Clash of Cultures

Question:-

What is your reaction to the recent events surrounding the publication of cartoons about the Prophet Muhammad in the European Press? There were mass demonstrations by Muslims in many countries and some had placards demanding death for those who insulted Islam.

Comment:-

(1) There is a clash between the Islamic and the Western culture. Islamic Law recognises the Sacred and requires people to live with mutual respect of each others faith, values and feelings. Western Law does not, but honours and protects freedom of speech. Islamic Law distinguishes between freedom of discussion, which is allowed, and slander which is not. Western Law is self-contradictory about this. The controversy is not so much a question of freedom of speech of insults and defamation. It is not about preventing sober reasonable discussion, but of one sided prejudice and hatred. There are certainly laws against libel and defamation and provocation in the West and many laws that enforce secrecy.

(2) The spread of Islam is feared in the West and this is part of the campaign against Islam.

(3) Insulting the Prophet can only be done by those who are ignorant about Islam but such insults do not hurt the Prophet or God or the faith of Muslims. Muslim reactions, therefore, appear to be inappropriate and not a case of righteous outrage. There have been similar cases of blasphemy in the West against Jesus and other Prophets who are also honoured in Islam which requires that no distinction should be made between the Messengers of God. But Muslims have not reacted with mass demonstrations as in this case, thereby contradicting themselves and showing unjust partiality. The demonstrations appear to be done by the uneducated or low of intelligence at the instigation of trouble makers with an agenda of their own.

(4) It can be argued that nothing good has been achieved from such demonstrations, as can be seen from the case of the Satanic Verses. It has been counter-productive. Mindless hysterics and extremism is not conducive to intelligent response, nor does it inspire respect. If Muslims had not reacted as emotionally as they did, the whole episode would have gone unnoticed instead of being escalated into a major incident that divides people and creates politically dangerous conditions.

(5) However, it does show that there is still something in their religion that Muslims care about while others have sunk into comparative apathy about their religion. This also serves to unite Muslims in their faith and make them more aware of their identity, unity, surroundings and role in the world.

(6) The purpose of these cartoons was intentionally or unintentionally to provoke Muslims and show them up in a negative light in order to mount opposition against them. Muslims fell for this and proved themselves to be vulnerable to manipulation.

(7) Speeches and publications that show insensitivity to the deep feelings of other people must be seen as signs of increasing barbarism. Civilized Societies can only be based on mutual respect. But we live in an age of eroding standards which must necessarily exist before a major transformation of mankind takes place.

A Muslim:-

I do not believe that there is a clash between cultures, at least it isn't true yet. Unfortunately, there are people in the West and in the East for whom the existence of such a clash is seen as benefiting their socio- political agenda.

Comment:-

You may not believe it, but many Muslims and Western people know it to be true.

As I have shown, there is a difference in the Law and values and many Western people most certainly fear the expansion of Islam, though they have been told that Islamic Law only applies to Muslims and Islam recognises that other communities should be ruled by their own laws. But this does not satisfy them. Western, particularly the US policy is to spread and impose Western values on everyone else.

There are most certainly organisations in Europe and America like the British National Party in Britain, that are anti-Islamic.

I know that many millions of dollars are collected and spent by Christian Churches especially to target Muslims. Some Western Governments appear to support these campaigns with money and facilities. There are numerous politicians in the USA and Europe who have expressed anti-Islamic intentions and policies. These must certainly have effects on Government Policies. There are internet sites that have no other purpose but anti-Islamic propaganda (not the defence or propagation of Christianity). And there are people who come to Islamic internet sites only to attack Islam without knowledge.

There is little doubt that the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were based to an extent on the fear of Islam and were meant to create a massive US military presence in the Middle East to act as a coercive and intimidating force and promote Western interests. The policies being imposed on many Muslim countries by the West are most certainly no more Islamic than those of the former secular autocratic regimes. Even when, as they wish, Democratic regimes are set up according to their pattern in Muslim countries, Western regimes still do not wish to negotiate with them but mount subversive actions.

Newspapers most certainly show a bias in reporting. When a Muslim causes a death of innocent people in the West then there is much fuss by the media, but when the US bombs a village in Pakistan or elsewhere killing many innocent people that is just about mentioned or ignored.

It is the invasion and these campaigns that have made many Muslims over-sensitive to criticisms. It is not so much an attack on the Prophet as an attack on the Muslim community.

There is certainly a clash of values between Islam and the West, even if there is no clash between the West and many Muslims living in the West or even in so-called Muslim countries because they have abandoned Islam to an extent and become westernised. However, there is little difference in values between the religions and those who follow them, provided there is no bigotry and narrow mindedness.

A Non-Muslim:-

I'm a non-Muslim, and a Westerner and cannot fathom why any sane person would be so mad about a cartoon. Can you try to explain?

Comment:-

A Muslim is defined as one who has accepted Islam, i.e. has surrendered to Allah (God as described in the Quran). In a more restricted sense, he is a follower of Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah.

Muslims, therefore, apart from being human beings like others, distinguish themselves from others by being followers of the Prophet Muhammad. They identify themselves as such. They love the Prophet.

Therefore, when people insult the Prophet, they feel it as an insult to themselves personally and collectively. And they feel it as an attack on their faith, Islam, which they believe has a deep significance for their own existence as well as for the rest of humanity and the world. It is sacred. Any kind of trivialisation of this by any means is seen as diluting its significance in the minds of people and its role for humanity and the world.

