A call to prevent a
clash of civilizations
The world is facing yet another challenge following the
world-wide controversy caused by the publication of
blasphemous and defamatory caricatures of the Holy Prophet
(PBUH) in some European newspapers. The failure of
governments to address this situation has allowed it to
spread all over the world, with no end in sight. This
situation has been unnecessarily allowed to spiral out of
control and has threatened the concept of peaceful
co-existence. If not addressed, it can lead to a potential
clash of not only civilisations but religions and
societies as well.
This memorandum aims to
put the issue in perspective and to propose realistic and
practicable measures to address it. Much of this debate
has focused on the 'right of freedom of expression' with
its defenders advocating the sacredness of freedom of
speech which needs to be upheld no matter what the
consequences. However in reality the issue is not one of
curtailing the right to freedom of expression since this
is a right that is not absolute and no one can claim so.
Rights are reciprocal and their enforcement is
interdependent on other fundamental rights. To insist that
a right is absolute is erroneous since such a right can
infringe other basic human rights. Every country that
claims to be part of the 'civilized and democratic' world
has put its own limits on freedom of expression in the
interests of society in order to maintain a certain level
of human behaviour, be it based on local norms and
customs, culture or religion but in essence to protect the
dignity of their moral and religious, social, and societal
values.
So to suddenly create an
outcry that the right to freedom of speech is being
undermined by Muslim protests is clearly a fallacy. The
free propagation of child pornography for instance or the
incitements of religious or racial hatred in the media is
banned in many countries and quite rightly so. In many
European countries it is a crime to deny the holocaust,
being a criminal offence in Austria, Belgium, Czech
Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, Poland,
Romania, Slovakia and Switzerland, and is punishable by
fines and a jail sentence. When the British newspaper, The
Independent (27 January 2003) depicted the Prime Minister
of Israel, Ariel Sharon eating the head of a Palestinian
child while saying, ' What's wrong, You've never seen a
politician kissing babies before', this caused an uproar
in Israel and other parts of the world raising tempers
especially in the Jewish and Israeli community around the
world. Whatever the matter of that caricature, the uproar
was a natural reaction of a people for their leader. More
recently when the Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi
compared himself to Jesus Christ the Vatican including
Italian politicians immediately expressed shock and anger
at these comments. A senior Catholic Church official
added, "I know he will say he was speaking in jest but
such things should not be spoken of in jest." The issue
here is not one of curtailing freedom of expression but
objecting to the ridicule and insult towards the scared
elements of an entire civilisation.
There is also a law of
defamation normally under the Law of Tort that can lead to
an individual being compensated for offence caused. The
absolute right to free expression is curtailed in order to
balance the rights of an individual. In the same way an
act that causes offence to a whole community can never be
justified under the banner of freedom of speech. Moreover
in many countries it is illegal or at least discouraged to
degrade or abuse the constitution or certain national
institutions such as the army, courts of law, or
parliament. Contempt of court also exists all over the
world which severely limits freedom of speech, violation
of which can lead to imprisonment. If the right to freedom
of expression is absolute, why are there no objections to
laws such as these?
To give respect to an
individual's honour and dignity is a fundamental human
right protected by law as is the prohibition on blasphemy
and defamation as well as the right to religious freedom.
The UN Charter, Constitutions and Laws from many countries
provide protection to these rights.
The UN Charter recognises
this right in Article 1(ii):
"To achieve international
co-operation in solving international problems of an
economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and
in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and
for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to
race, sex, language, or religion."
It is also recognised in
the European Convention on Human Rights Article 9:
"Freedom to manifest
one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such
limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in
a democratic society in the interests of public safety,
for the protection of public order, health or morals, or
for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
The constitution of the USA, Amendment I of Bill of Rights
states:
"Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
government for a redress of grievances."
Some US states have
blasphemy laws on their statute books. The U.S state of
Massachusetts General Laws states (chapter 272 section
360) "Whoever 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...
Other countries having
blasphemy laws are:
1. Austria (Articles 188,
189 of the criminal code)
2. Finland (Section 10 of chapter 17 of the penal code)
3. Germany (Article 166 of the criminal code)
4. The Netherlands (Article 147 of the criminal code)
5. Spain (Article 525 of the criminal code)
6. Ireland: Article 40.6.1.i of the constitution of
Ireland provides that the publication of blasphemous
matter is an offence. Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred
act 1989, this includes hatred against a group on account
of their religion.
7. Canada Section 296 of the Canadian Criminal code.
Offence against the Christian religion is blasphemy.
8. New Zealand Section 123 of the New Zealand Crimes Act
1961
Churches for instance hold sanctity in the Christian world
and are protected under the constitution in some European
countries. An example is the constitution of Denmark,
section 4 [State Church] which states:
"The Evangelical Lutheran
Church shall be the Established Church of Denmark, and, as
such, it shall be supported by the State." It is evident
from the above mentioned laws that freedom of speech is a
fundamental right but this right is not absolute. There
are hundreds of books and newspaper articles that have
been published attempting to criticize Islam and the basic
tenets of its faith yet Muslims never object to scholarly
debate since they are well aware that this is part of an
ongoing debate on Islam and within the tenets of 'freedom
of expression'. There have been countless newspaper
articles completely misrepresenting Islam, often
publishing clear lies and exaggerated stories about Islam
and its law yet Muslims are tolerant and appreciate that
this is part and parcel of living within societies who
claim this to be part of their 'liberal democracies'.
However when this right of 'freedom of expression' is
abused and the most sacred elements of Islam are
deliberately insulted then this will definitely create
great unrest among Muslims around the world. By depicting
the Holy Prophet of Islam (PBUH) as wielding a knife and
wearing a bomb disguised as a turban on his head is a
deliberate attempt to insult and stir up controversy,
presenting him and his followers as violent terrorists.
