Abstract
Despite growing evidence that production of cartoons and caricatures of Muhammad causes deep hurt to Muslims across the world, European leaders are refusing to restrict their publication in the name of free speech. This article questions this position on three counts: one, the hurt these cartoons cause to the Muslims and the resulting frictions between Europe and leaders of the Muslim countries; two, the harm they cause to European societies by increasing the tension between Muslims and ordinary citizens and the state at a time when Islamophobia and anti-immigrant feelings are already high; and, three, the need to question the intent of those publishing the cartoons given the overwhelming evidence on the first two counts. The article also questions the legitimacy and usefulness of labelling attacks triggered in response to these publications as ‘Islamic terrorism’ when the profiles of those perpetuating these attacks show criminal and deviant behaviour than evidence of religious devotion. The usefulness of using labels that make actions of a few taint whole of Islam, and Muslims as a collective, needs to be debated.
Introduction
For many in Europe, the violent attacks carried out by some Muslims in response to publication of the cartoons of the Prophet have become a proof of Muslims’ inability to assimilate in the European culture and that of Islam being a militant religion. The decision of the editorial team of Charlie Hebdo magazine to republish in September 2020, the cartoons of Muhammad whose initial publication in 2015 had caused much controversy and had triggered a violent attack on its office leading to death of 12 of its employees, made France once again a focal point of this contentious debate. The republication of the cartoons, which again triggered a few violent responses, was strongly defended by President Macron who argued that the French state would always protect the right to free speech. 1 However, he went further to contend that Islam is in ‘crisis globally’ and pledged to reform Islam in France to make its values compatible with country’s republican values. His response, not surprisingly, generated a strong reaction from leaders of the Muslim countries 2 while provoking a deep sense of hurt among European Muslims, who given the highly politically charged nature of this debate, increasingly find it difficult to voice their concerns openly. Other European leaders came out in defence of Macron and his position on the cartoons, while within France many state officials openly associated these attacks not to a few individuals but to Islam in general. Adoption of this hard position on the cartoons, whereby their publication is being treated as an icon of French republicanism, is disappointing for ordinary second and third generation European Muslims, who are keen to integrate in the society – to them this hardening of position of European leaders suggests that they are giving into increasing Islamophobia as manifest in the growing anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant discourse across Europe. Seen from the Muslims’ perspective, European governments and the media are deliberately generalising from actions of a few Muslims, whose religious devotion or understanding of faith is questionable, to all Muslims, and Islam, knowing that it only inflames further resentment and Islamophobia against Muslims in Europe.
This article attempts to unpack why European Muslims feel anxious about European leaders’ staunch defence of the right to produce and publish Muhammad’s cartoons, knowing full well how much hurt they cause to their Muslim citizens. It argues that the Muslims’ demand that European states restrict publication of insulting cartoons of the Prophet, merits attention on three counts: one, the evidence of deep emotional hurt felt by global Muslim community and the evidence that Europe’s defence of the publication of insulting cartoons of Muhammad is further widening the divide between it and the Muslim countries; two, the increased hostility generated towards Muslims in Europe whenever these cartoons are published, who as a minority are already feeling under pressure due to rising Islamophobia; and, three, the need to question the intent of those who publish these cartoons – in the 16 years since this issue first surfaced when the Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, published 12 cartoons of the prophet, we have seen that such publications result in violent attacks by a few Muslims, but generate increased hostility towards Muslims in Europe as a community, further undermining social cohesion in Europe. Why then do those producing Muhammad’s cartoons still do so? The article frames this analysis within debates in liberal theory on the potential to cause harm as being one reason for restricting freedom of speech.
