Last week in Europe we waited with bated breath for reactions to the controversial public showing of a film attacking the Qur'an produced by the Dutch right-wing politician Geert Wilders. This comes on top of trouble already brewing over the re-publication in several Danish newspapers of the notorious Muhammad cartoons. Over two years after the original publication, it seems we are back where we started, with protests simmering and sometimes descending into violence in various parts of the Muslim world.

Underlying the myriad reasons for these events appears to be a fundamental inability of people holding varied positions to understand how the other side thinks and feels. We have here a dialogue of the deaf, although paradoxically both sides share the same motivation – fear.

European culture and public discourse has become so secularised in recent generations that there is little comprehension of people whose religion holds a central place in their lives and identity. European nation states were constructed through centuries of struggle and conflict in which religious differences and oppression were often explosive. People today fear that they are in danger of losing what was won with so much suffering: their freedoms and their collective sense of identity.

Behind these fears lie the rapid changes of globalisation, increased powers of the European Union and the uncertainties of geopolitics and climate change. But in Europe the fears focus on immigrants and ethnic minorities, which in many places means Muslims.

Muslim demands to be taken seriously are interpreted as a threat to the hard-won rights of freedom of expression. Those feeling threatened fear not just the small minorities of Muslims in Europe – in most countries less than three percent of the population – but also the hundreds of millions of Muslims beyond their borders in the broader Muslim world, where the so-called "new enemy" is to be found.

Many parts of the Muslim world also fear uncertainties such as globalisation, international instability, and closer to home, unemployment and arbitrary governments – not to mention random violence. But there the fear is focused on the heirs of the old imperial powers: the West, which is again seen as wishing to dominate, and consequently, undermine Islam. In response, respect for the religion and its symbols becomes a central focus.

One side is talking the language of freedoms and rights. The other side is talking the language of respect for the sacred.

At the end of last month, in response to the re-publication of the cartoons and the promised Dutch film, the ambassadors to the United Nations of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) issued a statement against Islamophobia. In it they affirm their support for freedom of expression, balanced by respect for religious feelings. The question left unanswered is how that balance is to be achieved.

For its part, the Danish government responded to the initial controversy with major investments in cultural and political dialogue, as well as by expanding its efforts in support of development, especially among Palestinians in Jordan and the Occupied Territories. The Dutch government is reportedly considering a ban of the film, prompting the producer to say he will broadcast it on the internet. In Pakistan, YouTube was shut down in late February apparently for showing clips of the film, but it re-opened within a few hours.

The OIC emphasised the need for dialogue and education at its summit in December 2005. In light of the repeated incidents, the organisation has now hardened its line and is demanding legislation, though minimally in the form of additions or amendments to international human rights statutes.

There is no way that European governments will accept any wording that crosses the line into legal commitments. Not only would it compromise those valued freedoms, it would also too closely resemble laws such as Turkey's notorious paragraph 301, which criminalises "public denigration of Turkishness, the Republic, the parliament, the courts, the military or the security forces," or Pakistan's laws against insulting the Prophet Muhammad. Both of these have been widely and mischievously used to harass rivals and pursue personal vendettas.

But European governments could certainly do more to encourage dialogue and education, which would make the gratuitous issuing of insults against people's core beliefs unacceptable public behaviour. And governments in the Muslim world could do more to show that their expressed respect for freedom of expression is more than empty rhetoric. Until then, the dialogue of the deaf is, sadly, set to continue.

As Salaamu 'alaikum
Interesting article. However, I disagree with Professor Jørgen S. Nielsen's comment that "One side is talking the language of freedoms and rights. The other side is talking the language of respect for the sacred." This is the same old diatribe brought about since the instigation of the division of 'church from state' in the 15th and 16th centuries CE. It is 'Western' ideology that is not only deaf here but blind and dumb in its fumbled attempts to justify its actions in world politics and the advancement of their own 'secular' agenda. Islam is all encompassing and does not separate between 'church and state' in its practice. The 'language of freedoms and rights' are inseparable from 'the language of respect for the sacred'. That is the Islamic perspective. The extent to which 'the language of freedoms and rights', purportedly extended by the 'secular', is demonstrated smacks of hypocrisy as it is thrust down the throats of all and asunder, willingly or otherwise. Islam has, since its perfection by the Prophet Muhammad, sallallahu 'alaihi wa Salam, has always insisted on the 'language of freedoms and rights' in all its dealings whether they be part and parcel of 'ibadah or in relation to secular activities. The 'secularists', who advocate the 'religious' be 'seen and not heard', are in essence promoting the anarchistic over and above the rights of those who believe in their ever expanding promotion of the 'secular'. The concept of the 'secular' powers that be is to 'muticulturise' religion, Islam precisely, to within its own designated parameters. Negotaition therefore regarding 'freedoms and rights' and the 'language of respect for the sacred' can only take place within the pre-designated bounds of the 'secular' or they will not take place at all. This concept of 'negotiation' therefore automatically disallows and invalidates the 'other'. So much for the proposed 'freedoms and rights'! 'Democracy' is not the be all and end all of ideological systems that exist. Surely 'Democracy', if it is so 'perfect', can allow for parallel ideological systems of life?! The playing filed for negotiations must be level and not biased towards that of the home team.

