"In my religion" said Imam abu Laban, leading Muslim cleric of Denmark , “drawing images of Prophet Muhammad is forbidden.” In my country, said the editor in chief of Jyllands Posten “there is a freedom of press.” The BBC TV forum was attempting to educate its vast public worldwide about the Cartoon drama. Unfortunately, the debate left viewers in greater disarray. The anchor seemed to ignore why theological Cartoons are offensive to Muslims to start with, but also missed why secular democracies are clashing with their antithesis. World media, and behind them their respective Governments have been reacting to television images rather than to direct knowledge. The crisis of the “offensive cartoons” has in fact become a “cartoons offensive.” Here is why.
The time gap
The Danish cartoon, regardless of their content and of the debate itself, were published in September 2005. Why did it take five months for what Western media dubbed “instant reactions to the insult” to materialize?” One hundred and fifty days and nights are too long of a period for a mass reaction to be described as “instant.” That assessment alone can make and break the strategic reading of the cartoons affaire. The leaders of the Muslim community in Denmark said they attempted to resolve the matter locally by asking the newspaper to apologize or the Government to apologize for it: We all know what the Danish position was: a matter of principle. But the question remains open: Why did it take few months before al Jazeera gets hold of it, the web sites to disseminate it, and thousands of militants to wage a systematic campaign of embassies burning and products boycott, all taking place back to back with a chilling reminder of the French precedents of the scarf affaire? It was widely known, including in the Arab world, that cleric Ahmed Abdelrahman abu Laban has been touring the region to trigger a campaign of “support” to his protest. Some see more of a greater agenda: taking advantage of the harm made by the pictures to impose a new political order in that Scandinavian country, and beyond.
Factor time, between the publishing and the outrage was too long. It was a political time par excellence. For while the Danish Muslim delegation met with many leaders, including Hezbollah’s Nasrallah in Lebanon and leaders from Hamas, Gamaa Islamiya, in addition to more mainstream leaders, the cartoons were indeed circulating. Why didn’t it explode in November, December and early January but only few weeks ago. Because, as simple analysis would put forth, decisions were made, measurements were designed and plans were laid out by the “Jihadi elites.” The masses had to wait till the establishment decides to unleash the emotions. Every single regime and organizations consulted, had to run the idea of “back clash” by its planners, to refine the expectations and projects the dividends.
Would a generalized inflaming of the masses on the “cartoon matter” be better before or after the Palestinian elections, by Hamas standards? Before or after the Iraqi elections, by Salafi angle? Before or after the Egyptian elections, by Muslim Brotherhood plans? Before or after the withdrawal from the Lebanese Government, by Hezbollah calculations? Before or after the Iranian decision to rush to the nuclear race, by Ahmedinijad’s planning? And on the top coincidence list was the fact that Denmark was to head the UN Security Council, just as its members were to take Tehran to the UN. At first glance, there is no link between the spontaneous but violent demonstrations on the one hand and the complex calculations of the web of regimes and organizations. I argue otherwise. M Abu Laban heralded it loudly: he went to seek support from the Arab Muslim East after all attempts to resolve it failed. The first part of the assertion is correct: Arab League diplomats in Copenhagen were not satisfied by the Danish Government response and we know why. But the second part of Abu Laban’s journey into the region is to be addressed: If the Arab League was rebuffed by liberal Denmark who did he ask “support” from in Egypt, Syria, Gaza,and the rest of the region? In short, religious authorities and militant forces: And why would he seek beyond the diplomatic circles as a Danish citizen? Because a decision to ignite an intifada was already made by the architects of the overseas journey: One doesn’t remit the dossier to Hassan Nasrallah of Hezbollah, the Ikhwan of Egypt, Hamas and the other Salafi in the region to request some prayers: The casus belli was already on. It was beyond the Danish cartoons. It was about a broader issue: Something a representative of an American Islamist group called on CNN “a strategic change in world relationship after 9/11.” Hence, the procedure, not the substance of the protest, had to be thought, devised and prepared. Hence the time elapsed between September and January.
The issue
It is reality that Muslims worldwide certainly found the drawings inherently offensive but it is also another reality that the “intermediaries” between the masses and the “crisis” were thoroughly preparing their campaign. Many voices, including in Europe today, are asserting that the Jyllands Posten and its sisters in the cartoon field wanted to make a point back in the summer: that is to affirm that freedom of speech is not selective. They went too far in view of Muslim religious sociology. But many other voices are discovering by the day, that the “party” the journalists were confronting was not the Muslim public, but political activists -the Islamists- who claim representing about fifth of humanity: Islam. The issue is about a clash between liberal secularists in the West and Islamists worldwide. It is about their world views on law, ethics, and international relations. The Islamists want to draw the limits of world freedoms and the Western liberals reject that limitation. The Islamists refer to articles of Muslim faith forbidding any drawing of Allah and Prophet Mohammed, let alone satirical ones. And Western liberals say they aren’t bound by any religious law, let alone by fundamentalist interpretations. In normal circumstances, the Danish (turned European) Cartoons hurt the feelings of average Muslims. But the circumstances aren’t normal: They have been modified by the Jihadi international machine and transformed into battlefields from Indonesia to Beirut, from Paris to Copenhagen. Without the Jihadi-organized anti-European intifada worldwide, the crisis would have resembled to other similar ones: When Jesus was depicted in degrading images or other deities insulted across the globe, including the bombing of the Buddha statues by the Taliban, the reactions included protests, letters, flag burning, and the alike. But the Cartoons crisis generated another “type” of reactions: A War against the West led by the Jihadists, claiming that a War against Islam has warranted their Jihad.
Comments