The paper has four sections. The Place of Prophet Muhammad in Islam section attempts to make clear why disrespect shown to Muhammad causes such hurt to most Muslims. The section explains that the way Muslims approach Muhammad is different than how Jews and Christians approach Moses or Jesus, respectively: unlike Jesus, Muhammad is not a son of God but a human thus fallible; but he is an ideal human – al-Insan al-Kamil (the perfect man) – whose actions, habits and daily routine, the Quran instructs, all Muslims to follow. He is meant to be dearer to Muslims than any other human being. Humiliating him thus means humiliating what Muslims hold most dear to themselves. The section Can Violence Be Justified? addresses if it is valid to attribute the violence witnessed in response to publication of these cartoons to Quranic teachings or Muhammad’s sayings or actions. The section Why Do Muslims React by Violence? examines the profile of the attackers and contends that criminal and deviant behaviour rather than religious devotion marks the profile of the attackers thus raising the question: is it even fair to label such attacks as Islamic militancy or terrorist attacks or should they be treated as regular crimes? The section Free Speech, Potential for Harm and Social Policy looks at the whole issue from a humane and ethical social policy lens to question that given the evidence that such cartoons only play in the hands of the extremists and people of deviant profile, why do European governments give their publication such high status, whereby they have become symbol of French secularism. To defend their publication on the ground of freedom of speech looks biased in eyes of European Muslims given that their ultimate outcome is further stigmatisation and marginalisation of Muslims in Europe – a minority community, already feeling under pressure, especially due to the growing anti-Muslim discourse adopted by right wing political parties in France, but increasingly also in the rest of Europe. Living in an age, when the idea of ‘hurt’ is being widely used to decide how to engage with groups that feel marginalised – be it the issue of race, sexuality, etc. – paying no heed to the hurt faced by Muslims, already 5% of the total population in France and many other European countries, makes young European Muslims question the sincerity of their leaders.
Place of Prophet Muhammad in Islam
The European governments’ defence of Muhammad’s cartoons is based on the premise that the right to free speech entails that religion is not above ridicule. When defending the right to publish demeaning caricatures of Muhammad, the common defence is that prophets in other religious tradition, such as Jesus or Moses, can be subjected to same treatment – it is not Muhammad who is a special target of such form of satire, which is argued to have an old history in Europe. Given that the violent reactions erupt only when Muhammad is targeted, these reactions are taken as a proof of Muslims’ intolerance and refusal to accept European liberal values, which give supremacy to secular reason over religious belief. In making this comparison, there is an assumption that religious figures or symbols have the same status across different religious traditions. In order to understand why for Muslim’s any expression of disrespect to Muhammad is particularly sensitive, it is important to understand that Muhammad is central to Islam in a way prophets in other religious traditions are not. Unlike Jesus, he is not a son of God but a human and thus he is fallible, but he is so perfect in his devotion to God, and in following his commands, that in the eyes of God, he is the perfect human, who all humankind should follow. Thus, Muslims are required to follow his deeds and actions and replicate his state of being, in such minute detail that is not expected of followers of other prophets. The Quran, which to the Muslims, is the untouched word of God, itself makes repeated references to Muhammad’s superior status, his humane nature and the need for Muslims to follow his sayings, deeds and actions. Asking Muslims to repeatedly send praise to the prophet, the Quran emphasises that his superior status is visible in the fact that even ‘God and His angels bless the Prophet, so you who believe, bless him too’, (33:35).
Muhammad is identified in the Quran as an excellent model for Muslims, ‘you have an excellent model in the Messenger of Allah’, (33: 21); obeying him is recognised as the way to please God, ‘whoever obeys the messenger has obeyed Allah’, (4: 80) and there are firm instructions for following his command, ‘you should accept whatever the messenger gives you and abandon whatever he tells you to abandon’, (59: 7). Similarly, Muslims are instructed to refer to his example and practice if they disagree about something: ‘O you who believe, obey Allah, the messenger, and those in command among you. If you disagree about something, refer it back to Allah and his messenger’, (4: 59).
In terms of his persona, he is referred to as a mercy to the mankind, ‘God showed great kindness to the believers when He sent a messenger to them from among themselves to recite His signs to them, purify them and teach them the Book and Wisdom’. (3: 164). He is seen to be very gentle, merciful and concerned about the believers, ‘A messenger has come to you from among yourselves. Your suffering is distressing to him. He is deeply concerned about you, and is gentle and merciful to the believers’, (9: 128). Muhammad himself is told in the Quran to tell believers to follow him if they want to win God’s love: ‘Say: If you love Allah, then follow me and Allah will love you and forgive your sins’, (3: 31).
