The Cartoons of Wrath

The discussion about the cartoons picturing Prophet Mohammad is raging in Europe, and has just started to invite itself to the United States.

I find those cartoons insulting for several, clearly racist for some, pseudo-artistic for most, tasteless for all.

The facts are well known: first published by a right-wing Danish newspaper last September, the cartoons have been more than once republished in the European press, triggering vast condemnation from Muslims all over the planet, as well as angry demonstrations culminating in the attacks on the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus, Syria.

The publication of those cartoons was, in the first place, a very maladroit move from a newspaper that claims it aimed at 'testing the limits of the freedom of speech'. The clumsy excuse, as well as the insulting cartoons - published under the rather irritating title of "the twelve faces of Mohammad" - is indeed very upsetting, and the initial objection reactions led the newspaper to publish an apology on its website, in Danish, English, and Arabic (with spelling mistakes in the Arabic version, but that's okay).

For the vast majority of us, the issue could have ended there. I do believe that the newspaper miscalculated their little 'media coup'; they apologised for it. But the inept reaction of Danish Prime Minister Anders Foghs Rasmussen who not refused to meet with Ambassadors from Islamic countries and to offer any kind of apology, regret or consolation for his insulted fellow Muslim citizens and constituents was a major political mistake to which the crowd replied angrily.

The main problem does not lie in the fact that someone depicted the Prophet's face, as some naively reported. The representation of God and all the prophets is indeed forbidden in Islam - but it has been done before; and ancient art relics from Islamic countries, depicting the Prophet and his companions prove that religion does not suppress art. The problem stems from the insult to the person of the Prophet, depicting him as a terrorist, a devil, and consequently insulting in the process the Muslim community at large: that is one out of five human beings.

The reason why some may still misunderstand the immensity of the insult we felt is because there is no obvious equivalent in most other societies. Muslims in general feel very close to the Prophet - it is a real familial tie. It is primarily a relationship of love. What would your reaction be if the national press published obscene images of, say, your mother? Or claimed that your family was guilty of the most awful charges? Well, same here.

As the quarrel exponentially grew, various newspapers in Europe decided to republish the infamous drawings. Motives differed greatly from one to the other: the Christian Norwegian "Magazinet" published them first, but the government's reaction was swift and responsible. The moribund French newspaper "France Soir", which I personally find to be the missing link between lousy press and toilet paper, is hopelessly looking for a buyer and clearly needed to offer a 'scoop'. The German conservative newspaper Die Welt, however, did not hide its anti-Islamic and anti-Arab tendencies as it clearly stated that it was in retaliation for the 'hypocrisy' of Arab media! So instead of sending an e-mail to the author of the article or the television show they disliked (like I sometimes do to react or reply to a press article), Die Welt chose the cheap and dishonourable response, insulting 1.3 billion persons in the process. Brilliant logic.

The reaction of some world leaders have been up to the expectations of their citizens; I salute in this respect the Norwegian, British, American and New-Zealander governments. Christian authorities, from the Vatican to Beirut, also condemned insults on all religions. I bow in respect.

In short, the problem remains because of irresponsible and sometimes anti-Islamic press in Europe; and of equally irresponsible response of angry crowds who attacked diplomatic missions and destroyed private property.

This is not a 'clash of civilisations' issue. There isn't even an issue of freedom of speech, to which, believe me, people in many Muslim countries aspire to more than you would think.

It is a matter of fundamental respect, which we must put in a larger context of a rise of ambient anti-Islamic racism in the world. And it is the proponents of such hateful ideas - France's Front National, the Netherlands' Lijst Pim Fortuyn, Belgium's Vlaams Blok and other racist factions - that will be the main beneficiaries of the cornering of Muslims, who were bound to react.

I see no good out of this situation, neither for the Muslim citizens in several western countries, nor for international political and economic relations. But the quicker the solution, the less the damage. The 'damage-control' process would come from Denmark and from Brussels first. At the same time, Muslim countries and leaders need to conduct their people and encourage more sane expressions of anger, firmly refusing and forbidding all kinds of violence, which is absolutely unacceptable, let along incredibly counterproductive. Then, it will all go back to where it started: to the press, and its conscience. I have faith in the press.

May this crisis encourage us to know the 'other', who is often our next door neighbour.