So it is not difficult to understand that Muslims are upset by cartoons that depict the Prophet in an evil, false and insulting manner.

However, it is the case that many have reacted in a mindless "knee jerk" manner without actually feeling and understanding the significance. And they have not considered that others, non-Muslims do not see the same significance and do not, therefore, know what they are doing. And some have psychopathic tendencies and have no consideration or respect for the sensitivity of others and may even wish to provoke extremist reactions, both by Muslims and against them.

Muslims should have simply ignored them. Living in the world does require tolerance and patience, and Islam does teach these. It might be that what Muslims perhaps ought to have done is say in sadness:-

"I forgive them for they know not what they do."

or

"May Allah forgive them for they know not what they do."

But this may not be acceptable, because the abusers will not repent, and to ask forgiveness might be to condone their action.

Critic:-

Someone wrote that in his opinion most people outside the West have no concept what freedom is. You replied that to a large extent the reverse was true. Freedom for Muslims means that people can fulfil their inherent nature – the nature as made by God.

What you are describing is the freedom of the slave. The communists, Nazis, most other tyrants have a similar form of freedom where the subject has the right to do what his masters tell him. Who says that you or Islam even know what is the "nature as made by God?"

Comment:-

For Muslims to be a Slave of Allah is highest freedom which releases them from all other kinds of inner and outer freedom. Read again what I said:- “In other words, every outer or inner restriction environmental, social, cultural or psychological is a form of slavery that must be removed.”

It seems to me that your idea of "Freedom" is self-indulgence in whatever you have been conditioned to and to your lusts and prejudices and whims.

The point is that we are required to find out what the “nature as made by God” is. We have to go by awareness, by knowledge and truth, not by whims, conditioned opinions, and speculation.

We also know that Freedom is good when it leads to good and evil when it leads to evil. That is why all nations have laws to curb evil. I do not think many people know what good and evil are. But we also know that there are more laws in the West restricting freedom than there are in Muslim countries. And that there is more pressure for conformity in the USA than in many other places - even the so called "rebellious" people have their own uniforms and group opinions.

Critic:-

Lack of personal freedom goes to the heart of the intolerance of Islam. Under Islam the individual has the freedom to do what the Mullahs who run the government dictate.

Comment:-

I was talking about Islam not Mullahs. There are abuses by people everywhere. It is a question of education in the right values.

Is it not a fact that in the USA opinions are created by the Newspapers and Politicians? As far as I am aware many perceptive observers, including those in the West have noted that the majority of people in the USA (obviously not all) are the most brain washed people in the world and are easily whipped up into hysterics of various kinds.

Critic:-

Freedom means that the individual is allowed to decide for himself how he will seek or not seek God. Freedom allows Jews and Christians to live in peace as neighbours. It permits atheists to go about their lives unmolested by church or state.

Comment:-

It is Islam that teaches this autonomy. It is not found in Christianity where the Church determines opinions. Later it is those who control the State, the Industry, the News media, the Magazines, Television, and even Science, who control opinion. But people apart from being controlled by these are also controlled by their own accidentally acquired prejudices and desires.

The notion of Religious freedom comes from Islam. It was first stated in the Quran. There have been numerous religious persecutions in the West even in recent times.

Critic:-

I hope that Islam will someday find its way to peace, freedom, and tolerance. Until then, the entire world lives with the burden of militant fanatics who see violence against the innocent as a method of furthering their cause or just inflicting death and suffering.

Comment:-

I and many others think that the greater threat to the world comes from the global terrorism of the US government and its agencies and corporations not only directly but also from the fact that they set up, support and provoke into retaliation all the other terrorist organisations. These latter are comparatively weak and have killed, maimed and destroyed a small fraction of all that the US has. They do not maintain large military bases world-wide.

But hypocritically the US government recognise as terrorists only those who oppose their self-interested policies, and not themselves and through manipulation of information and opinion have spread this idea throughout their populations. It is a case of:-

"And why do you see the mote that is in your brother's eye, but do not consider the beam that is in your own eye?" Matthew 7:3

We note that insulting Muslims and what is sacred to them is allowed on the grounds of freedom of speech. But a historian is jailed now for expressing the opinion more than ten years ago that the Holocaust in which a great number of Jews were murdered by the Nazis did not occur. This is supported by persons in Britain including the Prime Minister Blair.

As for those who say that nothing like this can happen in Britain, we see that the elected Mayor of the London was suspended from office for comparing the actions of certain Jews to Hitler. This was done at the instigation of a Jewish pressure group. Apart from the fact that this like many other events make the claim to Democracy farcical, the bias is obvious in that the protests of Muslim groups was ignored. Note that a great many other people were also murdered by the Nazis, but nothing is said about them. And Muslims have also been murdered in mass by Serbs on religious grounds.

A law has just passed in Britain that makes it a criminal offence to glorify or incite terrorism. Obviously, the prosecution depends on how the term Terrorist is interpreted. It does not, for instance apply to Tony Blair and his henchmen or to President Bush and his henchmen who caused the murder and injury of many thousands of people and much destruction and chaos. The justification for jailing someone for denying the holocaust is the judgement of someone that this denial incites racial hatred and terrorism or glorifies it.

Apart from this there is really no comparison between denying something and insulting a whole religion. That is also inciting. But those who do so get away with it, while those who over react as a result of being offended are prosecuted.

Is this justice or blatant hypocrisy? Should such injustice be tolerated or condoned? Will the world condition improve while injustices exist and hypocrites flourish?

----------<O>----------

Contents