Freedom of Expression or Clash of Values? By: Athar Osama

The recent worldwide reaction against the publication of the objectionable cartoons depicting Prophet Mohammad (Peace be Upon Him) has once again brought the wide gulf in the understanding between Islamic and western societies to the forefront of public debate.

Several commentators, including the Danish government, have suggested that this matter has been blown far out of proportions. They're absolutely right. It has indeed been blown far out of proportions by the easily incite-able Muslim mobs that have gone on a rampage through out the capitals in the Islamic world, targeting western embassies, symbols of western culture and, most ironically, the life and property of their own fellow citizens.

There is little that anyone can say in defense of what has been observed on the streets across much of the Muslim world in the recent weeks. The violent Muslim reaction does not seem to serve any purpose except cementing their own image as an extremist and emotional people, desperate enough to resort to unlawful means of conduct. Unfortunate actions of a very small minority Muslims thus end up defining the Muslim image and feeding a stereotype for the whole of Islam that cannot be farther from the truth.

While the Muslim reaction to the cartoon episode is mind-boggling, so is the European stance that had led to this provocation. Clearly, it was not the first publication of the cartoons--in September 2005 that attracted only minor, localized, and peaceful protests--but the repeat publication in other European newspapers--in clear and blatant defiance to the sensitivities of a billion-and-a-half Muslims around the world--that has resulted in what we are witnessing today.

Had the Europeans tackled the issue in an adroit and respectful manner that it was worthy of, it would have simply died down in due course of time but the Danish, and others, saw this as an opportunity to make a point or two about freedom of expression and here we are, once again, at the brink of a ever-growing gulf between Islam and the West. The choice of the subject as well as the timing couldn't have been more unfortunate. For our lack of collective judgment, Dr. Huntington would be a happy man today.

So why is this such a big deal for Islam?, one may ask. Being a Muslim myself, I can understand why Muslims around the world would find it offensive and hurtful to see their beloved and revered Prophet (PBUH) becoming an object of somebody's ill-conceived and misdirected mischief. Islam expressly prohibits rendering prophetic figures to graphical art for the fear of encouraging idol worshipping and also for pure respect of the prophets themselves. This not only applies to Islam's own Prophet but also to all prophets throughout history.

Creating highly provocative cartoons of such revered personalities is not only bad taste but also very bad satire. The editor of the Danish newspaper that started this episode in a CNN interview wondered why why Muslims can't see the intended message in these cartoons, while many Muslims seem to be thinking precisely what that intended message actually is? The Danes haven't gotten around to providing any satisfactory explanation or enlightenment on that issue and one cannot help but think that there isn't much to offer in that respect either.

This is clearly not just a freedom of expression issue. The writer Robert Fisk, in a recent piece on the subject, highlights the duplicity of standards that European governments are guilty of. He maintains, for example, that denial of or writing anything against the holocaust is prohibited by law in many European countries. In any case, if someone dares to do so, he or she would be immediately accused of anti-semitism and forced to retract and apologize. If the freedom of speech were absolute, as the Europeans seem to claim in this instance, it would have also applied to anti-semitism. But it doesn't and very rightly so.

In fact, the International Herald Tribune recently reported that the Danish Newspaper that published Prophet Mohammed's cartoons rejected a set of cartoons of Jesus Christ in 2003 on the pretext that they might affect the sensitivities of a vast number of people--Christians around the world. Why should a newspaper editor use a particular standard of self-censorship in one particular instance and a different standard in a different--yet very similar- instance. Similarly, the most recent publication of additional pictures from Abu Gharib abuse in some Australian newspaper seems to have attracted an irritated reaction from the Bush Administration that seems to view it as being highly inflammatory to Muslims' sensititives. Doesn't freedom of expression apply in this instance too?

In this day and age when the world faces the scrooge of international terrorism and building bridges of understanding between civilizations is the only way to fight it, the Europeans have embarked upon a quest that is bound to get all Muslims--not just extremists and fanatics--on the wrong side of this struggle. If one has no regard for the religious sensitivities of a billion-and-a-half Muslim population, how does one plan to convince them that it is not fighting a battle against their faith?

Even if it were an issue of freedom of expression, however, a little more common sense would have been helpful. The best way to protect freedom, an NPR commentator argued recently, is not to misuse it. Indeed, freedom of expression is a laudable value that many of us in the Muslim world positively identify with, exercise ourselves, and struggle to bring to our closed societies. However, we also know that our freedom ends where it impinges on others' freedoms and sensitivities.

Even in America, there are laws that make it possible for us to enjoy our freedoms while protecting others'. For example, it is nearly impossible for anyone to "freely" roam around displaying nudity because, although he/she might see it as a part of a freedom to express, others may not see it that way and by doing so in public he/she might cause grief and distress to others. That the freedom of expression is not an absolute concept is a lesson that now seems lost on the Europeans, in particular, and the west, in general.

This is clearly not an issue about the freedom of expression. It is in fact a very crude manifestation of a clash of values that has been seething beneath the surface for a while now. Europe clearly believes that freedom of expression is a sacred value worth fighting for but it must also understand that other civilizations and cultures also hold certain values as sacred and that they have every right to do so. A billion-and-a-half Muslims, for instance, hold the respect of Prophets--all Prophets, not just their own—at least as sacred as freedom of expression, if not more.

When these two sets of values clash, we have to find a way to accommodate both by reaching a solution that is respectful of each. Can Europe live without disrespecting Islam's Prophet (PBUH) or must indecency towards their Prophet (PBUH) be thrust down the throats of a billion-and-half Muslims as a necessary cost of life in the twenty-first century? Would respecting our prophets seriously jeopardize the freedom of expression in European societies? Would this achieve any meaningful purpose? The world--both Muslim and non-Muslim--must ask itself these questions and more.

Only by building bridges of understanding and respecting each others traditions and values can we co-exist despite our differences, conduct ourselves in this dangerous world, and build a better tomorrow for our future generations. What we really need is a compact that allows civilizations to peacefully co-exist as they enjoy their own freedoms. Every bit of this ambitious project is worth taking on. Episodes like these not only do not achieve anything, they only make the ultimate task more difficult.

The author (athar.osama@gmail.com) is a public policy analyst based in Santa Monica , CA.