Washington Post: Why I Published Those Cartoons

Posted by Mohammed El-Beltagy on Feb 23, 2006; 2:38pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Washington-Post-Why-I-Published-Those-Cartoons-tp521395p521418.html

Here is my perspective from Egypt.  There are a couple of crucial points
that I noticed that have been missing in news reporting that you are getting
in the US that might shed some light on the what the fuss is all about and
why the Muslims are reacting the way they do (the protesting, boycott  and
the anger.) :
1. The nature of religious life in the Muslim world
2. The distinction between satirizing Muslims and revered symbols of their
faith

With regards to the first point, it is very difficult to a westerner to
understand how attached Muslims are to their religion and how they revere
its symbols even though my might have very different interpretations. To
help illustrate that matter (I doubt I will be successful), I will share
with you the story of one of my students at Cairo University. Hamid, is a
very jovial young man of average academic performance, his parents are
struggling to get him through college and he sometimes has trouble getting
necessities like books or buying a new pair of pants (he only has two, I
have noticed) . Hamid, has very little prospect of finding employment after
he graduates.  His chances of being able to afford to rent a tiny little
hovel and to settle down with his sweetheart seem very slim. His parents
tell him of much better times when they are able to afford the things that
he now find unattainable. He perceives the ruling elite as corrupt, he knows
is environment is polluted (physically and morally). The only glimmer of
hope in his depressing existence is prayer. He finds comfort and peace in
praying five times a day; it gives him strength to muddle though pain,
poverty and suffering. He can not at all understand why anyone would
satirize the prophet of Islam. He certainly reveres all the prophets of the
new and old testament, his mom (a Muslim also) occasionally lights a candle
to the Virgin Mary at a nearby church for blessing. He knows of political
satire, but before that episode he has never seen any prophet made fun of.
He finds it hard to understand what that has anything to do with freedom of
expression. He asks me, "Is it Okay to deny that holocaust and get away with
it in western press?" I say "No, but the holocaust is confirmed historic
incident that happened not so long ago.religion on the other hand." he
interrupts "My religion is more real to me than their holocaust and they
should have sense to at least not insult my prophet." At that point I can
not carry the conversation further. He gives me an incredulous stare that
reminds of one I saw a couple of years ago when I was out on a desert
safari. It was the speechless reaction of our Bedouin guide when a European
girl on our group was pontificating on the merits of a vegetarian diet
(something that is impossible to do in the Sahara..unless your stomach can
handle bush leaves).



Muslims do make some distinction between what they do and their religion.
So, while they feel very upset by the way they get portrayed in western
media (mainly as terrorist, fanatics, or sex crazed sheikhs) they often
excuse the west of its ignorance of them (some also they many suspect a
conspiracy at work). A great many Muslims have a feeling that they have not
been following the teachings of Islam as they should, and that once they do
they will take there rightful and decent place among nations.  The
conventional wisdom is that they have not done enough to present a good
image of there religion to the west and that more needs to be done. They
know that terrorists have marred the image that the west has of their
religion. So, when those pictures appeared in October there was no immediate
popular reaction and it was thought that matter can be resolved by
reasonable means (of course there were firebrands even then.). But when the
Danish PM refused to even grant audience to the ambassadors of Muslim
countries in the Denmark (a unacceptable behavior when the representatives
of fifth of the world's population want to have a chat with you), and when
Jyllands-Posten refused to even issue some statement to the effect that it
didn't mean to insults Muslims. that is when all hell broke lose. The insult
was felt very deeply. A popular drive to boycott Danish products started and
protests flared across the Muslim world. it was only then that
Jyllands-Posten issued some mildly apologetic statement (a bit too late.
alas). The issue was not about whether the Muslims were satirized or not,
but one about a deeply revered symbol of their religion that has been cast
as caricature through the deeds of some who label themselves Muslims.

Finally, who is to judge if a satire is appropriate of not? What metric can
be used? What are the limits of free speech? I don't see racist or demeaning
cartoons as appropriate satire. I pray for the day when we stop seeing each
other through cartoons and stereotypes and see the diversity of human
culture through a more compassionate lens, a lens though which a culture's
strength, beauty and seeming contradictions are appreciated.