|
Recent
attacks on the Prophet
ISLAM
OUR
PUBLICATIONS
AUDIO/VIDEO
PAST
EVENTS
CONFERENCE
2005
CURRENT
EVENT
CHARITY
|
|
|
Reflections
on Hatred
and the Defamation
of the Prophet Muhammad
[God's
peace, mercy and blessings be upon him and on all the prophets
and messengers] [1]
Jamaal
Zarabozo
My
freedom of speech ends where your personal dignity begins |
|
The
Legal Framework
The Dangers of Defamation
and Ridicule in the Media
Who Would Want
to Participate in or Support Such Defamation and Hate-Filled
Actions?
Defamation versus
Critique
Conclusions
References
BACK
TO THE MAIN PAGE
|
|
When
it comes to the relations between “the West” and the “Muslim
world,” there is no question that we are currently living
in an environment of heightened fear, hatred, anxiety, violence
and extremism. We are living in a time in which the prudent
and wise person will think about what he will say or do. It
is obviously not a time in which we avoid speaking the truth
and working for justice—as that is always a given. However,
it is a time for reasonable people to avoid anything that
can be used in a negative way to further destabilize the situation
and cause senseless harm.
In
particular since 9/11, one often hears the following question
being posed by the people of the West, “Why do they hate us?”
It is interesting to observe what behavior is occurring at
the same time that they are asking this question—and, in fact,
what behavior has been occurring for centuries, as shall be
noted later. At the same time that they are, it must be presumed,
sincerely asking the question, “Why do they hate us?” many
of their societal leaders and many in their media continue
to disrespect and ridicule Islam, Muslims and even the Prophet
Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)—doing
acts that seem to be intended only to hurt the feelings of
the Muslims. Most recently, one can point to the cartoons
in Denmark that depicted, for example, the Prophet Muhammad
(peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) having a bomb in
his turban.[2] These classless and offensive cartoons were
later republished in other newspapers throughout Europe, demonstrating
support for the original publishers.[3] Even before these
events, one can find Christian leaders and social commentators
in the United States making antagonistic and hate-provoking
statements about Islam or the Prophet Muhammad (peace and
blessings of Allah be upon him), calling him a terrorist or
even a child molester. The situation has not been much better
in Europe, although they have much larger Muslim minorities.
In
this environment, beyond asking “Why do they hate us?” perhaps
another important question needs to be asked by all: Is our
own behavior leading us in a positive or beneficial direction?
Maybe the answer to this question may shed some light on the
answer to the aforementioned question.
|
|
|
|
The
Legal Framework
Those
who engage in the practice of defaming Islam or the Prophet
Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) have claimed
that they are simply exercising their rights of freedom of
speech, opinion and belief. Within the Western framework,
they may have an argument. At the end of January 2006, the
Blair government was defeated in attempting to pass a law
that would have made ridiculing faiths and religious leaders
a type of hate crime. In an interview with BBC on February
1, 2006, a Member of Parliament who opposed the bill said
that the law must protect life and property but need not protect
“feelings.” Thus, as long as a person’s “life or property”
is not physically attacked, one should be free to express
what one wishes. This approach reflects the currently accepted
Western emphasis on individual rights as opposed to social
welfare. Indeed, in the aftermath of the dispute concerning
the cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings
of Allah be upon him), some in Europe are proudly—actually,
arrogantly—proclaiming that they have the right to insult
God if they want to.
Whatever
the man-made legal rights may be and ignoring the gravity
of the manner in which such insults have been done, what if
such statements do eventually lead to harm and attacks on
life and property? What is the logic behind permitting “causes”
that lead to “harm” while prohibiting the act of harm in itself?
For example, is there anything reprehensible about drunk driving
in itself or is it prohibited by law only due to the harm
that it can result in, the loss of life and property?
In
any case, of course, simply because something is legal by
law does not necessarily imply that it is moral or even wise.
In the current environment, this is the more important issue.
One should never invoke one’s “rights” in defense of harmful
and hateful actions that could eventually even lead to bloodshed.
Thus, it is not a matter of passing new laws, as was attempted
in England. Instead, it is a matter of recognizing the morally
correct path to follow and the prudent path to follow.
|
|
|
|
The
Dangers of Defamation and Ridicule in the Media
No
one can doubt that images and stereotypes presented in the
media are very powerful. In many cases, they form a person’s
perception of reality. In particular, many of the West, more
so in the US than in Europe, do not have first hand experiences
with Muslims and therefore they must rely on the media to
develop their perception of Islam and Muslims. Nacos and Torres-Reyna
write, “Some 55 years ago, before the advent of television,
Walter Lippmann observed that what people know about the world
around them is mostly the result of second-hand knowledge
received through the press and that the ‘pictures in our heads’
are the result of a pseudo-reality reflected in the news.”[4]
Thus,
the press bears a great responsibility. What and how the press
presents something can ultimately lead to decisions of life
and death or war and peace. Indeed, political cartoons and
yellow journalism can be sufficient to drive a country into
a war frenzy—as they appeal to the emotions of the masses.
