October 30, 2008
Posted by benedikte in Uncategorized.trackback
Muhammad was just a man
Introduction
The purpose of this essay is to compare national critical reactions in citizen media to the Muhammad crisis in order to examine how different cultures use and perceive citizen media. The comparison will be of citizen media produced by citizens of Danish and Arab origin respectively. Examining the different critical reactions in the context of the Muhammad crisis is especially interesting due to the general different view of freedom of speech in the Islamic and western world.
In order to analyse the critical reactions it is essential to give a brief summary of the conflict leading up to the Muhammad crisis. Secondly I will account for believes and convictions of the citizen journalists in order to understand the reactions expressed.
Background information
September 30th 2005 the Danish newspaper Jyllandsposten publishes 12 drawings of the Islamic prophet Muhammad which leads to the largest political crises in Denmark since the Second World War. What started as a domestic debate about self- censorship grew to an international crisis including boycotts, attacks on Danish embassies, burning of the Danish flag and increasing security alert for Danish soldiers and Danish citizens abroad.
The satirical drawings (which can be viewed following this link: http://www.kritiskportal.dk/g%C3%A6sterubrikken.htm) were a reaction against the difficulty encountered by the Danish writer Kåre Bluitgen, who was initially unable to find an illustrator who was prepared to work with him on his children´s book “Koranen og profeten Muhammeds liv” (The Qur´an and the life of the Prophet Muhammad). Three artists declined Bluitgen´s proposal before one agreed to assist anonymously. According to Bluitgen:
“One [artist declined], with reference to the murder in Amsterdam of the film director Theo van Gogh, while another [declined, citing the attack on] the lecturer at the Carsten Niebuhr Institute in Copenhagen”. (Politiken, 2005)
According to most Muslims it is forbidden to draw pictures of the prophet and therefore Jyllandsposten´s drawings of Muhammad evoke consternation and anger not only in the Danish Islamic society but also within the global Muslims community. Denmark suddenly became an issue in the Arabic world, not for its support of freedom of speech and democracy but for the affront of Islam.
On the other side of the conflict stood the Danes who felt restrained in their support of freedom of speech and democracy in their own country. The issue, which the children´s book about the prophet Muhammad created, became a symbol of year long conflict smouldering in the Danish society where more and more Danes worries about the increasing influence Islam have on the Danish society and values.
Some critics of the cartoons described them as Islamophobic or racist, and argued that they are blasphemous to people of the Muslim faith, are intended to humiliate a Danish minority, or are a manifestation of ignorance about the history of Western imperialism. The imperialism referred to dates from colonialism to the current conflicts in the Middle East.
Supporters have said that the cartoons illustrated an important issue in a period of Islamic terrorism and that their publication is a legitimate exercise of the right of free speech, explicitly tied to the issue of self-censorship. They claim that Muslims were not targeted in a discriminatory way since unflattering cartoons about other religions (or their leaders) are frequently printed. They believe that the cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions. And by treating Muslims in Denmark as equals they made a point: We are integrating Muslims into the Danish tradition of satire because they are part of the Danish society, not strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding, Muslims. They question whether some of the riots in Muslim countries were spontaneous outpourings as they took place where no spontaneous demonstrations are allowed, and whether the images of Muhammad per se are offensive to Muslims, as thousands of illustrations of Muhammad have appeared in books by and for Muslims.
Believes and Convictions
Denmark society is based on Christian believes – the Ten Commandments – like most western societies. The church and the state are separated though which is an important detail in the conflict of the Muhammad drawings. The church has no power in the Danish society and so it is the state which rule in form of the legislative power (parliament), the executive power (government) and the judicial power (court of law).
The Danes are very focused on human rights and thereby the constitutional right to think, believe and speak freely. Two of the cornerstones in the Danish constitution are freedom of speech and religious freedom which means that everyone is entitled to practice any religion they wish and everyone is entitled to speak their opinion whatever their viewpoint – only restricted by defamatory statements, e.g. racially offensive viewpoints. This is the key factor to the publishing of the Muhammad drawing. The Newspaper Jyllandsposten wanted to express how the freedom of speech drowned in self-censorship due to the fear of provoking and anger the Danish-Muslim society.
The Danes are generally less sensitive when it comes to criticism of themselves and their beliefs than the Muslims are. On the contrary there is a long tradition, not only in Denmark but in all of Europe, of critical research of religion. Both with regards to Christianity and other religions, there is normally no limits and therefore critic of Islam is considered completely acceptable in line with criticism of Christianity, priests, Popes etc.
