Home >> Europe >> Culture

     Email   Print 

Cartoon Controversy and

Amit Pyakurel - 2/5/2006

The caricature satirizing Prophet Muhammad, the founder of Islam whose political and social principles is considered as the basis of Islamic civilization, was firstly published on a Danish private newspaper, that ostentatiously invited reprisals and soaring violence from the Muslim community in the Danish capital and other parts of the world. The newspaper says that it doesn't regret for publishing the cartoon, and some other private newspapers in the Europe also printed the same depiction, showing their solidarity on the grounds of "freedom of expression".

The uproar caused from this depiction has recently destroyed a Danish embassy in Syria, which the US says that protest on that degree couldn't have been possible without the support of the Syrian government. A Norwegian embassy was also not spared by the agitation when hundreds of Muslim protestors took out to streets angering upon the "humiliating" portrayal of their divine symbol.

What does such incident entails to this age when the information technology has attained such a height enabling the world to be compressed, and the influence of "freedom of expression" is upholding its justification not only in a comparatively free society but even beginning to take root in places that are considered to have less liberal mechanism? The matter of expression has become more sensitive and a information departed in a corner of the globe could provoke a global uproar, and any information could also create chaos when negative aspects prevails among some people with confined attitude, who may be within ethnic, national, racial, or social border.

It is hard to answer that what could be the borderline on which the free speech should be restricted if it is unjustifiable in somebody's point of view or might harm somebody's liberty or dignity?


The violent reaction on this extent seems to be based on radicalism rather than pragmatism. It seems rather true, as such aggressive reaction is often raised from the Muslim community, especially from the hardlined group, allegedly convincing other moderate believers also to take part in agitation even if it has got the less value in the background.

It was "humiliating" and provoked extreme anger among especially the hardlined Muslims around the world. The similar incident we got to experience when the American troops desecrated Koran in the Abu Ghraib jail, for which the troops apologized later. The Danish government have also already announced its apology, though the publisher are reluctant to do so. The Danish and European publishers still believes that depicting the cartoon over and over again would be defiance to the radical extremists.

It could be true to some extent that the west and other non-Muslims has disregarded the Muslims and some sort of discrimination do exists regarding ethnicity and equal legalization. But, such discrimination or preconceived idea against Muslims could only get worse if the Islamic radicalism and terrorism is ever to take its peak orchestrated by some extremists who believes that god has given them right for violence and killing people, which is a gloomy misinterpretation of their religious teaching.

Such misinterpretation proposed by some extremist groups has spotted the negativism on the non-Muslims towards even the moderate Muslims who refute violence in the name of religion, and the similar wayward feeling the other way round also seems to have taken root in the moderate Muslim population. Such attitude would widen the gap, resulting that even a rational explanation could be termed as "radicalism" and "oppression" by the non-Muslims and Muslims respectively.

Such hatred seems to have become the tool of modern war on terrorism, war from terrorism, or any extremist's movement. And it is extremely unfortunate when the innocents get victimized while being targeted intentionally or in a fault perception according to their religious beliefs or nationality.

The respective agitation also is a part of this rule of hatredness, that has provoked the Islamic community on this intensity. The degradation of Prophet Muhammad by the Danish newspaper could definitely not be a commendable act. It could be appreciable that it has hurt the Muslim's norms and dignity and it should be condemned. It could even be accepted as a "crime" as presented by our Muslim brothers and sisters. But how fair is it to answer a "crime" by violence, which is indeed a another form of crime?

If the argument against the caricature is defended reasoning the right of "freedom of expression", why don't the Islamic community uses the same right to put their dissatisfaction or refute this through their own modes of expression? If Danishes and Europeans has used the right of expression for degrading the Muslim entity, it looks wise for the Muslims to react accordingly and perform the ideological fight instead of using violence as the gadget of revenge or resistance. All in all, such ideological resistance could illustrate their confidence and can indeed stand with the benevolent Islamic norm that defies violence and bloodshed.