Anyone familiar with the Spanish-American War is well aware
of this fact. There were powerful forces in the United States
who were determined to go to war against Spain, fearing the
“Spanish threat” on the Americas. The New York Morning
Journal (headed by William Randolph Hearst) and The
New York World used yellow journalism to depict Spanish
oppression in Cuba. Even though President McKinley wanted
to follow a hands-off policy, the effect of the media was
such that it led to great popular support to come to the aid
of the Cubans. This put great pressure upon President McKinley,
leading him to send the Battleship Maine to Havana in 1898.
The Battleship Maine exploded. The Navy at that time was unable
to determine the cause of the explosion—although more recently
many have concluded that it was due to mechanical problems.
At that time, the Spanish offered to turn the issue of responsibility
over to an arbitrator. However, even without being able to
identify the exact cause of the explosion, the media pounced
on the opportunity, spread the slogan “Remember the Maine,
to hell with Spain” and continued to depict the evil Spaniards
in their cartoons. The United States was now definitely going
to war. The lessons of those events should not be lost on
the world today.
Another
example of the influence of the press is discussed in the
following passage: “The racism that led to the internment
of Japanese-Americans during World War II was created partly
by the motion picture industry, which for years typecast Orientals
as villains, and partly by the press, especially the newspapers
of William Randolph Hearst.”[5] Today, of course, the internment
of the Japanese is something that we Americans remember with
shame.
The
result—if not the goal—of blatant defamation and ridicule
is the dehumanization of the enemy. When the enemy is dehumanized,
one no longer cares how much they suffer. One can then do
things to them that humans would, under normal circumstances,
completely shun—such as all forms of horrendous torture and
humiliation.
|
|
|
|
Who
Would Want to Participate in or Support Such Defamation
and Hate-Filled Actions?
Inexcusable
defamation is occurring. Before discussing who may be pleased
with such occurrences, I would like to first discuss who should
not be participating in such activities.
First,
it seems to me—and only God knows—that those who want to display
the Christian witness to humanity certainly should shun and
oppose any such behavior. It is the Christian who usually
claims that Muslims do not understand that “God is love” and
that one should love one’s enemy. Thus, they should be at
the forefront of putting an end to such harmful statements
and defamation of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings
of Allah be upon him). These shameful acts certainly do not
demonstrate grace and love.
Second,
those who are truly interested in peace must also take a stand.
You cannot simultaneously allow and support hate-provoking
messages and ridicule while at the same time claiming to be
working for true peace among the different peoples. True peace
cannot come without some form of mutual respect and understanding.
Certainly immaturely attacking the icons or beliefs that are
dear to millions living on the planet could not be seen as
a means of respect and understanding.
Third,
those who are interested in human rights and human dignity
should also be outraged at what is done in the name of freedom
and human rights. If the concept of human rights is going
to mean anything it should at least mean respect for humans!
To unjustifiably ridicule, attack or defame others should
be considered a violation of one’s right to a decent life
without unwarranted aggression and attack. When will the paradox
of humans being dehumanized and humiliated in the name of
human freedoms and human rights ever be solved? Indeed, when
will secular humans finally realize that such is a paradox
for which they may never have a solution?
Muslims
also should never engage in false or ridiculing propaganda
against others. Even if there is great hatred between the
Muslim and others, a Muslim is never allowed to deviate from
what is truthful and proper. This is because the ultimate
goal of a Muslim is the pleasure of God and God is pleased
with truth and justice. The mere ridicule of others resulting
only in increased hatred—not to speak of hatred between individuals
but, indeed, even a hatred for God’s religion—is not part
of the character of a Muslim. The following verses of the
Quran should make all Muslims alert to these points:
“O
you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses
for Allah, even though it be against yourselves, or your parents,
or your kin, be he rich or poor, Allah is a Better Protector
to both (than you). So follow not the lusts (of your hearts),
lest you may avoid justice…” (al-Nisaa 135);
“O
you who believe! Stand out firmly for Allah and be just witnesses
and let not the enmity and hatred of others make you avoid
justice. Be just: that is nearer to piety, and fear Allah.
