My article on the imprisonment of the Belarusian journalist Aliaksandar Zdźvižkoŭ over his reprinting of the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), and the subsequent vilification of Muslims in some quarters of the usually liberal Belarusian opposition, which first appeared in the Belarusian magazine ARCHE in the January-February 2008 issue, has now been reprinted (in English translation and in shortened form) in Eurozine, which is an online magazine that publishes translations of articles first published by a network of European cultural magazines.
Do let me know what you think about the article!
Showing posts with label caricature. Show all posts
Showing posts with label caricature. Show all posts
24 May 2008
18 February 2008
Danish atheist starts campaign to apologise to Muslims
Anders Bøtter, an atheist Danish student, has started a Facebook group called Sorry Muhammad, which is calling on Danes to apologise to Muslims over the reprinting of a defamatory cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Bøtter says that the cartoon issue has become unncessarily polarising, and that, while he is not personally insulted by the cartoon, its reprinting "hurts the feelings of Muslims a lot". In his words,
This is not the first time Bøtter has taken action over the cartoons: after their initial publication in 2006, he apologised to his Muslim friends in different countries by e-mail. This time around, Bøtter is trying to get 10,000 Danes to join his group; over 1,000 did in the first day of its existence. One Danish girl wrote to Bøtter saying that the very existence of his group made her feel proud to be Danish, because of its attempt to engage in dialogue.
A rival Facebook group has been set up by those who think there is nothing to apologise about; the group is called No Need to Apologise to Muhammad (BBC).
Bøtter is a true man of conscience, and I hope he gets his 10,000 members. He understands the issue for what it is: needless insults heaped repeatedly on a minority that is disadvantaged as it is. Let's hope that any Muslims who may be frustrated with Denmark over the issue also see that there is more than one side to the country.
What does hurt my feelings is when a Danish newspaper publishes these very mocking cartoons of Muhammad. For me this is not a matter of a drawing but the mocking of one of our minority groups in Denmark and that's a big problem. That is why I apologise for being a Dane coming from Denmark.
This is not the first time Bøtter has taken action over the cartoons: after their initial publication in 2006, he apologised to his Muslim friends in different countries by e-mail. This time around, Bøtter is trying to get 10,000 Danes to join his group; over 1,000 did in the first day of its existence. One Danish girl wrote to Bøtter saying that the very existence of his group made her feel proud to be Danish, because of its attempt to engage in dialogue.
A rival Facebook group has been set up by those who think there is nothing to apologise about; the group is called No Need to Apologise to Muhammad (BBC).
Bøtter is a true man of conscience, and I hope he gets his 10,000 members. He understands the issue for what it is: needless insults heaped repeatedly on a minority that is disadvantaged as it is. Let's hope that any Muslims who may be frustrated with Denmark over the issue also see that there is more than one side to the country.
Danish MPs cancel Iran trip over cartoons
A group of nine Danish MPs who were due to visit Iran have called off the trip two days before their scheduled departure, after being asked by the Iranian parliament to apologise over the recent reprinting of a cartoon depicting the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) wearing a turban with a bomb in it. Villy Søvndal, the head of the Socialist People's Party, said that "If anyone needs to apologise for freedom of speech, human rights, imprisonments, executions and lack of democracy, it is the Iranians" (BBC).
So if one group of people acts in a way that others find offensive, does that mean that those opposed must also try to be offensive? Is that what Søvndal is trying to proclaim?
So if one group of people acts in a way that others find offensive, does that mean that those opposed must also try to be offensive? Is that what Søvndal is trying to proclaim?
27 January 2008
Belarusian journalist imprisoned for Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) caricatures
Aliaksandr Źdźvižkoŭ (whose name is also spelled Alexander Sdvizhkov in English), the former editor of the defunct Belarusian opposition newspaper Zhoda (Agreement), has been sentenced to three years in prison by the Minsk City Court for reprinting the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) which first appeared in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten.
After having the cartoons reprinted, Źdźvižkoŭ was quoted as saying "We did the right thing by speaking out against Islamic hysteria." I have to say, whipping up hysteria by attacking what is sacred to someone else is a funny way of "speaking out against... hysteria." In particular, Źdźvižkoŭ didn't seem to remember that Belarus has its own community of around 30,000 Muslims who were exhibiting no "hysteria" over the cartoons, and that printing the cartoons in Zhoda (especially given the negative depiction of the Prophet contained in most of them) would be needlessly, gratuitously offensive to Belarusian Muslims.
As it happened, Ismail Varanovič, the head of the Spritual Directorate of the Muslims of the Republic of Belarus, sued Źdźvižkoŭ for "inciting hatred" against the Muslim community. However, he now claims that the government and, in particular, the Committee of Religious and Ethnicity Affairs, put him up to it. More that that, they made him understand that it was their express desire that he sue Źdźvižkoŭ.
Varanovič says that he felt sorry for Źdźvižkoŭ at the trial, which was held behind closed doors, and even tried to help him by telling the court that he had come to think that Źdźvižkoŭ's actions represented not an incitement to hatred, but rather a mere illustration to the story of the cartoon controversy. According to Varanovič, Źdźvižkoŭ apologised to him personally, and to the Muslim community in general, for his actions.