In Islamic societies such as Saudi Arabia or Iran religion and state are not separated and compared to European countries such as Denmark, religion has great influence on society and on both the legislative, executive and judicial power. Believing Muslims live by their interpretations and rules of the holy Koran. Islam includes many religious practices. Generally it is required to observe the Five Pillars of Islam, which are five duties that unite Muslims into a community. In addition to the Five Pillars, Islamic law (sharia) has developed a tradition of rulings that touch on virtually all aspects of life and society. This tradition encompasses everything from practical matters like dietary laws and banking to warfare and welfare. Islamic law does not distinguish between “matters of church” and “matters of state”.
Muslims in general believe that the words of the Koran are God´s words, hence holy and therefore they are not to be criticized, disrespected or doubted. Furthermore they see Muhammad as a role model, but not as divine and therefore they do not worship him. Still it is considered wrong or Haram (forbidden or sin) to picture Muhammad by most Muslims. This is not due to the words of the Koran, (which just like the Bible only forbid pictures of God) but rather due to a set of “Hadith-traditions” in which Muhammad proscribe pictures of any living creature in general. The thought behind the proscription is the risk of being lead astray worshiping pictures or persons rather than Allah which contravene the monotheism of Islam. This aspect is the essential problem in the Muhammad crisis. The Muslims interpret the Muhammad drawings as an insult and derision of their prophet and religion.
From the above written it is clear that the Muhammad crisis is based on the clashing of very different and strong believes and convictions. The problematic can seem irresolvable because one of the involved parts would have to bow to the other parts stance which would make them give up their own believes. The Muhammad drawings are a great example of the Danes trying to communicate that they are not ready to yield or compromise their convictions in order to make room in the Danish society for conflicting Muslims believes. At the same time the demonstrations, the burning flags and the outcries from the Muslims shows how some Muslims refuse to accept the Danish interpretation on freedom of speech.
Since the Muhammad drawings were published in 2005 people around the globe have posted their opinion on the subject in various media not least in cyberspace. New blogs and discussion groups are formed everyday based on the Muhammad crisis but often they are only a jumping-off point for further discussion on topics related to the western culture vs. Islam.
In the following I will compare citizen media produced by persons who either hold the belief of Islam or the conviction of the Danish society. The aim of the comparison will be to examine how the holders of these very different viewpoints will use citizen media, how their viewpoints gets communicated as well as how it is perceived.
Due to lack of language skills it has not been possible to examine any citizen media founded in Arab or Asian countries on the subject of the Muhammad crisis. Furthermore, blogs and discussion boards seems to be rare in the countries where Islam is the main religion, mainly due to poor online access and government controlled internet use (The Danish-Egyptian dialogcenter). Fortunately Danish Muslims with Arab origin along with Danish Citizens have been active on Danish discussion boards and blogs online which therefore primary will work as this essay´s frame of reference. On facebook various groups have been created, dedicated to the subject such as “Undskyld Muhammed” (Sorry Muhammad), “Ingen unskyldning til Muhammed” (no apology for Muhammad) “Where is the love” and “Undskyld Danmark” (Sorry Denmark). Facebook users join the groups either to show their support to the group´s agenda or in order to take part in the discussion boards within the group. Furthermore I will examine two blogs, one created by Pakistani Imran bin Munir Husayn, who is a language student at Copenhagen University and who have dedicated his blog to subjects regarding Islam. The second blog is created by a Danish citizen, who remains anonymous posting under the name “sbrant”.
How citizen media is used
The facebook groups, mainly function as a discussion board and the content therefore consist of dialog between the respective members of the group. Even thought, the name of the group indicate a certain viewpoint, people of the opposite opinion still join the group in order to give their point of view. One group “Ingen undskyldning til Muhammed” (No apology for Muhammad) was created as a retaliation to the “Undskyld Muhammed” –group (Sorry Muhammad). Only the preface, reveal the different approaches to the subject as both groups contain comments from both sides of the conflict. The communication is generally civil with no racially offensive expressions and no swearwords, which both must be considered downsides to citizen media and freedom of speech. In the following a few quotations is listed:
“To show other people respect is always important in a civilized society, but it should be up to the individual person to draw the limit as long as he takes the consequences and full responsability of his own independent actions. We all have the right to be heard, as long as it does not limit the rights and freedom of others.