With this heavy emphasis that the Quran places on following Muhammad’s every deed and action, showing deep love and respect for his being, and the mention that the God and the angels also send blessings on him for he is such a noble and gentle being, a mercy for all of humanity, it is then not surprising that for the Muslims, open expressions of disrespect for the prophet become highly hurtful. They cannot but feel hurt by such attempts to disrespect the prophet, and many thus feel the need to condemn their publications, as leaders of many Muslim countries have done when Charlie Hebdo republished the cartoons, in order to check such attempts in future. But, can this condemnation be expressed in form of violence, as done by some Muslims, in the light of mainstream Islamic thought?
Can violence be justified?
There are two main sources of law in Islam, the Quran and the Sunnah of the prophet and neither helps justify violence of the kind expressed by some Muslims on publication of the cartoons – murder or random attacks on civilians to cause bodily harm or damage property. Since September 11, the growth in Islamic militancy has been attributed by some to Islamic textual sources including the Quran – certain verses do present non-believers as enemies and others instruct Muslims to wage jihad against non-believers. Classically trained Islamic scholars, however, critique such interpretations of Quranic verses arguing that individual verses need to be interpreted in light of the context of their revelation as well as Prophet Muhammad’s actions and at times certain verses supersede others. Further, Quran places much emphasis on use of reason, respect for individual choice in matter of religious belief, and tolerance for other religions. One of the oft-quoted verses of Quran states: ‘There is no compulsion in religion’, (2:256). Though subjected to complex debates, the verse is generally used by Muslims to restrict state or society led efforts to regulate individual religious behaviour. 3
Similarly, in terms of engaging with non-Muslims, the emphasis on mutual tolerance and co-existence is best captured in Surah al-Kafirun (109:1–6), where God instructs Muhammad to say: Say, Oh disbelievers, I do not worship that you worship Nor are you worshippers of what I worship Nor will I be a worshipper of what you worship Nor will you be a worshipper of what I worship For you is you religion, and for me is my religion
Even if we dismiss these tolerant verses and focus more on those that tell Muslims to wage jihad, the important issue to bear in mind is that Islam sets out very strict guidelines on do’s and don’ts of jihad, the conditions in which jihad can be initiated, and who can initiate jihad. Jihad is only legitimate in Islam to defend against aggression faced by Muslims, to assist victims of injustice, to defend one’s homeland and to guarantee security for Islamic missionary activity 4 ; undertaking jihad for the sake of making material gains and taking revenge does not fall within legitimate reasons for initiating jihad. Further, once initiated, there are clear instructions to Muslim armies for not harming the civilians. Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, the first Caliph of Islam, appointed after the death of the Prophet, told his military commander: ‘Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for guidance on the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies; do not kill a woman, a child, or an aged man; do not cut down fruitful trees; do not destroy inhabited areas; do not slaughter any of the enemies’ sheep, cow or camel except for food; do not burn date palms, nor inundate them; do not embezzle (e.g. no misappropriation of booty or spoils of war) nor be guilty of cowardliness…You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone’. 5
Overall, Islam places emphasis on winning the battle by causing minimum harm to the enemy. The Quran itself instructs Muslims to exercise restrain when fighting in the way of Allah in verses such as: ‘surely Allah (God) does not love those who exceed the limits’, (2:190). Further, individuals cannot declare jihad only states can. 6 This principle again makes the actions of these individuals, who carry out violent attacks in response to publication of the cartoons often declaring themselves as representative of Islam, illegitimate. It is also important to remember that the term jihad though translated as ‘holy war’ equally refers to struggle for purity within one’s soul; in fact, the latter is seen as being superior than the former. Prophet Muhammad referred to armed jihad as ‘minor jihad’ and working on one’s soul to live by the dictates of the religion as ‘superior jihad’. 7
Finally, the emphasis placed on tolerance in Islam is visible even in Muhammad’s own actions. He was repeatedly ridiculed and exposed to physical and verbal abuse as he spread the message of Islam and tried to convert the local Arab tribes and their leaders, yet he always responded peacefully and forgave the perpetuators. In this context, one of the famous examples comes from his visit to the city of Taif which he visited while he was still in Makkah in order to spread the message of Islam. The leader of the city and the people, refused to accept the message, insulted him, threw stones at him and his ankles bled. However, when he prayed to the God for guidance and support, he prayed for mercy on the people of the city and for them to be guided to the right path instead of asking for them to be punished. 8 The numerous biographies on him document in detail how he was kind and forgiving even to the worst of his enemies. 9
Thus, seen in the light of Islamic thought on use of force as well as Muhammad’s own actions, there is no evidence that the violent reactions witnessed in response to the cartoons are dictated by Islam. So, why do then some Muslims resort to violence?
