Rev Prof Amjad-Ali on the Cartoon Controversy

The Revd Charles Amjad-Ali, Ph.D., Th.D.
The Martin Luther King Jr., Prof. of Justice and Christian Community
Prof. of Islamic Studies and Christian-Muslim Relations Luther Seminary, St. Paul Minnesota, USA
Visiting Priest with the Anglican Diocese of Johannesburg and resident at St. Michael’s Parish
Senior Research Fellow Ditshwanelo CARAS, Johannesburg, South Africa

Over the past few months a major controversy has erupted over some cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed published in Denmark. This controversy has escalated, causing loss of life and  destruction of property around the world. We are horrified by the rioting and are deeply grieved by the dozens of deaths that have occurred in Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, India and elsewhere. Our sense of decency causes us to find all this very appalling and to condemn these acts. However, it is not enough to react only to these images and news; we must fully understand what    sequence of events led to this. This is difficult because the same media which is giving us such gruesome images is failing to give us a full picture of the underlying causes behind this violence.  

On 30th September, 2005, Jyllands-Posten, a right-wing newspaper, published 12 cartoons that vilified the Prophet Mohammed, portraying him as a terrorist, and an encourager of suicide bombers, etc. The paper and many       Europeans have justified the cartoons’ publication on the high moral ground of protecting free speech. This self-righteousness is galling and needs to be challenged. The rights of free speech and expression are always limited by necessary corresponding responsibilities, including the need to take cognizance of, and safeguarding, the rights of others. These responsibilities are recognized in Sections 266b and 140 of Denmark’s own penal code; in     Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and in Article 10 of the European Charter on Human Rights. In South Africa, Article 16 of the Constitution contains similar and clear limitations. In all these cases, clauses guaranteeing freedom of speech and expression are quickly    followed by limitations stating that such rights do not extend to infringing upon the rights of others, nor to hate speech, or to vilifying others. Those hiding behind freedom of speech are either ignorant of these caveats, or they are conveniently overlooking them, out of the combination of Islamophobia, racism and xenophobia that is   becoming apparent in Europe today.

It is clear the paper published these images in order to inflame Islamophobia in its readers, and to incite the sensibilities of Muslims. Just three years earlier the same paper, rightly I might add, refused to publish blasphemous cartoons of Jesus, stating that they would offend readers and create an outcry. So they were aware that such cartoons are highly offensive. Thus, the publication of the cartoons of Prophet Mohammed was clearly meant as a hate speech to offend Muslims through consciously vilifying and maligning them, and the newspaper knew the effect such cartoons would have. Therefore this should be treated as a criminal act and prosecuted by the Danish state, precisely in order to protect the sacredness and efficaciousness of the rights of free speech and expression: exactly because these rights are sacred, the cartoon controversy must be seen as a violation of free expression and not as a protection of it.

To use this controversy as an example of Samuel Huntington’s banal treatise about an inevitable “clash of civilizations” is simply to reinforce the existing prevalence of xenophobic, racist and anti-Islamic prejudices in Europe, and by extension, in other parts of the world. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, just as the cartoon controversy is. If you show the Prophet Mohammed as a terrorist, you know in advance Muslims of deep conviction and with a strong commitment to their faith will find that portrayal or any portrayal of the Prophet, to be offensive and blasphemous and they will react. Just think of how we as Christians would react to a cartoon depicting Christ as a prison guard violating Geneva Conventions in           Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib? Or to a cartoon showing Jesus wearing a crown of nuclear bombs instead of thorns, representing the so-called “Christian World” and its immense destructive power? Christians would be correct to see the intent as clearly mala fide and that the issue at stake is not freedom of speech but conscious vilification. And if some Christians responded with angry actions, we would understand this. Jyllands-Posten refused the earlier cartoons of Jesus, and knowingly solicited blasphemous cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, precisely to elicit just the kind of response that has come to pass. To paraphrase the American civil rights leader, Martin Luther King Jr., “first they cut off my limbs and then they call me handicapped.” In that instance the reference was to the US systems which kept African Americans deprived, and then used their low socio-economic status to “prove” their inferiority. Such inversion of causality is not only illogical but highly immoral and must be condemned vociferously.

Since 2001 Denmark has become increasingly xenophobic and racist, with the political right scapegoating the small Muslim population in order to gain politically. A case in point is the rise of the Dansk Fokeparti. Formed in 1995 as an anti-immigration party, in 2001 it became the third largest party and joined the center-right governing coalition which within six months adopted anti-immigration policies. This is a growing trend in Europe and hence there is an increasing need to speak out against it now.

Precisely because we hold the freedom of speech and expression as sacred rights, to be protected, upheld and       practiced in all societies, we must condemn the publication of these blasphemous and hurtful cartoons and ask the state of     Denmark, as well as other European countries, to treat this and other such acts of hate speech, of vilifying neighbors, and propagating anti-immigrant xenophobia and racism, as crimes that must be prosecuted. Those hiding behind the freedom of speech and expression, while consciously perpetuating an offensive hate speech, are      demanding that we trump all other rights by these freedoms. Therefore while fully affirming the sacrality of the freedom of speech and expression, we must also state categorically that they are but a few of the many rights we uphold as sacred; and that the rights of freedom of speech and     expression must not be allowed to trump the other sacred rights enshrined in international and national laws, regimes, and protocols.

This article is reproduced by courtesy of St. Michael’s Church Bryanston, South Africa