So it seems that the Belarusian Muslim community was led into something not of its own choosing, and was used by the government in its own game against Źdźvižkoŭ. This theory is supported by the fact that the prison term that Źdźvižkoŭ was sentenced to -- three years -- is the most severe of all so far received by people found guilty in the cartoon controversy in any country.
So why is it that the Belarusian authorities were after Źdźvižkoŭ? Two reasons have been raised in the independent and opposition press. Some say that the Belarusian government wanted to impress rich(er) Muslim countries with their defence of Islam in order to attract investments from them. However, the theory that sounds more likely to be true is that the authorities wanted to move Źdźvižkoŭ out of the way for a while because his newspaper, Zhoda, had endorsed Aliaksandr Kazulin, a Social-Democratic candidate for the Belarusian presidency. In addition, the action taken against Źdźvižkoŭ can serve as a warning to what is left of the independent Belarusian media to be more careful in what they say -- not about Islam, but about President Lukašenka. This theory rings true not just because of various actions against journalists undertaken by the Belarusian government in the past, but also because Zhoda was shut down following a threat from Lukašenka to do so.
So where does this leave the Belarusian Muslims? Unfortunately, they have faced a certain degree of scapegoating from the Belarusian opposition, which is not normally known for anti-Muslim positions. Thus, the deputy leader of the Belarusian Popular Front, Alieś Michalievič (Mikhalevich), has asked Metropolitan Filaret, the Exarch of the Russian Orthodox Church in Belarus, to intervene with the authorities in order to get Źdźvižkoŭ's sentence softened. In his appeal, Michalievič claims that Źdźvižkoŭ has been made to suffer for "expressing his Christian convictions", and asks sarcastically whether the "the law of the Shari'a" is in force in Belarus. To which one may reply that one does not need to look as far as the Shari'a to find condemnation of libel and hate speech of the kind that the cartoons represented.
One pro-opposition journalist has even warned that Belarusians should beware of the transformation of our country into "Belarusistan". In his view, Źdźvižkoŭ understood this danger, but went overboard in his response. At best, the journalist's statement regarding the "present threat" posed by Belarusian Muslims reflects a hastily put together reaction that ignores the simple facts that the Muslim community has lived peacefully in what is now Belarus for over 600 years and, that Muslim scholars were writing religious treatises in Belarusian centuries ago, and that further, Muslims constitute less than 1 percent of the population of Belarus. These sorts of responses from respected segments of the opposition intelligentsia are irresponsible and seem to imply an attempt to align pro-Western Belarusian views with those of extreme right-wing Western European politicians. What does not make sense in this equation, however, is that those xenophobic politicians try to court public support by attacking immigrants or their children (which is, in itself, wrong), while Belarus, as I said above, has what can be quite justifiably considered an indigenous Muslim population.
So what is needed here are liberal voices, ones that understand that freedom comes with responsibility, and that we Belarusians are one people who must continue building our country for all of us together, whether we are Orthodox Christians, Catholics, Muslims, Jews, or what have you. Fortunately, there are some who have been speaking out in just such a vein.
Since becoming a "normal European country" is one of the biggest dreams of the Belarusian opposition, I'd like to suggest that turning on minorities at the slightest hint of imagined provocation is not the way to achieve that dream.
After having the cartoons reprinted, Źdźvižkoŭ was quoted as saying "We did the right thing by speaking out against Islamic hysteria." I have to say, whipping up hysteria by attacking what is sacred to someone else is a funny way of "speaking out against... hysteria." In particular, Źdźvižkoŭ didn't seem to remember that Belarus has its own community of around 30,000 Muslims who were exhibiting no "hysteria" over the cartoons, and that printing the cartoons in Zhoda (especially given the negative depiction of the Prophet contained in most of them) would be needlessly, gratuitously offensive to Belarusian Muslims.
As it happened, Ismail Varanovič, the head of the Spritual Directorate of the Muslims of the Republic of Belarus, sued Źdźvižkoŭ for "inciting hatred" against the Muslim community. However, he now claims that the government and, in particular, the Committee of Religious and Ethnicity Affairs, put him up to it. More that that, they made him understand that it was their express desire that he sue Źdźvižkoŭ.
Varanovič says that he felt sorry for Źdźvižkoŭ at the trial, which was held behind closed doors, and even tried to help him by telling the court that he had come to think that Źdźvižkoŭ's actions represented not an incitement to hatred, but rather a mere illustration to the story of the cartoon controversy. According to Varanovič, Źdźvižkoŭ apologised to him personally, and to the Muslim community in general, for his actions.
So it seems that the Belarusian Muslim community was led into something not of its own choosing, and was used by the government in its own game against Źdźvižkoŭ. This theory is supported by the fact that the prison term that Źdźvižkoŭ was sentenced to -- three years -- is the most severe of all so far received by people found guilty in the cartoon controversy in any country.
