Dear Sarah
8th February 2006
I am writing this letter from the Beka'a valley in Lebanon. Hizbullah has a public presence here and there are large posters of Iran's ayatollahs-past and present-at every junction. In this setting, the confidence with which Muslim commentators have stated, in the row over the Danish cartoons, that portraiture and depiction are forbidden in the Islamic tradition seems misplaced. And, as you probably know, there are images of the Prophet Muhammad, as well as other prophets such as Jesus and Joseph, in some Islamic art-though admittedly they are rare.
This, however, is to miss the point. The reason why many, if not most, Muslims are offended by the cartoons is because they not only depict the Prophet but also associate him with terrorism and invoke orientalist stereotypes. I don't doubt that the offence that Muslims have felt is genuine, and the response attributed to the Prophet himself in one of the cartoons-"Relax folks... it's just a sketch by someone from south west Denmark"-is probably insufficient.
When we redraw the political landscape in this way, however, we not only gain a new perspective on the balance of power but also on the challenge now facing Muslims in Europe in finding a mutual accommodation with a secular public culture. The second lesson of this controversy is that we need to choose and conduct our battles more carefully.
I don't like the cartoons. I don't think they're all that funny; more importantly, I don't like how they adopt the image of the central figure in my religious tradition for their own purposes. Nevertheless, this is an experience that other religious people in Europe and elsewhere have become used to. Jesus has been employed to sell jeans, and I expect that almost every major city has a place called the Buddha Bar. Should ? Muslims have to endure the same irreverence towards their religion just because others have already sold the pass? What's the alternative? One of the demands of Muslim protestors and commentators has been that the Danish government should apologise to Muslims and take action against the newspaper that first published the cartoons. But what should the criteria be for taking such action? That Muslims somewhere took offence? That Islamic scripture prohibits the images that were published? Or is it that we have to stop this happening again? But that presumably requires some form of vetting of material prior to publication. Before we even tackle the question of who would do that vetting, we should realise that the anti-censorship argument derives perhaps its greatest force from these practical matters.
Censorship of material that is offensive to religion can probably only be made to work in a state where there is a clear answer to the question of what is and is not offensive, and where publishers and readers are willing to accept restraint by the state. Western Muslims are going to have to accept that these conditions-though they may have existed in Britain when blasphemy laws were tough and enforced-do not now exist in the countries in which they live.
What consequences does this have? The first is that the confrontation between Muslims and the secular culture around them will recur in different forms and Muslims will have to forebear. They are not thereby consigned to passivity. English newspapers in the 19th century often published offensive caricatures of Irish people. They don't do this now because attitudes towards the Irish have changed. In the same way, I hope that, in time, it will become ludicrous for any newspaper to print cartoons depicting a Muslim as a terrorist because the image will have no salience. Unfortunately, when British Muslims marched to protest against the cartoons, a significant minority did so with placards and slogans that gave the stereotype renewed currency. I say this plaintively but it still needs saying: let's do more as a community to engage politically and culturally in positive ways; we have the status to do this now.
But that's the easy part. Reflecting on this recent furore, one worry is that Muslims remain too reverent towards their own tradition. The cartoons aren't the ideal case study for thinking about this as they are so clearly over the line-I'm obviously not suggesting that Muslims should be drawing caricatures of the Prophet themselves. However, the cartoons do play on the stereotype of his warlike nature and link this to contemporary Islamic radicalism. I wonder if one response to this should be to say that yes, the Prophet did fight a number of wars, here's why, and here's why the rhetoric about those wars doesn't apply any more. This is better than just saying that depictions of him are prohibited. And what about the ban on depiction? It was originally promulgated in order to prevent a relapse into idolatry among the Arabian tribes who first converted to Islam. Shouldn't we be asking whether historical conditions have changed?
The underlying difficulty is that Islam has yet to have its "Protestant moment." The basis for faith remains a set of traditions bound over a thousand years ago, interpreted still only by a clerical class. There's no scope for irreverence in such a top-down model; there may even be insufficient scope for a proper engagement with liberal culture.
Yours anxiously
Kamran
Dear Kamran
10th February 2006
I agree with you that Muslims in Europe are becoming politically engaged. The second and third generations are very western in many ways, especially in their determination not to be treated as second-class citizens. Where their parents and grandparents just wanted to keep their heads down and lead a quiet life, the thirtysomething professionals are not prepared to tolerate just getting by. But the Muslim communities of Europe are not all thirtysomething professionals-most are young and in the lowest socioeconomic groups. Muslim ghettos are prevalent in every European country with a sizeable Muslim population. And while it is true that the media is filled with diverse commentary, some of it from Muslims, and that we have greater political clout than in the past, this does not mean we are a cohesive and confident community.