Verily, Allah is Well-Acquainted with what you do” (al-Maaidah
8);
“And
do not insult those [objects of worship] whom they worship
besides Allah, lest they insult Allah wrongfully without knowledge.
Thus We have made fair-seeming to each people its own doings;
then to their Lord is their return and He shall then inform
them of all that they used to do” (al-Anaam 108).
The
question then remains: Who is it that could possibly be pleased
with and support such rude and ill-mannered behavior as the
defaming of the spiritual leader of almost one-fifth of the
planet? Unfortunately, there are a few categories of people
who are actively pushing and promoting a phenomenon described
as “Islamophobia,”[6] putting the fear of Islam and Muslims
in the hearts of non-Muslims. It is hoped that no rational,
sincere person would want to be from these different groups
of people who foster such hate and, eventually, violence.
First
and most obvious are people who are simply racists. These
people have a hatred for all “others” and see them as inferior,
untermenschen. They want their own people to also hate
the “other” and therefore they are happy to spread any slurs
or insults. The whole basis of racist thought is that someone
is superior not due to anything that he has actually done
but only due to something given to him by God and over which
the individual himself had no control or choice. It seems
that this would appeal most to persons who have no individual
redeeming qualities of their own! Be that as it may, it is
amazing how prevalent racism and racist feelings are in the
West. It is the people of the West, in general, who are saying
that they want the Muslims to become modernized, claiming
that Islam and Muslims are barbarians, backwards, uncivilized
and un-modernized. Is it any wonder that their message has
been unappealing to so many Muslims?
Unfortunately,
there are also many strong political factors behind the current
demonizing of Muslims. There is a political-philosophical
belief that one’s country needs a well-defined and dangerous
enemy. Especially since the end of the Cold War and the collapse
of the Soviet Union, that enemy has more and more been identified
as Muslims and Islam (sometimes referred to in more politically
correct terms as “fundamentalist Islam”). One can return to
the example of the Soviet Union to see how an enemy can be
created and made as giant as can be. During the 1950s, the
children of the United States were repeatedly going through
drills in case the Soviets should attack the US with nuclear
weapons. Looking back, the reality seemed to be very different.
Former US statesman George Kennan, who had originally proposed
the policy of Russian containment, admitted that he knew that
Russia did not want to go to war. He stated, “The image of
a Stalinist Russia poised and yearning to attack the West,
and deterred only by [US] possession of atomic weapons, was
largely a creation of Western imagination.”[7] A report in
the Guardian also states that British military and
intelligence chiefs believed that, “The Soviet Union will
not deliberately start general war or even limited war in
Europe,” so said a classified paper marked “Top Secret, UK
Eyes Only.”[8] One of the leading proponents of the concept
of the clash of civilizations, Samuel Huntington, is himself
one of the believers in this outlook. Among the many things
he stated pointing to this view of the world is, “We know
who we are only when we know who we are not and often only
when we know whom we are against.”[9]
Finally,
those Muslims who might hold some extreme views in regards
to the West are also very happy with such practices that demonstrate
the West’s lack of respect toward Muslims. In turn, they use
this as an argument that the people of the West, therefore,
are not deserving of respect. They want no limits to the manner
in which they fight—and it is only a small step from quoting
non-Muslim disrespect for Muslims to convincing a person that
civilian non-Muslims, therefore, are also not deserving of
respect. Hence, those people who defend acts of defamation
and ridicule in the name of “rights and freedoms” are simply
playing right into their hands.
These
are the main categories of people who would be pleased with
such acts of defamation and ridicule of the Prophet Muhammad
(peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), of Muslims or
of the “other” in general. As stated earlier, it is hoped
that rational and sincere people would not wish to be counted
among such groups of people.
However,
there is another important point that needs to be made. This
has to do with those who defend such hate-producing acts,
again probably in the name of free speech, liberty and so
forth. What, though, is the difference between defending acts
like this—that lead to more hatred and therefore more violence—and
directly supporting known terrorists? Yes, one can argue that
there is a difference. But to the person who truly wants to
take responsibility for the ramifications of his actions (what
he does as well as what he advocates), he should consider
what occurs when he supports or sees nothing wrong with denigrating
and defaming others in such a manner that will only produce
more hatred. There is no question that this hatred may easily
lead to more violence, bloodshed, turmoil and suffering. Certainly,
he cannot truly believe that his hands are absolutely free
of any guilt.
|
|
|
|
Defamation
versus Critique
Most
of the inhabitants of the West are non-Muslims. Many of them
are not Muslim because they feel that there is something unacceptable
in Islam. Hence, it is to be expected that they would have
thoughts about the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of
Allah be upon him) that Muslims would not share. The Prophet
(peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) himself debated
with Jews, Christians and polytheists who did not believe
in him and even after discussions with the Prophet (peace
and blessings of Allah be upon him) himself they remained
true to their own faiths. Thus, no one, Muslim or otherwise,
should be surprised if a non-Muslim has a lesser opinion of
the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) than
a Muslim has.
