Ovi Magazine Issue #12: Sexuality Published: 01-03-2006

iFormat
Measured
response
By Asa Butcher
It was positive to see Muslims restrain themselves over the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
over the last month. The Western world stopped its claims of freedom of speech for a moment as Muslim leaders
gathered together to join in constructive discourse and urge its followers to show respect for another culture,
despite not agreeing with their beliefs.
Thankfully, there were no images of
burning flags, boycotting of products,
death threats to editors, bomb
threats to newspapers, masked
men shouting and firing guns into
the air, recalling of ambassadors
or mobs attacking embassies. The
Muslim world was angry, but restrained
themselves from resorting
to terror, violence, intimidation and
veiled pressure.
A clash of cultures is emphasised
and not an attack on spiritual values,
although Turkey’s PM Recep
Tayyip Erdoğan is quoted saying,
‘There should be a limit of freedom
of press’ and the United Arab
Emirates moderately describes the
cartoons as, ‘Cultural terrorism, not
freedom of expression.’ The world
sighs in exasperation as Iran misses
the point and declares that it will
hold a contest to find the 12 “best”
cartoons about the Holocaust.
At times like this I am grateful to
be living in such a calm and open
world, in which the exchange of
ides, whether religious or cultural,
are able to be freely discussed
without anybody needlessly dying
or being threatened. Sadly, the only
positive aspect of the whole affair
is that a Danish flag maker is enjoying
record profits.
‘Respect their democratic beliefs’
shouted Muslims across the world,
‘but we must make them understand
why we feel offended.’ Other
Muslims joined in the chorus of
diplomatic arguments expressing
their understanding at the double
standards that they are suddenly
showing, ‘We recognise the fact
that we are outraged by cartoons
of our prophet, but fail to show the
same levels of disgust as innocent
people are slaughtered in the name
of Allah across the world.’
Western governments nodded in
agreement and then explained
how they would not and could not
apologise for what newspapers in
their countries printed because the
democratic system allows freedom
of speech and secondly they have
no control over editorial content.
Muslims solemnly nodded saying,
‘Yes, we understand and acknowledge
your right to caricature God’.
Those Muslims still not pacified
by the peaceful debates decided
to take the Danish newspaper to
court because they wanted to utilise
another method of democracy
that exists in the West. The court
case would be a catalyst for further
dialogue between different nations
and faiths, with no exaggerated responses
from either side.