A Cultural Enlightenment by Dirk Salowsky
Getting along with each other has never been easy. Since September 11th many have for good reasons been afraid of what cloaked religious fanatics may be able to do next. Unfortunately, the step from “fanatic islamists” to “merciless Muslims” is not that big at all. Likewise, it is not a big step from “a blasphemic caricature” to “the ignorant Europeans”, as recently seen in the outrage over the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten‘s caricatures. Blind generalizations aside, why should a Danish caricature insult a Muslim in Beirut or Ram’allah? Are the incident and the consequent protests symptoms of a dawning clash of civilizations? Just what has happened?
The Course of Events
The provocative caricature in the Danish newspaper recently stirred relations between major parts of the Islamic world and Europe. While it was already printed in September 2005, only at the end of January did it lead to violent reactions in a couple of Islamic states, following a reprint in the Norwegian Magazinet on January 10, 2006. (See also Daiana Vasquez’s recent article). The original sacrilege are various depictions of the prophet Muhammad, including one with a bomb-shaped turban. After national and international protests to the Danish Government, in October, the Prime Minister refused to distance himself from the caricatures referring protesters to freedom of press. Then, a group of Danish Imans, Islamic prayer leaders, travels to the Middle East to organize protests throughout the Islamic world. At the end of January, several Islamic countries issue official notes of protest, Saudi-Arabia and Libya call back their Ambassadors to Denmark. A couple of European newspapers reprint the caricatures in support of the freedom of press. The first escalation takes place on January 30, when members of the Al-Aksa Brigades seize a EU office in the Gaza Strip. In the following days, there are various demonstrations, flags are burnt, Norwegian and Danish embassies are attacked. There even are casualties among the enraged crowds in Lebanon, Afghanistan and Somalia. On February 6 and 8 the League of Arab States and the Organization of the Islamic Conference urge protesters to calm down. The following days (up to this day) pass without further violence.
Analyzing the Reactions
Of course the violence against embassies was a shock and fed concerns about the degree of the outrage. I will only concentrate on two questions: Was this the beginning of a fight against the western world? And how did Muslims even get angry at such small western nations?
Pretty soon it became obvious that violent protest and attacks only became possible in countries where the responsible officials let the mob proceed more or less unhindered. The Syrian regime had had trouble with Lebanon and its own citizens, so an outrage against western Kafirs was a welcome distraction. Palestine, Lebanon, Iran and Afghanistan are countries with either a strong influence of radical Islamists (Hezbollah, Taliban) or political problems with Europe and North America (the Hamas in power confronting Israel and supporting nations, Iran and its nuclear program). In general, any faux pas of a part of the western world is a welcome chance for radical groups to rage against it. In any case, did someone ever compare the number of violent demonstrators to the rest of the respective population?
Mostly, western nations represent the economic world elite. It is not hard to understand why also moderate people in Islamic countries (that have not been invaded under questionable circumstances) might not appreciate western culture. In the eyes of not so well educated Muslims, western countries will mostly show up to tell, urge or threaten an Islamic State to behave according to their ideas, while they do not help by even causing people to suffer (e.g., collateral damage in invasion wars). There are enough unfavorable incidents to raise suspicions.
But we may relax, a permanent clash with Islamic Nations is probably not imminent. It is hard to tell how prominent the conviction that “western nations are ignorant suppressors” really is, but there clearly are resentments. Likewise, people in western countries maintain resentments against Muslims “with inhumane habits and traditions”. Neither of us should forget that a group always consists of different individuals, however.
“Enlightenment” vs. Religious Devotion
For Islamic and Christian nations, skepticism and a lack of understanding is, in my opinion, a mutual reason for negative or even hostile attitudes towards each other. And our two worlds are very different. The western democracies are secular. In a long process starting with the Age of Enlightenment, the division of religion and politics became a logical consequence and requirement for a fully functional democracy. Any action against anyone or anything is only legitimate in accordance to secular laws. Personal welfare mostly stands above the welfare in one’s afterlife – if one even chooses to believe in it. Traditions have become hobbies or commercialized holidays. There are only few left who lead a life devoted to religion.
Most Islamic nations have not had anything like an “Age of Enlightenment”. Few of them are democracies. They have not had a slow and strenuous reform forcing them to reevaluate religion and the influence of religious leaders. In fact, Islam does not even have a clergy. There are, however, changes and foreign influences in the Islamic culture, but one can easily argue that many of them are “forcefully” imported (Palestinian/Israeli coexistence, Afghanistan, Iraq). Islam means “submission (to the will of God)”, and the five pillars of Islam define lifetime principles that are ingrained in Islamic culture. This hardly comes as a surprise as three of these principles are very ritual: Salah, 5 prayers a day; Sawm, the fast during Ramadan; Hajj, the pilgrimage to Makkah. All of them connected with a number of other rituals. One cannot help living by the rhythm of religion, as everybody is a regular part of a religious community. Traditions play a much more vital role in life. Actions are much more likely to be legitimized by religious rules. This is indeed a very problematic difference.