Why do Muslims react by violence?
In order to answer this question, it is important to look at the kind of violence that has been witnessed in response to the publications of these cartoons and the profiles of those perpetuating them. This section addresses both these concerns.
If we trace the origin of the cartoon controversy in Europe, the first incident occurred in September 2005, when a Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published 12 cartoon caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad – one of them showing him adorning a bomb as turban. It provoked protests cross the Muslim world and despite Jyllands-Posten issuing an apology in early 2006, a number of attacks took place on Danish diplomatic missions in the Muslim world reportedly causing death of 50 protestors. The key concern for the European liberals, however, was the attempted attacks on the life of Kurt Westergaard, the cartoonist: the police arrested two Tunisians and a Dane of Moroccan descent in 2008 for attempted murder; in 2010, Westergaard faced another attempt on his life by a Somali man.
Then in 2007, the Swedish artist who sketched the Muhammad’s head on a dog’s body seriously offending Muslims and received death threats allegedly from al-Qaida itself. The most tense incident, however, occurred when in September 2012, the French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo published a number of cartoons of the Prophet. This provoked the most violent of all the reactions whereby in 2015 gunmen killed 12 individuals at Charlie Hebdo’s Paris office. It is the republication of these very cartoons in September 2020 that led to flaring up of the crisis again in late 2020 and early 2021 in which President Macron and leaders of Muslim countries entered direct confrontation. The cartoons were republished on the eve of a trial of those implicated in the 2015 attack. In return, there was a new wave of attacks: one man injured two individuals outside Charlie Hebdo’s old office; soon after a French teacher, who showed these cartoons during a civics class, was found beheaded in a Paris suburb; and, a knife-wielding Tunisian man decapitated a woman and killed two other people in a church in southern French city of Nice – it is not clear whether he acted in reaction to the cartoons, but the media coverage assumed so.
The question thus is why do we see this expression of violence from some Muslims given that in the preceding section, we have seen that such random use of violence, especially against ordinary civilians, has no legitimacy in mainstream Islamic thought nor is there support for it in the actions of the prophet himself? In addressing this question, we first must recognise that while the hurt caused by these cartoons is widely shared by Muslims, only a handful resort to violence. Some Muslims in Muslim majority countries normally protest by taking part in street protests, which at times target European embassy, but increasingly even in these countries a peaceful response strategy is becoming more popular: boycotting products produced in countries, which publish such cartoons. In addition, leaders of Muslim countries are increasingly making more direct demands on their European counterparts to check this trend.