So why is it that the Belarusian authorities were after Źdźvižkoŭ? Two reasons have been raised in the independent and opposition press. Some say that the Belarusian government wanted to impress rich(er) Muslim countries with their defence of Islam in order to attract investments from them. However, the theory that sounds more likely to be true is that the authorities wanted to move Źdźvižkoŭ out of the way for a while because his newspaper, Zhoda, had endorsed Aliaksandr Kazulin, a Social-Democratic candidate for the Belarusian presidency. In addition, the action taken against Źdźvižkoŭ can serve as a warning to what is left of the independent Belarusian media to be more careful in what they say -- not about Islam, but about President Lukašenka. This theory rings true not just because of various actions against journalists undertaken by the Belarusian government in the past, but also because Zhoda was shut down following a threat from Lukašenka to do so.
So where does this leave the Belarusian Muslims? Unfortunately, they have faced a certain degree of scapegoating from the Belarusian opposition, which is not normally known for anti-Muslim positions. Thus, the deputy leader of the Belarusian Popular Front, Alieś Michalievič (Mikhalevich), has asked Metropolitan Filaret, the Exarch of the Russian Orthodox Church in Belarus, to intervene with the authorities in order to get Źdźvižkoŭ's sentence softened. In his appeal, Michalievič claims that Źdźvižkoŭ has been made to suffer for "expressing his Christian convictions", and asks sarcastically whether the "the law of the Shari'a" is in force in Belarus. To which one may reply that one does not need to look as far as the Shari'a to find condemnation of libel and hate speech of the kind that the cartoons represented.
One pro-opposition journalist has even warned that Belarusians should beware of the transformation of our country into "Belarusistan". In his view, Źdźvižkoŭ understood this danger, but went overboard in his response. At best, the journalist's statement regarding the "present threat" posed by Belarusian Muslims reflects a hastily put together reaction that ignores the simple facts that the Muslim community has lived peacefully in what is now Belarus for over 600 years and, that Muslim scholars were writing religious treatises in Belarusian centuries ago, and that further, Muslims constitute less than 1 percent of the population of Belarus. These sorts of responses from respected segments of the opposition intelligentsia are irresponsible and seem to imply an attempt to align pro-Western Belarusian views with those of extreme right-wing Western European politicians. What does not make sense in this equation, however, is that those xenophobic politicians try to court public support by attacking immigrants or their children (which is, in itself, wrong), while Belarus, as I said above, has what can be quite justifiably considered an indigenous Muslim population.
So what is needed here are liberal voices, ones that understand that freedom comes with responsibility, and that we Belarusians are one people who must continue building our country for all of us together, whether we are Orthodox Christians, Catholics, Muslims, Jews, or what have you. Fortunately, there are some who have been speaking out in just such a vein.
Since becoming a "normal European country" is one of the biggest dreams of the Belarusian opposition, I'd like to suggest that turning on minorities at the slightest hint of imagined provocation is not the way to achieve that dream.
31 March 2007
US art gallery cancels chocolate Jesus (pbuh) statue display
In a victory for Catholic protesters, an art gallery in New York has cancelled plans to display a sculpture of Jesus Christ (pbuh) made of chocolate and depicting him naked. The statue, made by Canadian artist Cosimo Cavallaro, measures 1.8 m in height, and is called "My Sweet Lord".
The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights called for a boycott of the gallery, especially given the fact that the statue was meant to be displayed during Easter. As a spokesman for the group pointed out, the gallery "would never dare" to show a similar statue of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) during Ramadan. She has also described the statue as "an assault on Christians".
After management decided to cancel the exhibit, the gallery's artistic director resigned, complaining of "strong-arming from people who haven't seen the show" (BBC).
I must say it's a wise decision on the part of the Lab gallery. Some may see it as self-censorship, but I would prefer to see the outcome as an act of wisdom on the part of the gallery's management. Toying with people's feelings is never a good idea, whether it be in the realm or religion or anything else that people value. Thoughtful, intelligent criticism is one thing, but depicting a person highly respected by about half of mankind (Christians and Muslims) naked is neither thoughtful nor intelligent, but rather, in my view, a misguided shout for attention. I'm glad that the Lab gallery did not decide to take the route followed by the free-speech fanatics in Europe on the issue of the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).
The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights called for a boycott of the gallery, especially given the fact that the statue was meant to be displayed during Easter. As a spokesman for the group pointed out, the gallery "would never dare" to show a similar statue of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) during Ramadan. She has also described the statue as "an assault on Christians".
After management decided to cancel the exhibit, the gallery's artistic director resigned, complaining of "strong-arming from people who haven't seen the show" (BBC).
I must say it's a wise decision on the part of the Lab gallery. Some may see it as self-censorship, but I would prefer to see the outcome as an act of wisdom on the part of the gallery's management. Toying with people's feelings is never a good idea, whether it be in the realm or religion or anything else that people value. Thoughtful, intelligent criticism is one thing, but depicting a person highly respected by about half of mankind (Christians and Muslims) naked is neither thoughtful nor intelligent, but rather, in my view, a misguided shout for attention. I'm glad that the Lab gallery did not decide to take the route followed by the free-speech fanatics in Europe on the issue of the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)