poland, and Austria. In the UK, you can go to jail for inciting racial hatred under the Public Order Act. Norway outlaws threats and insults to people based on skin color, nationality, outlook on life and sexual preference.<\/p>\n There has been a recent tendency in Western countries towards the repeal or reform of blasphemy laws, and these laws are only infrequently enforced where they exist. Blasphemy laws still exist in several countries, such as in Austria, Finland, Germany, Italy, Ireland, The Netherlands, Spain, and United Kingdom. In the US, the First Amendment guarantees a relatively unlimited right of free speech, although some US states still have blasphemy laws on the books. Chapter 272 of the Massachusetts General Laws states<\/a>, for example: Section 36:<\/p>\n \u201cWhoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.\u201d<\/p>\n Britain<\/a> has a religious hatred law. Australia<\/a> has a law against \u201cracial vilification\u201d as do Canada, the UK, New Zealand, Belgium, Austria, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Italy. The law generally allows that there are limitations on free speech, e.g. defamation of another, inciting to riot, endangering the public safety (the famous \u201cshouting \u2018fire\u2019 in a crowded theater\u201d example). Free speech can\u2019t be limited just because it offends someone. Almost any speech will be offensive to someone. If we limit a particular form of free speech because it offends \u201cus\u201d, what happens when \u201cwe\u201d offend \u201cthem.\u201d<\/p>\n In the opening phrase of the Declaration of Independence, the founders of this country proclaimed it as self-evident that human beings have permanent and inviolate rights. The First Amendment to the Constitution stipulates that among those liberties is the right of free speech.<\/p>\n According to the ACLU, \u201cthe First Amendment exists precisely to protect the most offensive and controversial speech from government suppression. The best way to counter obnoxious speech is with more speech<\/a>. Persuasion, not coercion, is the solution.\u201d<\/p>\n Even in the US there have been limits to free speech. In Seattle a TV show called \u201cMike Hunt TV\u201d was taken off the air<\/a> because a content review board determined that free speech was being abused and the program was simply obscene. Everyone has heard about the battles over Howard Stern, and the recent TV program \u201cDaniel\u201d which was pulled after only couple of episodes. Therefore there are limits, and it is possible to influence change without resorting to violence and injustice.<\/p>\n Inappropriate Responses and Double Standards<\/b><\/p>\n When honor killings, suicide bombings, attacks on Christian churches, destruction of Buddhist<\/a> statues, insults towards other religions are carried out anywhere in the world by individuals claiming an Islamic justification for such acts \u2013 then as Muslims, we need to speak out just as strongly for justice.<\/p>\n When anyone, anywhere (whether Muslim or not) is treated unjustly because of their religion, race, sex, or ethnicity by anyone (whether Muslim or not) Muslims should be the first to speak out for justice. If any prophet is maligned, or any place of worship is profaned, if any scripture is treated disrespectfully, then Muslims should be the first to speak out in their defence.<\/p>\n How is it possible that we can even consider exceeding the bounds of justice in response to such incidents as the Qur\u2019an incident a few years ago, and this current incident of a few dumb cartoons in a relatively small newspaper in a country of only 5 million people. The excessive response is causing more harm to Islam and Muslim than the cartoons ever would have (and, in fact they would probably have gone unnoticed by the rest of the world if such attention had not been called to them).