Stay true to the dreams of thy youth

2008-04-02
The Controversy Over the Cartoons
We must find a way to get out of the vicious cycle by refusing to add fuel to the fire. Only then can we enter into a serious and level-headed debate. Essentially, we must recognize that the controversy does not symbolize a conflict between enlightenment and religious principles, but that what is needed is for believers and atheists alike to engage in rational discussion, says Noureddine Jebnoun.

Public opinion’s level of tolerance is extremely inconsistent. No respectable journalist would publish a cartoon that makes fun of the blind, homosexuals, or Jews—more out of fear that it would be considered in bad taste than of a lawsuit. The case of the Danish cartoon showing the Prophet Mohammed with a turban shaped like a bomb demonstrates that bad taste is more easily tolerated when it comes to Islam. What shocks the average Muslim is not the depiction of the Prophet, but the existence of this double standard.

After the cartoon’s publication, governments eager to prove their loyalty to Islam and legitimize themselves in the eyes of their constituents fanned the flames of resentment among Muslims, while European politicians, intellectuals, journalists, and advocates of freedom of expression quickly presented themselves as ready to battle religious fundamentalism in the name of Western values. With these polarized positions, we find ourselves faced with a gross oversimplification: a supposed clash of civilizations in which the idea of the inalienable right of freedom of expression and the principle of the unassailable sphere of the sacred confront each other. Presented in these terms, the debate has turned into an arm-wrestling match. Muslims want apologies, and threaten European interests and lives. Western governments and journalists refuse to fold under such threats, and media outlets take turns publishing the cartoon. Most of the world observes it all with confusion.

We must find a way to get out of this vicious cycle by refusing to add fuel to the fire. Only then can we enter into a serious, profound, and level-headed debate. Essentially, we must recognize that this controversy does not symbolize a conflict between enlightenment and religious principles, but that what is needed is for believers and atheists alike to engage in rational discussion. What’s more, the cultural division at play is not between the West and Islam, but between those who know how to affirm who they are without blindly attaching themselves to faith or reason and those who let themselves get carried away by absolutes, stereotypes, and hasty conclusions. Such character traits are equally shared in both Western and Islamic societies by intellectuals, religious scholars, journalists, and others. In light of the serious divisions that the latter group can create, the call for sensible dialogue is all the more urgent.

Islam forbids the portrayal of the Prophets under any circumstances, not only because of the fundamental respect owed them, but as a means to avoid all temptations of idolatry. Plain and simple, portraying a Prophet is a serious transgression. If, in addition, we recognize the utter thoughtlessness in the Danish portrayal, we understand Muslims’ widespread shock and rejection of it, even from those who are not religiously observant. It was therefore appropriate that Muslims express themselves and be heard in light of this controversy. Yet, it was also important that they not forget that for three centuries, Western society has grown accustomed to mockery, irony, and criticism when it comes to religious history and symbols such as the Pope, Christ, and even God. Though Muslims do not share this attitude, it is imperative that they learn to consider it with intellectual detachment and refuse to be dragged into an ill-advised radical fervor. What impedes Muslim communities today is the obsession with excuses, calls for boycotts, and threats of physical and armed repression. Such tactics are completely out of proportion, and should be rejected and condemned. The best course of action would have been for Muslims to educate the public—without making a fuss—about their principles and values, while waiting for a more appropriate time for calm debate.

However, those who invoke freedom of expression to give themselves the right to say anything, by any means, against anyone, is an equally irresponsible—and erroneous—attitude. It is simply not true that all is permitted in the name of this freedom. Each country has laws that allow, for example, the condemnation of racial slurs, as well as a body of more informal regulations that correspond to the culture, traditions, and collective psychology of the society. Such rules regulate relations between individuals within a diverse nation and impose respect. Yet Muslim immigration has changed the makeup of European societies, and with this change has come a pronounced acceptance of Islamophobia and a carelessness in how Muslims are portrayed in both word and image.

Rather than invoking freedom of expression as a way to allow any type of statement, would it not be better to call on citizens to take into account sensibilities that make up our contemporary societies? It is not a matter of adding laws or restricting free speech. We should simply ask everyone to use their rights in a reasonable manner by exhibiting thoughtful civil behavior. Muslim citizens are not asking for more censorship; they are simply asking for more respect. We do not issue legal decrees for mutual respect; we teach it in the name of a liberal, responsible, and reasonable citizenship.

We are at a crossroads at which we have an urgent need for mutual trust. The time has come for us to resist false divisions and, instead, build bridges between two worlds that have more principles in common than they do differences. We should affirm freedom of expression but, at the same time, advocate a sense of restraint as far as its use is concerned. This can be accomplished by promoting necessary self-criticism and condemning excessive truths and blanket statements.

The cartoon crisis shows us a worst-case scenario in which two camps do not hear each other and continue to invoke stereotypes—and which extremists have not hesitated to exploit. If the men and women who cherish liberty, who understand the importance of mutual respect, and who are aware of the necessity for critical and constructive dialogue do not commit themselves more visibly and resist the divisive forces of our time, then it is with certainty that I believe a dark and painful future awaits us. At the end of the day, it is for us to decide.

Noureddine Jebnoun is an adjunct professor at Georgetown University’s Center for Contemporary Arab Studies.