"...there is a deep and bitter irony in the West's current claims to be standing up to evil religious sects in the name of universal values. It was precisely the West's earlier disregard for secularism and democracy in the Middle East, its elevation of its own powerful interests over the needs and desires of local populations, which helped to give rise to a layer of apparently "evil" radical Islamism. What we have today is not a World War between a principled West and psychotic groups from "over there," but rather the messy residue of decades of Western meddling in the Middle East.

Duplicitous Western support for Islamist movements has a long and dishonorable history. In the early and middle 20th century, both British and U.S. intelligence supported the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, the group from which so many of today's radical Islamic sects – including Hamas and even al-Qaeda – have sprung. Indeed, in the 1920s, the British, then the colonial rulers of Egypt, helped to set up the Muslim Brotherhood as a means of keeping Egyptian nationalism and anti-colonialism in check. The immediate precursor to the Muslim Brotherhood was an organization called the Society of Propaganda and Guidance, which was funded and backed by British colonialists. In return, the Society provided Islamist backing to British rule in Egypt. It published a journal called The Lighthouse, which attacked Egyptian nationalists – who wanted British forces out of Egypt – as "atheists and infidels." Under British patronage, the Society set up the Institute of Propaganda and Guidance, which brought Islamists from across the Muslim world to Egypt so they could be trained in political agitation, and then take such anti-anti-colonialism back to their own homelands."

See comnplete article at http://www.antiwar.com/orig/oneill.php?articleid=9615

i think justaposing the issue so simplistically carries an implicit value judgement-

"One side is talking the language of freedoms and rights. The other side is talking the language of respect for the sacred."

if it were the intention of wilders to protect freedom and human rights-
that would be an acceptable statement.

it aslo implies that religion and freedom and human rights are mutually exclusive, and deserve to be juxtaposed against each other to begin with- as if they are naturally incongruous and opposite concepts.

in islam, the religion itself- stands as a vanguard for human rights.

i find this analysis most superficial in it's range-
it postulates only on the after effect of the actions- and potential alleged 'abuses' that would arise from some accountability demanded from the propogator of the film-

islam demands of its adherents tht they look deeply into their own intentions-
no such self analysis or critique is even presented here-

the intention of the wilders is aligned in the authors own projected critique of the laws in turkey and pakistan...


"Both of these have been widely and mischievously used to harass rivals and pursue personal vendettas."

can the author state in any innocence that this was not the intention of the films producer?

it characterizes wilders faults precisely.

should his malicious intentions really be considered deserving of the same protections of freedom and rights?

is that what freedom and rights means to the author?

when its some white european guy- apparently so-

when its expressed by muslim governments- it is something wrong to be protected from, and abolished.

IMHO- wilders and the gov't policies are not equal in their vindictive intentions and oppressive results-

comparing wilders intention to provoke fear and hatred, and protecting his right to insult 20% of the worlds population-

to pakistans intention to PREVENT insults-

doesnt have any remote relevance to freedom- unless the freedom to provoke, inflame, and insult is a cherished hallmark of humanity.

which i do not believe can be argued with any conviction.

Khalid,

Yes you are right that secularism is a western idea. Then you go on to talk about boundaries of discussion and how secularism defines that boundary. Since I am assuming that you are promoting state based on Islamic principles, aren't you changing the boundary from that of secular to Islamic? I would argue that the boundary placed by Islamic ideas would be far more restricting than that of a secular one. By just attaching Islam to the state and its functions, the other ideas, religions are not given the same voice. Since you are a muslim (I am assuming), you would not see anything wrong with it. But, non-muslims either will want the state run by their own religion or some more pragmatic ones would say let the religion stay out of state.