Thus, while Enlightenment is not only an understood part of western culture, bearing a dash of superiority (“I am enlightened – you are not.”), daily worship of Allah and ensuring the welfare of all fellow Muslims is an understood part of Islamic culture. A Muslim is a person “submitted to the will of God” and, by definition, even a Christian might be called Muslim. One does not need to visit the Amish to imagine how decadent, hypocritical and godless western culture may seem in the eyes of a Muslim.
The Avoidable Jihad Factor
To Muslims, the mere depiction of the Prophet is a sacrilege. Idolatry itself is. One of the basic principles of Islam is to abstain from any divine imagery, icons, idols in favor of the true worship of the Almighty. The implications connected with the Prophet wearing a bomb on his head do easily reach beyond the domain of satire (which may be a necessity of this genre). Not having seen all of it, I can imagine what the cartoonists were aiming at with their work, keeping in mind that the caricature was issued in order to solidarize with a disdained author who failed to publish a book about Muhammad. But satire is a very liberal genre in a very secularized culture. In western cultures it is a commonly accepted type of discourse in order to exchange and analyze thoughts and views. It is tacitly acknowledged that the author’s work is never to be taken literally.
I dare say that Islamic culture is nowadays way more religious than Christian culture. Accordingly, religious symbols are “more sacred” and untouchable. Thus, a provocative caricature using a central element of the religion is a very painful insult. With the given mutual respect for either cultural background the “Jyllands Posten Affair” might have been settled rather quickly and without a defensive focus on the freedom of press. But a certain stubbornness in defending the own cultural convictions and principles made it worse. The affair was given the chance to be exploited and to be declared an attack against the Islam. Not only Islamists know that “Islam permits fighting in self-defense, in defense of the religion, or by those who have been expelled forcibly from their homes […]. The concept of Jihad (struggling in the cause of Allah) is stated in the Qu’ran […].”(www.iad.org). It is a matter of interpretation to decide how grave an attack against the religion is, and with a misinformed crowd at hand, a radical Imam may easily instigate a noisy protest. But it were the Taliban to once again (ab)use the word Jihad as a reaction to the affair.
Right and Wrong
Freedom of expression is a fundamental liberal democratic norm. But in my opinion it was not this freedom that caused the affair. It was a lack of dialogue. The affair was a matter of respect that was at least underrated in the aftermath. It was a matter of insufficient understanding of a different culture and value system. And it was a matter of putting one’s own value system above another. Among various reasons the western value system is good because western culture was allowed to choose it and did choose it when it had reason to do so. I know that this statement is controversial when it comes to human rights in general. However, a desired change of culture or social norms in Islamic countries can only emerge from inside of their societies. It requires a careful dialogue, for nobody will force change into anyone’s head. A dialogue requires mutual respect and understanding. May this article add to it.
The Course of Events
The provocative caricature in the Danish newspaper recently stirred relations between major parts of the Islamic world and Europe. While it was already printed in September 2005, only at the end of January did it lead to violent reactions in a couple of Islamic states, following a reprint in the Norwegian Magazinet on January 10, 2006. (See also Daiana Vasquez’s recent article). The original sacrilege are various depictions of the prophet Muhammad, including one with a bomb-shaped turban. After national and international protests to the Danish Government, in October, the Prime Minister refused to distance himself from the caricatures referring protesters to freedom of press. Then, a group of Danish Imans, Islamic prayer leaders, travels to the Middle East to organize protests throughout the Islamic world. At the end of January, several Islamic countries issue official notes of protest, Saudi-Arabia and Libya call back their Ambassadors to Denmark. A couple of European newspapers reprint the caricatures in support of the freedom of press. The first escalation takes place on January 30, when members of the Al-Aksa Brigades seize a EU office in the Gaza Strip. In the following days, there are various demonstrations, flags are burnt, Norwegian and Danish embassies are attacked. There even are casualties among the enraged crowds in Lebanon, Afghanistan and Somalia. On February 6 and 8 the League of Arab States and the Organization of the Islamic Conference urge protesters to calm down. The following days (up to this day) pass without further violence.
Analyzing the Reactions
Of course the violence against embassies was a shock and fed concerns about the degree of the outrage. I will only concentrate on two questions: Was this the beginning of a fight against the western world? And how did Muslims even get angry at such small western nations?
Pretty soon it became obvious that violent protest and attacks only became possible in countries where the responsible officials let the mob proceed more or less unhindered. The Syrian regime had had trouble with Lebanon and its own citizens, so an outrage against western Kafirs was a welcome distraction. Palestine, Lebanon, Iran and Afghanistan are countries with either a strong influence of radical Islamists (Hezbollah, Taliban) or political problems with Europe and North America (the Hamas in power confronting Israel and supporting nations, Iran and its nuclear program). In general, any faux pas of a part of the western world is a welcome chance for radical groups to rage against it. In any case, did someone ever compare the number of violent demonstrators to the rest of the respective population?