Another caricature portrays him as supporting suicide
bombers and saying "Stop, Stop we have run out of
virgins". How can such caricatures be justified under the
banner of free speech? Moreover these caricatures were not
printed within a vacuum but in an environment of an
anti-Muslim bias where tensions were already running
extremely high within the Danish community and indeed
throughout Europe. Only recently the Queen of Denmark had
made controversial remarks stating that: "We have to show
our opposition to Islam and we have to, at times, run the
risk of having unflattering labels placed on us because
there are some things for which we should display no
tolerance."
Moreover many countries
have passed anti-terrorist legislation, severely
restricting the civil liberties of individuals, with the
legislation drafted in a manner that is clearly aimed at
focusing upon Muslims in the countries concerned. There is
a strong feeling that a substantial minority is being
continually abused and misrepresented in the mass media
through the portrayal of negative images not based upon
reality, and then subjected to humiliating checks and
procedures when going about their lives on a daily basis,
all in the name of freedom of speech and national
interest. It is thus highly surprising that the sacred
elements of its faith are ridiculed just in the name of
freedom of expression and speech knowing that the
reactions will be extremely tense. There is no doubt that
the publishing of these caricatures by the newspapers
involved was an exercise to demonstrate control and power
directed against Muslims, either subscribe to our culture
and way of living or suffer the consequences and be
ridiculed and debased.
Realising the
significance of this right some world dignitaries have
condemned the publication of these caricatures and have
emphasised the restriction of the right of the freedom of
speech too.
Kofi Annan: "I also
respect the right of freedom of speech. But of course
freedom of speech is never absolute. It entails
responsibility and judgment." Jack Straw, British Foreign
Secretary: "There is freedom of speech, we all respect
that. But there is not any obligation to insult or to be
gratuitously inflammatory. I believe that the
re-publication of these cartoons has been insulting; it
has been insensitive; it has been disrespectful and it has
been wrong. "There are taboos in every religion. It is not
the case that there is open season in respect of all
aspects of Christian rites and rituals in the name of free
speech. Nor is it the case that there is open season in
respect of rights and rituals of the Jewish religion, the
Hindu religion, the Sikh religion. It should not be the
case in respect of the Islamic religion either. We have to
be very careful about showing the proper respect in this
situation."
The US State Department:
"These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of
Muslims." Spokesman, Kurtis Cooper, said: "We all fully
respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be
coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or
ethnic hatred in this manner is not acceptable." Philippe
Douste-Blazy, French Foreign Minister: "The principle of
freedom should be exercised in a spirit of tolerance,
respect of beliefs, respect of religions, which is the
very basis of secularism of our country."
Vatican cardinal Achille
Silvestrini condemned the cartoons, saying Western culture
had to know its limits. It is thus clearly apparent that
using freedom of speech to imply that there are no limits
to what one can say or do is a myth. An act that offends
the religious and moral values of a community such as
solidarity, integrity and sanctity, resulting in
endangering the peace, cannot be regarded as a right to
express ones freedom of speech. Islam too teaches the
principle of tolerance and co-existence, to live and let
live. It discourages the defamation of other Gods and
religious symbols teaching respect to mankind. (Al-Quran:
Al-An'am: 6:108). Islamic Law lays great emphasis on the
security, dignity and respect of all other religions
together with their beliefs without any discrimination.
If internationally
recognised principles of tolerance and co-existence are
put aside and moral and religious values are dishonoured
then the present situation will worsen and the prevailing
tensions will intensify. Europe considers itself to be an
educated and civilized society but its response to the
gross infringement of the basic right to religion of one
of its minority communities has become un-understandable.
There needs to be some mechanism to put an end to these
horrific occurrences which may prove a potential threat to
world peace. Those who advocate that the right to freedom
of speech is being eroded and any restraints upon it
cannot be tolerated must look within their own 'democratic
societies' and the extent to which their civil liberties
have been eroded through the recent anti-terrorist
legislation. These are the measures that have curtailed
the rights and liberties of individuals and have much more
serious implications which need to be addressed. Muslims
are feeling alienated and targeted thus when newspapers
begin to ridicule the most sacred elements of their faith,
reactions will inevitably be high. If the publication of
the caricatures is not taken seriously and steps are not
taken to resolve the situation, then it can generate
socio-political and economic crises which may lead to a
conflict between civilizations and between nations.
These are the reasons
behind the anger against the publication of these
condemnable caricatures and the anger at the disregard
shown by the governments towards the rightful protests of
the Muslim world against the offence. 1.25 billion Muslims
all over the world have been deeply insulted and instead
of creating moves to resolve the matter, the act is being
continuously justified prolonging world-wide unrest.
In order to solve this
international issue and dissolve the serious tension it
has caused, I propose the following solutions be
implemented:
1. All newspapers that
have published the caricatures must unreservedly apologise
and withdraw their publications.
2. Clear legislation needs to be passed by all Governments
which balance the right to freedom of speech with the
rights of individuals and communities that their sacred
beliefs should not be insulted and ridiculed.
3. All Governments should then ensure that any such
legislation is enforced through the due process of the law
and this type of incitement and ridicule never happens
again.
I expect that common
sense will prevail and responsible leaders will rise to
the occasion and repair the damage that has been done to
inter-civilization relations. I also expect that the
concerned leaders of the countries will display leadership
and bravely extend cordiality to the Muslims of the world.
Prof. Dr. Muhammad
Tahir-ul-Qadri
Founding Leader Minhaj-ul-Quran International (MQI)
Chairman Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT) |