<\/p>\n \u201cIf Muslims recklessly take the lives of innocent people in a riot protesting the desecration of the Qur\u2019an, isn\u2019t that also desecrating the Qur\u2019an? And what about the other instances of desecration of the Qur\u2019an? Human Rights Watch documented in a report issued last year that the (Muslim) janjaweed militia desecrated Qur\u2019ans belonging to the (Muslim) African inhabitants of Darfur. Yet, I don\u2019t care as much about that as the fact that the janjaweed have raped, pillaged, and massacred their own fellow Muslims in Darfur. Isn\u2019t this also a desecration of the Qur\u2019an? Why hasn\u2019t the Muslim World responded forcefully to stop the genocide of Darfur?\u201d<\/i> \u2013 Dr. Hesham A. Hassaballa<\/a><\/p>\n The cartoons are a repeat of old anti-Semitic drawings, complete with hooked noses and swarthy complexions. The cartoons ARE offensive \u2013 but the response by many Muslims is more than offensive. Death threats, armed men taking over offices, threats against places of worship, etc. ARE offensive, illegal, immoral, unjust, and against the very spirit of Islam. Threatening to blow up churches in Palestine because a newspaper in Denmark (which is a predominantly Christian country) ran offensive cartoons means that these clowns are saying that every Christian in the world is responsible for the actions of anyone in the Christian world. This is madness just as much as those who hold the same attitude towards Muslims and Islam. <\/p>\n This sort of criminal, insane behavior plays right into the hands of the Islamaphobes and those who want to bring about a clash of civilizations. Even a just cause does not give anyone the right to use illegitimate means or deny others their rights.<\/p>\n There have been individual Muslims who have committed injustices against people of other faiths. There have been newspapers in Muslim countries that have carried offensive cartoons about Jews. There have been Muslims who have carried out violent acts against people of other faiths. As Muslims we need to be even more strong and outspoken in our objections to this perversion of Islam. We need to do everything we can do to reign in our own extremists.<\/p>\n If, as Muslims, we want to show respect for the Prophet, for the Qur\u2019an, and for Islam, then we need to set a noble example of justice, tolerance, and respect. If we want respect from others we need to show them equal respect.<\/p>\n \u201cHere are a few facts we should remember. However offensive any of the 12 cartoons were, they did not incite violence against Muslims. For an example of incitement, though, one must go back a few weeks before the cartoons were published. In August, the Danish authorities withdrew for three months the broadcasting license of a Copenhagen radio station after it called for the extermination of Muslims. Those were real threats and the government protected Muslims \u2013 the same government later condemned for not punishing the newspaper that published the cartoons. \u2026<\/i><\/p>\n As just one example, last August Fadi Abdullatif, the spokesman for the Danish branch of the militant Hizb-ut-Tahrir organization, was charged with calling for the killing of members of the Danish government. He distributed leaflets calling on Muslims in Denmark to go to Fallujah in Iraq and fight the Americans, and to kill their own leaders if they obstructed them. Police in Denmark have been on alert since the London bombings, after which at least three extremist Web sites warned that Denmark could be the next target. There are 500 Danish troops working alongside American and British troops in Iraq.<\/p>\n Not only does Hizb-ut-Tahrir, an organization banned in many Muslim countries, have a branch in Denmark, but Abdullatif has a history of calling for violence that he then justifies by referring to freedom of speech \u2013 the very notion the Danish newspaper made use of to publish the cartoons. In October 2002, Abdullatif was found guilty of distributing racist propaganda after Hizb-ut-Tahrir handed out leaflets that made threats against Jews by citing verses from the Koran. He was given a 60-day suspended sentence.<\/p>\n Abdullatif used the Koran to justify incitement to violence! And we still wonder why people associate Islam with violence?<\/p>\n Muslims must honestly examine why there is such a huge gap between the way we imagine Islam and our prophet, and the way both are seen by others. Our offended sensibilities must not be limited to the Danish newspaper or the cartoonist, but to those like Fadi Abdullatif whose actions should be regarded as just as offensive to Islam and to our reverence for the prophet. Otherwise, we are all responsible for those Danish cartoons.