Mostly, western nations represent the economic world elite. It is not hard to understand why also moderate people in Islamic countries (that have not been invaded under questionable circumstances) might not appreciate western culture. In the eyes of not so well educated Muslims, western countries will mostly show up to tell, urge or threaten an Islamic State to behave according to their ideas, while they do not help by even causing people to suffer (e.g., collateral damage in invasion wars). There are enough unfavorable incidents to raise suspicions.
But we may relax, a permanent clash with Islamic Nations is probably not imminent. It is hard to tell how prominent the conviction that “western nations are ignorant suppressors” really is, but there clearly are resentments. Likewise, people in western countries maintain resentments against Muslims “with inhumane habits and traditions”. Neither of us should forget that a group always consists of different individuals, however.
“Enlightenment” vs. Religious Devotion
For Islamic and Christian nations, skepticism and a lack of understanding is, in my opinion, a mutual reason for negative or even hostile attitudes towards each other. And our two worlds are very different. The western democracies are secular. In a long process starting with the Age of Enlightenment, the division of religion and politics became a logical consequence and requirement for a fully functional democracy. Any action against anyone or anything is only legitimate in accordance to secular laws. Personal welfare mostly stands above the welfare in one’s afterlife – if one even chooses to believe in it. Traditions have become hobbies or commercialized holidays. There are only few left who lead a life devoted to religion.
Most Islamic nations have not had anything like an “Age of Enlightenment”. Few of them are democracies. They have not had a slow and strenuous reform forcing them to reevaluate religion and the influence of religious leaders. In fact, Islam does not even have a clergy. There are, however, changes and foreign influences in the Islamic culture, but one can easily argue that many of them are “forcefully” imported (Palestinian/Israeli coexistence, Afghanistan, Iraq). Islam means “submission (to the will of God)”, and the five pillars of Islam define lifetime principles that are ingrained in Islamic culture. This hardly comes as a surprise as three of these principles are very ritual: Salah, 5 prayers a day; Sawm, the fast during Ramadan; Hajj, the pilgrimage to Makkah. All of them connected with a number of other rituals. One cannot help living by the rhythm of religion, as everybody is a regular part of a religious community. Traditions play a much more vital role in life. Actions are much more likely to be legitimized by religious rules. This is indeed a very problematic difference.
Thus, while Enlightenment is not only an understood part of western culture, bearing a dash of superiority (“I am enlightened – you are not.”), daily worship of Allah and ensuring the welfare of all fellow Muslims is an understood part of Islamic culture. A Muslim is a person “submitted to the will of God” and, by definition, even a Christian might be called Muslim. One does not need to visit the Amish to imagine how decadent, hypocritical and godless western culture may seem in the eyes of a Muslim.
The Avoidable Jihad Factor
To Muslims, the mere depiction of the Prophet is a sacrilege. Idolatry itself is. One of the basic principles of Islam is to abstain from any divine imagery, icons, idols in favor of the true worship of the Almighty. The implications connected with the Prophet wearing a bomb on his head do easily reach beyond the domain of satire (which may be a necessity of this genre). Not having seen all of it, I can imagine what the cartoonists were aiming at with their work, keeping in mind that the caricature was issued in order to solidarize with a disdained author who failed to publish a book about Muhammad. But satire is a very liberal genre in a very secularized culture. In western cultures it is a commonly accepted type of discourse in order to exchange and analyze thoughts and views. It is tacitly acknowledged that the author’s work is never to be taken literally.
I dare say that Islamic culture is nowadays way more religious than Christian culture. Accordingly, religious symbols are “more sacred” and untouchable. Thus, a provocative caricature using a central element of the religion is a very painful insult. With the given mutual respect for either cultural background the “Jyllands Posten Affair” might have been settled rather quickly and without a defensive focus on the freedom of press. But a certain stubbornness in defending the own cultural convictions and principles made it worse. The affair was given the chance to be exploited and to be declared an attack against the Islam. Not only Islamists know that “Islam permits fighting in self-defense, in defense of the religion, or by those who have been expelled forcibly from their homes […]. The concept of Jihad (struggling in the cause of Allah) is stated in the Qu’ran […].”(www.iad.org). It is a matter of interpretation to decide how grave an attack against the religion is, and with a misinformed crowd at hand, a radical Imam may easily instigate a noisy protest. But it were the Taliban to once again (ab)use the word Jihad as a reaction to the affair.
Right and Wrong
Freedom of expression is a fundamental liberal democratic norm. But in my opinion it was not this freedom that caused the affair. It was a lack of dialogue. The affair was a matter of respect that was at least underrated in the aftermath. It was a matter of insufficient understanding of a different culture and value system. And it was a matter of putting one’s own value system above another. Among various reasons the western value system is good because western culture was allowed to choose it and did choose it when it had reason to do so. I know that this statement is controversial when it comes to human rights in general. However, a desired change of culture or social norms in Islamic countries can only emerge from inside of their societies. It requires a careful dialogue, for nobody will force change into anyone’s head. A dialogue requires mutual respect and understanding. May this article add to it.
posted by Anonymous
|
link it
<< Home