In Denmark we have freedom of speech and a free and independent press. This means that the government cannot interfere with the press and decide what to publish through censure, unless a law is violated. But no law has been violated. So what about respecting the democratic values and human rights? Those are sacred to us! Respect must go both ways.
A lot of people – even leaders of nations, people who should know better – feel themselves extraordinary offended by some few cartoons in a private owned, Danish newspaper, nobody had even heard about outside Denmark before the 30 of September 2005.” (Danish citizen expressing her opinion, Ingen undskyldninger til Muhammed,1)
“Has Jyllands-Posten insulted and disrespected Islam? It certainly didn’t intend to. But what does respect mean? When I visit a mosque, I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy.
This is exactly why Karl Popper, in his seminal work “The Open Society and Its Enemies,” insisted that one should not be tolerant with the intolerant. Nowhere do so many religions coexist peacefully as in a democracy where freedom of expression is a fundamental right. In Saudi Arabia, you can get arrested for wearing a cross or having a Bible in your suitcase, while Muslims in secular Denmark can have their own mosques, cemeteries, schools, TV and radio stations.
I acknowledge that some people have been offended by the publication of the cartoons, and Jyllands-Posten has apologized for that. But we cannot apologize for our right to publish material, even offensive material. You cannot edit a newspaper if you are paralyzed by worries about every possible insult. I am offended by things in the paper every day: transcripts of speeches by Osama bin Laden, photos from Abu Ghraib, people insisting that Israel should be erased from the face of the Earth, people saying the Holocaust never happened. But that does not mean that Jyllandsposten should refrain from printing them as long as they fell within the limits of the law and of the newspaper’s ethical code. That other editors would make different choices is the essence of pluralism”. (Danish citizen expressing his opinion, Ingen undskyldninger til Muhammed,2)
“Dear all,
A lot of you got invited to this group to defend islam and the prophet.
You have been told to join because danish people are dissing our religion and that this group should be stopped.
Well I am a muslim ain’t? I am one of you..
But i think that there’s a misuderstanding somewhere..
If you take a look at the group description, you would find that there’s nothing in this group that tries intetionly to diss our DIN or our prophet.
They are a group of people defending a right.. their freedom of speach..
I know that you find the cartoons offending… They might be.. But you will never change anything by sending threats and cursing and dissing on the wall or in the discussion rooms..
You are just proving to everyone else that we are what they think we are..A Bunch of illetrate fools..
Some of you earned their respect among others..They managed by their communication skills and their ability to build a decent conversation, to build a bridge of understanding between the 2 sides..
I know one thing for sure.. If you truly love and honour prophet muhammad(pbuh), You will set a good example of his DIN”. ( Yasmin, a Arab immigrant living in Denmark expressing her opinion, Ingen undskyldning til Muhammed,3)
The content of the comments urge the participating parties to understand one another without forcing their opinion on anyone. The discussion is generally reconciling which is best expressed by the Arab girl Yasmin.
The blogs on the other hand have a more aggressive character. This could be due to the fact that they were created with the single purpose of one person to express one self and not as a dialog-friendly discussion group such as the Facebook examples.
The First blogs main purpose is probably to expose the twelve drawings again. (http://face-of-muhammed.blogspot.com/) The first line on the front page states: “I am reposting the 12 cartoons, because I feel like It.” which can be interpreted as provoking to some people. The rest of the content on the blog is pictures and quotes from newspapers and surveys on the subject mixed with “sbrant”´s personal comments such as:
“Dear muslims,
If you do not like my country, please leave.
If you do not like the way our women dress, please leave.
If you do not like our separation of politics and religion, please leave.
If you support violent responses to criticism of Islam, please leave.
If you support terrorism in any way, shape or form, please leave.
If you cannot accept satirical cartoons in our newspapers, please leave.
If you do not support democracy or the freedom of speech, please leave my country.”(sbrant,Face of Muhammad)
The statement is aggressive and the citizen media is here used to public a personal opinion which does not use direct argumentation and which is only informative to those who care for sbrant´s personal view on Muslims.