You are attacking Secularism and forgetting that Netherlands, Denmark etc are not Muslim countries. Muslim haters in these countries would not stop spreading hatred if it was to shred its secularism and embrace Christianity. Let us also not forget, some muslims sitting in their muslim majority countries do the same thing to other religions/ideologies without any consequences.

I don't agree with what Jorgen Nielson is doing. He is clearly motivated by his hatred of Islam. The best way to counter him is not to shut him up or be violent in the streets like we Muslims do every time there is in incident like this - that only proves his point, not much more. Why not ignore him, not give him the notoriety that he is looking for? Why not our action show that we are better than him and that we are anything but what he is trying to portray?

>> secularism is a western idea.

I don't think so. We end up with Shia-Sunni arguments about leadership. As a Sunni Muslim I have a respect for both secular government and personal religious freedom. And as Muslims, Jorgen is only one voice and Muslims we have responsibility to empower our positive voices. The problem is that if you don't respect secular governance as a social pre-condition for a just society, you can never foster those voices.

>> should his malicious intentions really be considered deserving of the same protections of freedom and rights?

Yes. That's what freedom of expression is. No matter how distasteful the next persons opinion/criticism is, we are not empowered to limit that freedom. The counter of that position is that we are given the same freedom to empower ourselves. And a communities efforts will always overwhelm the efforts of one lone voice. Speak Truth to Power, Speak Truth to Falsehood.

>> One side is talking the language of freedoms and rights.

Everyone is disagreeing with this and its obvious why. This state-church type label grotesquely undermines the amount of racism and in-equality that is perpetuating this anti-muslim/Islam dialogue. It is more western invocation of sacred rights that it does not hold so sacred in its dealings with others. Freedom of expression for us, no access to media for you. Freedom of trade for us, trade barriers for you. etc. Its the kind of istitutional racism that is present in the USA (and sadly some immigrant Muslims are passively supporting it)

Is it problematic that Europe becomes Muslim? America and Australia have become Christian. I think Immigrants in the Netherlands actually bring resources to this economy and the real monster under the bed is not terrorism but racism/elitism. Good article, but overall missing the reality that is playing out under the guise of debate.

good catch gulam-
i worded that poorly-
let me clarify- i am most definitely a proponent of freedom of expression- ESPECIALLY when it conflicts with my own worldview-
let me revise it to reflect what i meant more accurately-


>> should his malicious intentions really be considered DESERVING of the same protections of freedom and rights?

should his malicious intentions really be considered EQUIVALENT to protection of freedom and rights-

one is ignoble- one is noble

i felt the author was attmepting to put a noble shine on an ignoble motive by aligning them as if they were the same-

should mr wilders be censored by the state?
i dont actually believe he should- but he should be censored by his own society-
by ignoring his message and disempowering him-

in america- there is an analogy about the limits of freedom of expression-

we do have freedom of expression- but it does not extend to inciting possible injury to others with that speech-

the old proposed question, does one have freedom to yell fire in a crowded theatre? (of course when this is a lie- there is no fire- and it will compel people to panic and possibly hurt themsleves)

i would assert that the value of the film's expression is questionable because of its provocative intentions.

i dont believe the creators of the film intended necessarily to espouse a truth- or warn a population of a possible danger in it's midst-
but was in some degree hoping to poke the bear with a stick, as a justification for shooting the bear when it fought back.

the response of muslims all over the world, and their (it seems)predictable response of violent reaction is what we must exhort each other to avoid-

it is evident in the very first line of the author here-

"Last week in Europe we waited with bated breath for REACTIONS to the controversial public showing of a film attacking the Qur'an..."

there is no one that imagines he's referring to the reactions of the critics to a work of art here-
it appears to be an acknowledgement that the film deliberately and consciously intended to incite chaos-


"The strong is not the one who overcomes people by his strength, but the strong is the one who controls himself when in anger." (Al-Bukhari, Book 73, #135)


thanks for pointing out my mistake

The problem is not with the language that the sides are using, but that they tend to argue from mutually exclusive narratives and premises that make no sense to the others. I have seen the video, at least the portion that was hosted for a time on Live Leak, and did not find it remarkable in any way. If it used Biblical verses along with the acts of radical anti-abortion activists or Hebrew textual references and Jewish settlers, I suspect no one would have batted an eye. It simply juxtaposed news reports of terrorists acts with Quranic verses that many non-Muslims would likely find troublesome. Apparently, it tries to make the case that these acts are not entirely separable from those acts and that some {perhaps a rather vocal minority) have taken interepretations of the Quran and those verses particularly to draft an alternative reading than the presumably consensus Muslim view of those verses.