THE FALLOUT from the recent Danish cartoon saga has torched buildings, shattered business contracts and sent waves across the debate of how to deal with the Muslim world without encroaching our ever-so-valuable democratic rights. But, most of all, it has generated sets of comic beliefs in the international community. Among these:categorizations of the response to the cartoons as "shockingly unjustified," preparations for the infamous "clash of civilizations," and criticizing the Bush administration's alleged "capitulation" to Islamic fundamentalists.
These beliefs are historically and logically flawed and need to be debunked so as not to give them any more merit than their ridiculously humorous nature. If taken otherwise, they have the inimical potential to alienate the voices of moderation so crucial to the spread of democracy in the Middle East.
The Islamic fundamentalist minority's (and not the "Muslim world" or Islam's) response to the cartoons is neither shocking nor unjustified. Rather, anyone with a fair grasp of modern history would have anticipated this violence. When British novelist Salman Rushdie published his book "The Satanic Verses" in 1989, he was accused of insulting the Prophet Mohammed and a fatwa was issued by Iranian religious leader Ayatollah Khomeni for his death.
As far as the justification of the violence goes, controversial cartoons are going to generate controversy. If we want to impose our standards of democracy and freedom of speech on other religions by disrespecting their religious symbols, we cannot then criticize their responses based on how we would have responded. Bear in mind also that these are not the responses of the majority, but rather, mostly of religious fanatics who operate blindly under the manipulation of the Syrian and Lebanese governments. As the Wall Street Journal duly notes, reactions of this magnitude do not occur in Damascus or Tehran unless the government supports them.
Probably the most preposterous suggestion is that the cartoon saga is a wake up call for the West to prepare for a clash of civilizations against the "Muslim world". On the contrary, the real clash is within Islamic civilization--between Muslims as to how to deal with the West, and between Sunnis and the Shiites over post-Mohammed caliphate succession. It is important to make a distinction between the two factions--the minority fundamentalists who everyone seems to think represents all Muslims, and the majority moderate Muslims who resent such extremist violence and might gradually accept democratic ideals. Rather than use the myth of a clash of civilizations as a tool for political maneuvers, we should recognize the more fundamental cleavages within Islamic society.
Most comical of all is the suggestion that the Bush administration capitulated to tyrants and fundamentalists. This is about as accurate as Vice President Dick Cheney was with his rifle this past weekend. Far from capitulating, the administration seems to grasp the main point that most fail to recognize--that instead of criticizing the overreaction of fundamentalist lunatics, the more beneficial approach would be to show some sensitivity to appeal to the voices of moderation in the Islamic world.
US Assistant Secretary of State for Europe Dan Fried said it best when he commented against "assuming that the only voices in the Middle East in response to these cartoons are the voices of thoughtless or cynical, manipulative extremism." The State Department statement that many have criticized condemned the cartoons as unacceptable as it is for other religions. However, most observers ignore the next sentence of the statement, which reads, "while we share the offense that Muslims have taken to these images, we at the same time vigorously defend the rights of individuals to express these points of view".
All the statement did was thus express some empathy for how some Muslims felt, with a vehement defense of civil liberties. Condemning certain points of view is not the same as preventing individuals from expressing those points of view. Individuals expressing these errant views of "capitulation" should exercise their right to read statements in their entirety.
Thus, while the Danish cartoons may have generated more controversy than humor, the spin-off beliefs from these cartoons should provide nothing more than fleeting political hilarity. Rather than criticize misguided fundamentalists or prepare for mythical civilization wars, we should practice more sensitivity in cross-cultural relations -- as the Bush administratin did -- to win the hearts and minds of the majority of moderate Muslims who may be more open to democratic ideals in the long run.
Prashanth Parameswaran is a Cavalier Daily Viewpoint writer.
Read More
WILLIAMS: The future of Virginia is on the ballot this fall
By Ryan Williams | 2 days agoHence, voters must make it their top priority to think critically and closely as they decide who their ballot will support this fall.
PARTING SHOT: On the art of walking and chewing gum
By Nathan Onibudo | 4 days agoStudent journalism, and maybe even life more generally, is about holding space for multiple conflicting truths.
PARTING SHOT: Confessions of a nepo baby
By Grace Thrush | 5 days agoWhile I can’t point to one specific “aha” moment where I finally started to dispel my self-consciousness and claim my pride for the paper, I got there gradually over the course of my term as managing editor.