These responses from the mainstream segments of Muslim societies are thus not violent – even if the crowds involved in street protests in Muslim countries at times gather outside European embassies to express their anger, they do not actually target the staff. If, however, we look at the profile of those individuals who have carried out the violent attacks in Europe on the cartoonists or the publishers, we see among them individuals who are on margins of the society, pretty criminals and individuals who lack a stable career path, and occasionally a disgruntled refugee or a recent immigrant. These individuals are Muslims by birth and identity, but in reality it is difficult to establish that their actions were led by deep Islamic knowledge or religious devotion. The suspect implicated in the beheading of the French teacher is an 18-year-old refugee originally from the Russian republic of Chechnya, who has been resident in France for 12 years and seems to lack a professional focus. Similarly, for the attack outside Charlie Hebdo’s old headquarters, which took place on 25 September 2020, in which two people were critically injured, a 25-year-old Pakistani refugee, who arrived as an unaccompanied minor in France in 2018, was identified as the main suspect. Again it is difficult to argue that he represents mainstream Muslims; the level of his abilities can be judged from the fact that he did not even know that the magazine headquarter has moved to another site. 10 Similarly, in case of the 14 suspects implicated in the 2015 attack on Charlie Hebdo office, many had record of petty crime and did not bear signs of any deep religious commitment. As the BBC Paris Correspondence summarising the 2020 Paris court verdict on them noted, ‘the country’s biggest ever terrorist trial has failed to live up to its billing’. Detailing the case decision, he noted, ‘Those on trial came across as petty criminals. They either knew nothing or were well practised in the art of obfuscation. All said they were completely unaware of Coulibaly’s jihadist intentions, and the prosecution found it hard to prove otherwise’. 11
Given that the profiles of these individuals do not show deep commitment to Islamic way of life or religious devotion, it needs to be questioned whether it is fair or productive to label these attacks as ‘Islamic terrorist attacks’, given that such labelling makes the public associate this violence and intolerance to Islam and Muslims in general. 12 The perpetuators, in most of these cases, appear to be disgruntled young men, failing to fit in the society, and expressing their frustration in such attention seeking deviant behaviour – akin to what we saw among the young European Muslims who gravitated towards ISIS. Similarly, how fair is it to give these criminal attacks the high status whereby they are seen to threaten the Western liberal values and based on them start to issue ultimatums to Muslims as a whole, as we have seen French officials do: the regional leaders in France announced that these cartoons would be handed out to high school students as a commitment ‘to defend the values of the Republic’; the mayor of Nice asked for constitutional changes to be made to enable France to properly ‘wage war’ against Islamist extremists; the interior minister, Gérald Darmanin, called the Paris attack ‘an act of Islamist terrorism’ adding that ‘We’re at war, against an enemy who is both inside and outside’, while French Prime Minister Jean Castex, while promising to toughen the fight against terrorism added, ‘the enemies of the republic will not win’. 13 This tendency to equate violence perpetuated by a few deviant individuals to European Muslims as a collective, is also visible in public discourse. After the attack at the main basilica in Nice, a gathering of 50 people meant to show solidarity across religious lines, ended up in some participants blaming Islam for the attack thereby hurting the feelings of the Muslim participants. 14 Further, by endorsing Macron’s defence of the publication of these cartoons, when he was critiqued by Muslim leaders, European leaders showed to their European Muslims citizens that this unwillingness to hear the Muslim perspective on this subject is shared across European states. 15 By taking this position, the state is saying that Muslims in general are responsible for harbouring such intolerant sentiments. But, in equating the actions of these petty criminals and disgruntled, unstable youth – who are more a product of the relatively hostile socio-economic context in which many Muslims from low-income families find themselves struggling in Europe – to Muslims as a collective, is the state not expressing an active bias against Islam and its Muslim citizens? This is the issue we address in the final section of this article.
Free Speech, Potential for Harm and Social Policy
As discussed in the preceding sections, the European leaders’ refusal to show sympathy to the Muslims’ demand to restrict publication of these cartoons is embedded in a wider concern expressed by President Macron that Islamic groups are creating a parallel culture in France (and the rest of Europe) that rejects European values, customs and laws – thus, his assertion to create a reformed Islam in France, 16 which is in line with French secular values. By generalising the concerns emerging from these individual attacks to Islam in general, Macron made any attempt at condemning the publication of these cartoons appear as undercutting France’s laïcité. Similarly, in a newspaper interview, Pierre-Henri Tavoillot, a philosopher and expert on laïcité at the Sorbonne University, while acknowledging that these cartoons have become symbol of a deeper conflict between Muslims and the French society, argued that ‘if French laïcité gives up on this point, it will have to give up on all the others’. He added, ‘If we abandon caricatures, for a French person, we’re abandoning freedom of expression, the possibility of criticizing religions’. 17
But, is this position really so simple? Is it fair to defend publication of these cartoons under defence of free speech when there is clear evidence of harm being caused as a result of their publications? John Stuart Mill, who built the most formidable intellectual defence of free speech, also did acknowledge the need to restrain free speech if it causes harm. As he wrote in his famous paper On Liberty, ‘That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others’. 18 In case of publication of these cartoons, as has been documented in the preceding section, the end result is increased hostility within the French and European societies towards their Muslims counterparts. Given that European Muslims are already under pressure due to growing Islamophobia and anti-immigrant sentiments in Europe, is it fair for the European states not to check actions of the majority, which are creating increased hostility and intolerance of an already vulnerable minority population.