The second blog (http://www.muwatta.dk/default.asp?side=archive&m=1&y=2006) also has a personal and to some degree aggressive character. The blog is written in Danish which indicate that the message of the blog is directed to Danish speaking people, hence Danes and immigrants to Denmark. The comments about the Muhammad crisis are well argued and the text is informative referring to current events regarding the Muhammad drawings and references made to the Koran and Islamic believes alongside with factual information about Danish legislation. The tone is in some phrases condescending and aggressive towards the Danish government, the Danish society and the Danes. Examples hereof:
”Først og fremmest er det værd at nævne at den danske lovgivning forbyder blasfemi og racisme, men begge disse ting er de mest fremtrædende i denne debat og de satiriske karikaturer er således i direkte modstrid med den danske lovgivning. De er i andre ord en form for kriminalitet – i teorien. I praksis, er det jo de samme folk der sidder på magten, som er en part i denne diskussion og derfor ville det være ret umuligt at få dem til at dømme imod deres “hellige ytringsfrihed”. Juristerne og dommerne er også danskere, og de føler en form for loyalitet overfor det danske folk. De ville hurtigt blive upopulære hvis de dømte i henhold til hvad der er rigtigt, snarer end hvad der behager de magthavende”. (Imran bin Munir, Den velbetrådte vej)
Freely translated:
“Firstly it is worth mentioning that the Danish legislation forbids blasphemy and racism but both of these are the most dominant aspects in this debate and so the satirical caricatures are directly against the Danish legislation. In other words they are a form of crime – in theory. In practice it is the same people in power, who takes part in the discussion and therefore it would be impossible for them to sentence against their “holy freedom of speech”. The lawyers and the judges are also Danish and they feel a form of loyalty for the Danish people. They would get unpopular if they sentenced in accordance to what is right rather than what pleases the authorities”.
“Danmark er ellers det land der råber højest om respekt og tolerance, men hykleri er den egenskab der er mest synlig i offentligheden. Der er ingen respekt eller tolerance i Danmark, for så ville man udvise en form for respekt for muslimer, for Islam og for Profeten Muhammad (Allāhs fred og velsignelser være med ham) og ikke bagvaske, bespotte, nedgøre og tilsvine – alt sammen på falsk grundlag”.(Imran bin Munir, Den velbetrådte vej)
Freely translated:
“Denmark is talking about respect and tolerance but hypocrisy is the feature which is most visible in the public. There is no respect or tolerance in Denmark. If there were, people would show some sort of respect for Muslims, for Islam and for the Prophet Muhammad (Allah´s piece and blessings be with him) and people would not defame, blaspheme, demean, tarnish– all on false basis”.
Compared to the first blog Iman bin Munir´s blog is more factual and serious. His blog works as a forum for him as a citizen journalist and so not only the Muhammad drawings but many subjects are discussed, even though in a very partial way.
Conclusion
The two blogs and the facebook groups are all citizen media which is providing a forum for citizens to express themselves and to debate and report from the events regarding the Muhammad crisis and other aspects in the Muslim vs. western values – debate. Both Muslims and Danes have used the media diligently. In the examples given both Danes and Muslims use the media of facebook discussion groups to create dialog and to express their opinion in a diplomatic way in an attempt to understand each other´s points of view. Other examples show how both Danes and Muslims use the media of blogs to express themselves more aggressively. This does not conclude though, that facebook discussion groups only result in friendly dialog and that blogs always have a more aggressive character. What can be concluded is that Muslims as well as Danes enjoy using their freedom of speech through citizen media. Also it can be concluded that both Muslims and Danes despite different convictions and believes on the subject of the Muhammad drawings communicate both aggressively and diplomatic depending on the individual not on the religion or the race.
References
Face of Muhammed: http://face-of-muhammed.blogspot.com/ 25/10-08
Imran bin Munir:http://www.muwatta.dk/default.asp?side=archive&m=1&y=2006 25/10-08
1. Ingen unskyldninger til Muhammed:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=8832907735 25/10-08
2. ingen unskyldninger til Muhammed: http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=8832907735&topic=4158 25/10-08
3. ingen unskyldninger til Muhammed: http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=8832907735&topic=6319 25/10-08
Politiken(Newspaper): htt://www.politiken.dk/Dybangst/forkritikafislam 18/10 -08
The Danish-Egyptian dialog center: http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:chCHdVENPeYJ:www.dedi.org.eg/dansk/artikler/den-nye-interaktive-mediegeneration/+arabiske+blogs&hl=da&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=dk 18/10-08
Wikipedia: http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammed 16/10-08 18/10-08
Comments»
no comments yet - be the first?