We tend to define ourselves according to what we are against-firefighting on international incidents not of the Muslim community's making: 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, Madrid, 7/7. Terrorist attacks, although often carried out in the name of Islam, cannot be stopped by Muslim communities. I wish we could choose our battles more carefully; they always seem to be chosen for us. When you have populist commentators in this country describing Muslims as "fifth columnists" and cartoons presenting Muslims as intrinsically violent, is it any wonder that people feel embattled and victimised?
You say that other religious traditions are used to seeing their sacred items being used and exploited, and imply that we should too. I can't accept that. I am pained that Christ is used to sell jeans, I find it hard to accept that the icon of Christmas is Santa rather than Christ. Why? Because I feel that the messengers of all the religious traditions had something profound to offer us. What's the alternative to "selling the pass," as you put it? Well, it's not burning and ranting, but it is about holding fast to the belief that the messages of great people are worth upholding.
The Danish government's res-ponse was shoddy. When 11 diplomatic missions from Muslim countries ask to have an audience with you, it should be common courtesy to agree. But the ambassadors were rebuffed in the early days of the dispute five months ago.
I certainly do not want censorship, but neither am I in favour of a free-for-all. This is about manners. You can't legislate for manners; they are felt, sensed, learned in the routine engagement with people. They belong to no one-they transcend culture, religion and class.
You are right that stereotypes tend to pass, and you mention that caricatures of Irish people would not be published now. A mixture of legislation and a reduction in prejudices have all worked together to make such caricatures-and also those of Jews and blacks-unacceptable. The question does, however, have to be asked, as it was by Bill Clinton recently and William Dalrymple in 2001: is anti-Muslim prejudice replacing antisemitism as the principal expression of bigotry against "the other"? I do not want to indulge in hyperbole, or cast Muslims as victims. The victim mentality achieves nothing. But it would be irresponsible not to sound the warning bell.
You ask whether Muslims remain too reverent of their own tradition. In an increasingly irreverent world, reverence is not a bad thing. However, I would agree that we have dogmatised the faith. There is a lack of creativity. But creativity requires confidence; at the moment what we have is defensiveness. We have one news story after another with Muslims in it-none of them positive. I dedicate my time to creating a confident Muslim lifestyle magazine, but I do so in the face of tremendous negativity.
You suggest that our problems have arisen because Islam has yet to undergo its "Protestant moment." Is it too glib to suggest that our problems have arisen because Islam has already undergone its Protestant moment? The dry and dogmatic exposition of Islam being thrust upon us by the neo-Wahhabists reminds me of the Puritans. The beauty and cultural individuality of the Islam I know has nothing to do with neo-Wahhabists. The calls for a "pure Islam" made by some reformers keep us in thrall to the culture of 7th-century Arabia. But in the right hands, such calls could also be seen as an urge to rediscover the intrinsic thrust of Islamic discourse-social justice and human dignity.
I don't doubt that the ban on prophetic depiction was promulgated in order to prevent a relapse into idolatry by the Arabian tribes. But for me the lack of imagery in Islam is ? something very positive. Islam, like Judaism, is a religion of the Word. Coming from a Catholic Christian tradition where we have imagery of the Word made flesh, I find the simplicity of the Islamic way very appealing. Muslims should be allowed to express that simplicity without apology or defence. It is a different theological position, but a beautiful and rational one.
Yours
Sarah
Dear Sarah
10th February 2006
Your letter makes me more anxious than before. You say at one point that Muslims should not accept or condone the cartoons. You also imply that governments do have or ought to have some measure of control over the press. The implication of your remarks is that criticism of Islam, at least of the sort manifested in these cartoons, should be restricted.
I agree with you that a well-mannered criticism would have been preferable, and probably more effective. The cartoons may turn out to have been a missed opportunity to raise tough questions about the role of jihad in early Islam. However, I'm going to press you on your answer to this question: if a British newspaper or magazine wanted to reprint the cartoons, should they be permitted to do so? You may prefer that they don't, you may try to convince the editor that the cartoons are too offensive but, if the editor disagrees with you, if the editor does see value in the exercise, would you permit it?
This is my point about choosing our battles more carefully. My feeling is that rather than condemning the publication of the cartoons, seeking some form of apology from the Danish government or producing counter-cartoons about the Holo-caust, we should be rebutting the view that the cartoons express.
I fully agree with you that contemporary Islamic radicalism represents a strange twist on our religious tradition. So let's say so. I think this is important, as we both know that there are many Muslims-you call them neo-Wahhabists-who disagree. I also think that the reasons why Islamic culture doesn't, on the whole, involve images of the Prophet are interesting ones. I think that other religious people will find them so. So let's set them out.