\u201d \u2013 (Mona Eltahawy<\/a>)<\/p>\n A Reasonable Response<\/b><\/p>\n Take issues to court under the laws of the country in which you live \u2013 cancel your subscription \u2013 organize boycotts to exert economic pressure \u2013 send your message out peacefully \u2013 explain your position \u2013 lobby to enforce or change existing laws \u2013 take concerted action within the law \u2013 use legitimate, peaceful means \u2013 remain calm so that you can act and not simply react \u2013 get your own house in order \u2013 demand the same rights and privileges for ALL \u2013 engage in respectful dialogue.<\/p>\n \u201cMuslims of the world, be reasonable,\u201d said the editor-in-chief of the weekly independent newspaper Al-Shihan in Jordan in an editorial alongside some of the cartoons, including the one showing the Muslim religion\u2019s founder wearing a bomb-shaped turban. \u201cWhat brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in Amman?\u201d wrote<\/a> Jihad Momani. <\/p>\n NOTES:<\/p>\n [1] Partial list of incidents sparking protest:<\/p>\n \u201cThe Life of Brian\u201d a Monty Python film was objected<\/a> to by both Jews and Christians, and was banned in many communities in Britain.<\/p>\n Pepsi was forced by a boycott and protests to discontinue an ad<\/a> featuring a video of Madonna singing \u201cLike a Prayer\u201d.<\/p>\n Members of the Harvest Assembly of God Church in Penn Township burned books<\/a>, videos and CDs that they judged \u201coffensive to their God.\u201d <\/p>\n Christian groups across the US protested<\/a> a film about the life of sex researcher Alfred C. Kinsey, and sought \u201clegislation and will punish sponsors of lewd entertainment.\u201d <\/p>\n Christians in Pakistan protested<\/a> Christians filed lawsuits, promoted boycotts and launched campaigns aimed at restoring references to Christ<\/a> in seasonal celebrations. <\/p>\n Hindus demanded withdrawal<\/a> of a British \u201cChristmas\u201d postage stamp they found insulting to their religion.<\/p>\n 45,000 complaints came in, and there were demonstrations in London when the BBC aired a program \u201cJerry Springer: the Opera<\/a>\u201d considered \u201cblasphemous\u201d by many Christians. Christian lawyers were contacted, to consider whether it was possible to prosecute the BBC under the Common Blasphemy Law, last used in 1977. <\/p>\n Parents at a Colorado school objected<\/a> to a library book and got permission to hold a book burning.<\/p>\n Christians protested the change from B.C. to B.C.E., as they saw it as an attack<\/a> on Christianity.<\/p>\n Christian groups protested a music video<\/a> by Jessica Simpson that they considered indecent.<\/p>\n Catholic Nuns protested<\/a> outside of the set for the \u201cDa Vinci Code\u201d film.<\/p>\n Christian groups protested<\/a> \u201ccivil unions\u201d for gays. <\/p>\n Nearly a thousand Catholics gathered and prayed<\/a> in front of Santa Fe\u2019s Museum of International Folk Art to express their outrage at an exhibit they considered blasphemous. <\/p>\n Catholics protested \u201cblasphemy\u201d in a California art display<\/a>.<\/p>\n Currently, Hindu Americans are protesting against the portrayal of Hinduism<\/a> in school textbooks in California. The textbooks \u201ccall Hanuman, a god worshipped for his loyalty and protection, the \u201cmonkey king.\u201d One exercise tells students that Hanuman loved Rama (a Hindu god) so much that some believe he appears every time the Ramayana (ancient Sanskrit epic) is read. \u201cSo look around \ufffd see any monkeys?\u201d the passage taunts.\u201d <\/p>\n Right now there is a company in Sweden producing jeans with an anti-Christian jeans logo<\/a>. The jeans designer openly admitted that he meant this to be anti-Christian. \u201cIt is an active statement against Christianity,\u201d Bjorn Atldax told The Associated Press. \u201cI\u2019m not a Satanist myself, but I have a great dislike for organized religion.