Two, the publication of these cartoons is creating tension not only between the European states and their Muslim citizens, but also with Muslim nations thereby further reinforcing the clash of civilisations thesis. Macron’s defence of these cartoons led to vocal protests from leaders of the Muslim world. President Erdogan of Turkey accused Macron of being a fascist: ‘You are in a real sense fascists, you are in a real sense the links in the chain of Nazism’. He asked the Muslims across the globe to boycott French goods. Other Muslim states including Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates condemned publication of the cartoons, while in many countries, such as Jordan, Kuwait and Qatar, the state, individual buyers or the sellers, boycotted French goods. In addition, protests were held in other countries such as Iraq, Syria, Libya, the Gaza Strip and Bangladesh. Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan blamed Macron for encouraging anti-Muslim sentiment; he also wrote a letter to leaders of other Muslim states to collectively express concerns against rising Islamophobia against Muslims in Europe. 19 Leading Islamic religious authorities also expressed their dismay at publication of these cartoons: Egypt’s al-Azhar University, representative of the most respected and tolerant Islamic scholarly tradition, expressed concerns that in France and Europe such attacks on Islam have political undertones. The publication of these cartoons thus causes harm by not just making the European Muslims feel unwanted and reducing social harmony in Europe, but by also contributing to increased polarisation between Europe and the Muslim world.
Three, today state policies towards specific groups in the West, are undergoing major reforms due to the recognition of the principle of hurt: campaigns like Black Lives Matter or demands by transgender or LGBT groups are influencing policies by focusing on the hurt these groups have faced. Since it is clear that publication of these cartoons hurts majority of the Muslims, why is the principle of hurt not being taken seriously in case of European Muslims – an under pressure minority. As documented in the section Place of Prophet Muhammad in Islam, Muhammad has a very special status for Muslims. If the West today respects certain restrictions on freedom of speech in order to curb anti-Semitic speech, why cannot the treatment of Muhammad be given the same status when dealing with the Muslims? Despite being under pressure not to voice too strong a condemnation of the cartoons due to the politically sensitive nature of this debate, French Muslims have voiced concerns about state’s unwillingness to recognise the hurt they feel. Mohammed Moussaoui, the president of the French Council of Muslim Faith, while advising Muslims to ignore these cartoons instead of reacting to them, 20 did note that majority of the Muslims are disturbed by their publication. 21
Fourth, knowing the vicious cycle that is triggered by publication of these cartoons, whereby a few deviant individuals launch attacks, and the end result is increased tension between Muslims and the rest of the society and state, one needs to also question the intent of those who produce and publish these cartoons. Why use the right to free speech to hurt a specific community and trigger events that only create bad feelings between global Muslim community and Europe?
The neglect by European governments to consider the above issues when putting up a staunch defence of the right to publish these cartoons, leads Muslims to question if the system is fair. Perceived lack of fairness is one of the major drivers for recruitment to radical causes. Clémentine Autain from the far-left party France Unbowed, while noting that the whole debate ‘is dominated by emotion and is no longer rational’, acknowledged how French politicians are using laïcité as a way to ostracice all Muslims, and as a result in her assessment ‘a number of Muslims are being sent back into the arms of radicals’. 22 In view of Muslim observers, such concerns have grounds. To European Muslims, European states’ treatment of the cartoon controversy is sending a signal that they are not wanted or respected. Being subjected to such negative sentiments does not help build loyalty towards those states.
Seen purely from the lens of optimal social policy, for European nations that take pride in defending reason over indoctrination, the unwillingness to acknowledge the harm being caused by publication of these cartoons is surprising. Did enlightenment teach us to become indifferent to the hurt and harm we might cause to others in the name of free speech? The true fruits of enlightenment and progress ideally rest in humans showing increased tolerance for difference; after all, it is much easier to be selfish and insist on defending one’s ways than to really care for the other and develop empathy for how one’s actions could be hurting others. The cartoon controversy in Europe can quickly subside if European leaders decide to take the higher ground.