The
Quran welcomes discussion and dialogue with the non-Muslims:
“Invite
(mankind, O Muhammad) to the Way of your Lord with wisdom
and fair preaching, and debate with them in a way that is
better. Truly, your Lord knows best who has gone astray from
His Path, and He is the Best Aware of those who are guided”
(al-Nahl 125).
In
fact, more than once, the Quran even asks the non-Muslim to,
“Produce
your proof if you are truthful” (al-Baqarah 111; al-Naml
64; al-Qasas 75).
Thus,
the objection is not to non-Muslims—especially in their own
lands—expressing their view about the Prophet Muhammad (peace
and blessings of Allah be upon him). If what they state is
sincere and rational, then they can be spoken to on a rational
level with sincerity. Indeed, Muslims welcome such discussions
and, in reality, such discussions are best for Islam, because,
to this day, most of the people in the West have distorted
views of Islam. If they wish to express their views honestly
and discuss them honestly, they can be presented with the
truth of Islam. This act in itself may reduce the tension
and discord that exists between non-Muslims and Muslims. In
fact, after the events of 9/11, many Americans took the effort
to find out more about Islam and there was much more exposure
of Islam and Muslims. Thus, in comparing surveys before 9/11
and after 9/11, Nacos and Torres-Reyna found that “the American
public in general viewed Muslim-Americans more favorable after
September 11, 2001.”[10]
One
can respond to rational arguments with an honest and straightforward
rational discussion. However, there is no real response to
something that is meant only to ridicule, insult or harm.
In
sum, if non-Muslims want to debate and discuss the real issues
of religion and belief, Muslims are more than ready to do
that. If they resort to defamation and ridicule, then they
should not be surprised if they are in turn responded to with
hatred and disrespect. There is no need for them to then ask,
“Why do they hate us?” The answer should be clear.
Actually,
there is one author who makes the point that those in the
past who attacked the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings
of Allah be upon him) did so in an attempt to avoid discussing
the real issues. Minou Reeves writes in a work entitled Muhammad
in Europe: A Thousand Years of Western Myth-Making,
The
trouble started with early medieval Christian polemicists.
They chose not to attack Islamic theology, which was too seductive
in its simplicity and clarity, and which raised too many awkward
questions about Christian dogma. Nor could they cast doubt
on the pious practice of ordinary Muslims. Instead, anticipating
the worst excesses of tabloid journalism, they personalized
the issue and attacked the Prophet of Islam, dispensing with
all but the barest knowledge of any facts and inventing falsehoods.
Muslims could not reply in kind, since they are told by the
Qur’an to revere Jesus as a holy prophet.[11]
It
seems that not much has truly changed over the centuries.
|
|
|
|
Conclusions
In
conclusion, I think all in the world can agree that mutual
understanding, mutual respect, peace and justice certainly
will never result from defamation, ridicule and insult. Therefore,
there is no real benefit from defaming or denigrating the
Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)
in a manner like the recent political cartoons in Europe.
The only result that one can expect from such practices is
more hatred, violence and fear. Certainly, if you disrespect
someone else, you cannot expect that he will show great respect
for you in return. If this hatred does turn into more terrorism,
the longer term result may simply be more restrictions on
civil liberties and freedoms in the West. Those who are supporting
such cartoons in the name of rights and liberties may, in
the long-run, find their liberties restricted because of what
these disrespectful acts produced. In essence, nobody wins
in the long-run. There is simply no rationale for such behavior.
At
the same time, we have to call upon all interested parties
to show restraint and to consider what ramifications anything
that they say or do might have. Muslim scholars should take
the lead, as they have done in the past, to stress to the
Muslims that the actions of the non-Muslims should never anger
them so much that it leads them to do something that contradicts
the Law of Islam. It is time for leaders in the West to realize
that the “freedom” which is very dear to the Western conscience
should not be an unwise or harmful freedom. I believe it was
Milton Friedman who stated, “My freedom to swing my fist stops
where your chin begins.” In today’s turbulent environment,
perhaps it should be said—not as a law but as moral behavior—“My
freedom of speech ends where your personal dignity begins.”
|
|
|
|
[1]
©2006, Jamaal Zarabozo
|
|
|
|