\u201d <\/p>\n In December of 2004 there was an art exhibit<\/a> by Leon Ferrari, in Buenos Aires in which works of \u201cart\u201d were displayed which depicted scenes such as saints burning themselves in a toaster, the Blessed Mother in a frying pan, and a statue of the Last Supper in which Christ and the Apostles face a pack of rats. <\/p>\n In 1999 the Brooklyn Museum presented an exhibit<\/a> called \u201cSensation,\u201d which featured a painting by one Chris Ofili titled \u201cThe Holy Virgin Mary.\u201d The painting showed a woman with elephant dung forming one breast and pornographic cutouts surrounding her. <\/p>\n In November 2002, Egypt, despite being bound by a 1979 treaty preventing \u201cincitement\u201d against Israel, allowed their state-owned television network to produce \u201cA Horseman Without a Horse<\/a>\u201d (Fares Bela Gewad), a 41 part \u201chistorical drama\u201d largely based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which ran on Egyptian television as well as numerous Arabic satellite television channels for a month. The protocols are old anti-Jewish propaganda, promoted in the West primarily by neo-Nazis and other racists. <\/p>\n In March of 2000 Al-Hayat al-Jadida, the official Palestinian Authority journal, published a cartoon<\/a> which showed the Pope talking to a Jewish man with the skin, feet, and tail of an animal, and a big hooked nose, wearing a kippa. <\/p>\n A cartoon that appeared in an American newspaper using the Star of David<\/a> (a symbol of Judaism, not of Zionism) in a political cartoon.<\/p>\n Anti-Christian riots<\/a> erupted in Egypt in October, 2005 following rumors that Saint George\u2019s Coptic church in Alexandria had distributed a DVD containing material that was offensive to Muslims. <\/p>\n [2] Two senior BBC executives, directly involved in the broadcast of \u201cJerry Springer: the Opera\u201d were provided special security<\/a> by the corporation following \u201cthreatening\u201d calls after their telephone numbers were posted on the website of a Christian group, leading the protest. Security was also tightened at a Central London theater showing the opera. <\/p>\n [3] Some of the comments<\/a> about an art exhibit considered blasphemous: <\/p>\n a) Mexican Cardinal Carrera wrote: \u201cWe cannot keep silent nor be indifferent before such a monstrous attack on the religious convictions and sentiments of our Mexican people who are mostly Catholic. It seems to us to be deeply lamented that in the name of culture and freedom in your country, our culture should be attacked at its very root.\u201d <\/p>\n b) Archbishop Michael Sheehan of the Santa Fe archdiocese commented in a recent article addressing the blasphemy: \u201cAs Archbishop of Santa Fe, I certainly find it offensive that the Catholic symbol of Guadalupe has been so disrespectfully treated.\u201d <\/p>\n c) Fr. John Trigilio of the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy wrote that \u201cto be silent or to do nothing when God and all things holy are being attacked is to be in darkness.\u201d <\/p>\n d) Mother Angelica also sent words of encouragement reminding people that \u201cIt [the protest] is about giving Our Lady the comfort of knowing that she is the Mother of children who truly love her!\u201d <\/p>\n e) Congressman John Hostettler wrote that he \u201cis appalled and saddened that this is even an issue in today\u2019s culture.\u201d <\/p>\n f) Paul Weyrich of Washington\u2019s Free Congress Foundation wrote: \u201cYou have my full support in your effort to counter this horrible sacrilege.\u201d <\/p>\n [4] In March 2004 over a thousand Orthodox Christians gathered in central Moscow\u2019s Pushkin Square to protest the building of a Hare Krishna<\/a> temple on the northwestern outskirts of the city. The group said that they were protesting because the Hare Krishna faith was not \u201ctraditionally Russian\u201d. The organizers also gathered 20,000 signatures on a petition not to allow the building of the temple.<\/p>\n <\/i><\/p>\n
\n what they considered \u201cblasphemous\u201d remarks made about Jesus in a newspaper review of the book the \u201cDa Vinci Code\u201d. They demanded that the newspaper be closed, for which they threatened protests outside the Lahore Press Club and other important places. <\/p>\n