What I also find difficult about your argument is the suggestion that these cartoons are part of a broader cultural shift towards Islamophobia and that the Muslim reaction to them is therefore that of a community on the defensive. But the community hasn't reacted like a victim. Victims, surely, are passive and afraid of becoming victims again. My sense is that our reaction is instead emblematic of our emerging self-confidence. We feel entitled to challenge western attitudes towards religion. We are exercising our freedom to protest. It's great-I just wish that we'd chosen a better issue. Don't you?
Yours
Kamran
Dear Kamran
12th February 2006
I am surprised that you refuse to accept that there is a cultural shift towards Islamophobia. You cannot just brush this off as a "suggestion." There is plenty of evidence pointing to this conclusion-read, for in-stance, the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights' report from last March, "Intolerance and Discrimination Against Muslims in the EU." Look at the context of Denmark. I do not want to be a victim. And I do not want victimhood for Muslim communities. But part of not being a victim means being aware, alert and awake.
And yes, Muslims are awake. Now we need to channel that emotion and strength constructively-this is where I agree with you most. There is a change in the air, and there are louder calls for creativity in marrying Islam and western life. There are some insightful people out there-Tariq Ramadan, for instance, or Heba Raouf Ezzat-who know and are committed to both worlds. They are shaped by a worldview with God at the centre. We in the west need to deal with that and respect that.
Your question whether I could permit these cartoons is a red herring. The question is not "can" but "should." We do not live in a vacuum; our actions have implications. Freedom is a right, and like all rights brings with it obligations. I do find it strange that the same Danish paper that was so determined to publish these cartoons did not feel obliged to demonstrate this right with satirical pictures of Christ (thankfully). Nor did it feel the need to follow through its culture editor's interest in publishing the distasteful Iranian Holocaust cartoons. Indeed, Flem-ming Rose, the culture editor, had to apologise for even suggesting the idea. So where are all these great press freedoms? You don't begin to tackle the double standard at play here. Insult Muslims and it's exercising freedom of expression; insult anyone else and it's racism/xeno-phobia/antisemitism. No wonder Muslims get annoyed and reject the "freedoms" thrust upon them.
Through my job I have the privilege of seeing some amazing young Muslims who are at the forefront of creating a British Islamic culture. The same is going on across Europe. These new cultures both overlap with the mainstream culture and have their distinct elements. They will take time to develop and need encouragement, not baiting. Are we prepared to see them grow and contribute, or would we prefer them stillborn?
Yours in hope
Sarah
Dear Sarah
12th February 2006
You suggest that Muslims need to be alert to a double standard. There is, I believe, only one double standard in play here. Muslims are asking for a level of protection against offence which no other religion any longer receives or expects. How can you say that it's only Muslims who have to put up with free speech? To take just one mainstream example, Christian charity workers have been satirised on South Park as teaching the for-mula "Bible+Church=Food." Their director is depicted as Jabba The Hutt. The Danish newspaper didn't print satirical cartoons of Jesus, but then Prospect doesn't publish articles about Celebrity Big Brother. Irreverent images of Jesus are commonplace and it's perfectly reasonable for an editor to focus on something different.
Now there is another argument to be had, which is about whether such attitudes towards religion are productive. I can see why you're worried about them, but I think that there is an equal danger in closing down debate about the authority of religion. My sense is that in the Muslim community we have a surfeit of forces protecting the authority of a narrow version of our religious tradition; the "amazing young Muslims" you refer to are going to get a harder time from those conservatives than they ever will from a few publicity-seeking Danes.
Yours
Kamran
Dear Kamran
13th February 2006
You are right-those young creative minds are going to get a harder time, and if people feel under attack the drawbridge will come up. This is what I am concerned about.
This is not about satire-there are some hilarious Muslim comedians, and Muslims are not complaining about them. The issues are wider than some poorly drawn and unfunny Danish cartoons. We have to look at the context of their commissioning and the fragility of the world we live in. There is a fine line in our societies between normality and chaos. I believe-without sensation-that the very future of us living together is at stake. A recent Sunday Times poll found that only 17 per cent of Britons see a future in which Muslims and other Britons can peacefully coexist, and only 34 per cent believe western nations can coexist peacefully with Muslim countries.
Unless we want to live in misery, we have no choice but to find a way to live together. I believe we can. I am comfortable being a western Muslim. I belong to two worlds that people tell me must clash. I do not accept this. There are grievances on both sides. Let us debate, let us argue, but first let us recognise our shared and common humanity and treat each other with respect and dignity.
Yours truly
Sarah
