Two perspectives
A roundup of an intellectuals' debate on blasphemous caricatures

By Babar Mirza

Tariq Ali had predicted the end of worldwide socio-political uproar following the publication of controversial cartoons in a Danish newspaper in September 2005, rather contemptuously, as "with no gains on either side." A superficial look at the relevant events indeed confirms this prediction: protests by Muslims were matched by republications in Europe, leaders of first world countries only conceded abuse of freedom of speech when they could condemn the burning of Danish embassies.

This February, when police arrested several people who allegedly planned to assassinate one the cartoonists, the Danish newspaper, though it had apologised for hurting the feelings of Muslims, reprinted a cartoon in retaliation. Were it not for the loss of human lives and property involved, a cynical comparison of this controversy with the domestic issues in American presidential elections -- a pillow-fighting of 'values' as they are -- might not be much off the mark. However, given the importance of freedom of speech as a fundamental human right, one must go in to nuances to track down the changes in global attitudes in the wake of cartoon controversy.

Religious satire, under the garb of freedom of speech, is as integral to the heart of modern Europeans, as it is repugnant to Muslims. The republications of cartoons in Europe were frequently accompanied by an assertion of the right to freedom of speech. In March 2006, a French newspaper even solicited the signatures of Salman Rushdie, Tasleema Nasreen and half a dozen other 'victims of Islamic militancy' on a statement which compared 'Islamism' with Fascism, Nazism and Stalinism and called for strengthening 'universal secular values.' However, Media's self-defence was not accompanied by their politicians' support.

The Council of Europe, former US president Bill Clinton, Russian President Putin and Irish president Mary McAleese condemned the reluctance of the Danish government to interfere in the issue. Later on, President Bush and British prime minister, while condemning the ensuing violent protests, also acknowledged the restraints on freedom of speech imposed by religious sensitivities. The United Kingdom went so far as to enact a religious hatred law to avoid similar controversies in the country.

However, one must not lose sight of the fact that Western media, at least in principle, is not used to taking instructions from politicians. As was clear from many of the statements accompanying republications of cartoons, newspapers were not indifferent to religious sensitivities, but they genuinely believed that giving in now would hurl them on to a slippery slope of stifling censorship -- a matter of life and death for them.

This compromise -- preferring freedom of speech over provocation -- was most evident in the report of Danish Director of Public Prosecutions which held, almost ridiculously, that although the cartoons might be an 'affront or insult', they were not 'mocking or scornful'. "Slapping some one on the face is not the same thing as swearing at him, and we only punish the later," the Danish DPP seemed to be saying.

One can thus look at the cartoon controversy in one of the two ways: it exposed some genuine loopholes in the Western notion of freedom of speech and thus undermined its legitimacy, or, on the brighter side, it helped to determine the global scope of freedom of speech, and thus expanded its understanding. To determine which of the two views are more plausible, one must also look at the controversy from the viewpoint of Muslims.

No doubt, Muslims were strongly offended by the cartoons, and protested at an unexpectedly large scale. But just like story of the West, the protests were not free of inconsistencies either. The clearly anti-US nature of protests -- though no major newspaper in the US has ever published the cartoons -- has also been well noted. Similarly, the first newspaper to republish the controversial cartoons was Egyptian, though the government and religious organisations did not take it as controversial. However, a similar republication in Yemen was viewed differently, and the editor of the newspaper was sentenced to imprisonment for one year. These facts raise the important question whether Muslims were protesting against the mere depiction of the Prophet or the allegedly defamatory nature of depiction?

Moreover, in a recent conference held at LUMS to discuss the controversy, Dr Nomanul Haq revealed that Islamic law had no concept of blasphemy, which was in fact a medieval Christian concept. He explained that the notions of apostasy (irtidaad), innovation (bid'a) and hudood did not encompass blasphemy, and speaking ill of sacred people, objects or ideas was made an indirect crime in the post-Mongolian period only in so far as it could lead to breach of peace. Given the highly credible views of Dr Haq, one can begin to see that perhaps Muslims were in fact not protesting against the cartoons but venting their anger at something else.

So, in the last analysis, it seems fair to conclude that Western media did realise that globalisation of communities entailed some limitations on freedom of speech, which though legally not recognised, should be morally enforced. Similarly, given the frequency of republications, Muslims also realised that they cannot impose their social values on others in their entirety (even if the editors of the Danish newspaper were convicted of defamation or blasphemy, they would have been imprisoned for two years at most, and not hanged).