I stopped in at the pharmacy last Thursday to get a prescription filled, and as the pharmacist brought over the medicine, he quietly pointed out that one of them was Danish. With hardly a second thought I asked him if there was a compatible substitute available, which he quickly produced. Thanking him, I took the medicine and was off.
As I drove, I wondered what prompted me so quickly to reject the Danish brand. I had been to Denmark and found that the people I encountered there were warm and friendly. And on a couple of occasions their hospitality matched our own. In my travels through the Nordic countries, there really was nothing that would have left a bitter aftertaste. So why this sudden and abrupt rejection of anything Danish?
I expect the malicious portrayal of our Prophet (peace be upon him) in one of their newspapers had everything to do with it. For while I strongly believe in freedom of the press, I also know that the press be it anywhere carries with it a weight of responsibility.
Portraying our Prophet with a bomb ready to go off says a lot about the intent of the author who drew up this atrocious caricature. It is blasphemous and disrespectful, and prone to provoke and inflame negative feelings. And for a newspaper to publish such an offensive piece perhaps says more.
And for them to take four months before understanding the fury they had caused in Muslims everywhere speaks volumes of the disregard the press has against the religion of Islam. Blame the Muslims for some misdeeds, but blasphemy would not be one of them. Neither Moses nor Jesus or any of the other prophets would ever be an object of a malicious drawing or cartoon. For we, like the Jews and the Christians believe in them and their messages as well.
For the Danish and Norwegian governments to assume a "hands-off" policy in the name of freedom of the press rings hypocritically hollow. How swiftly would they have reacted had the piece in that newspaper been one questioning the validity of the number of Jews killed in World War II? Was it really six million as some historians have wondered?
In Canada, the United States and in Great Britain those who had previously brought this matter up were mercilessly hounded into silence. Jobs were lost and professions terminated. Laws were quickly drafted to punish anyone daring to question such claims. Had the Danish government assumed a similar posture on the doubters, they would have undoubtedly been booted out of office.
But to satire an individual, who passed on the message of Islam over 1400 years ago, in such a disrespectful manner, no editorial restraint was exercised. Neither was there a swift retraction nor rebuke from the Danish or Norwegian authorities. Only when business and commerce appeared to be threatened was there some kind of action.
I hold no resentment against the Danish or Norwegian people. They have caused me no harm. The actions of a few do not paint a fair picture of their societies. Many have been just as revolted by their own newspaper. Nor do I condone any manner of violent reactions. But for the moment I am offended. Disappointed at the action and the hypocrisy of those running the machinery of the written word in the so-called "free press" countries who proudly claim to uphold the freedom of the press and yet do it very selectively.
My rejection today of anything Danish or Norwegian may subside over time, as reason takes hold of emotions. But for now, please grant me the right to express my anger privately and nonviolently.
* The writer is a freelance columnist whose works have appeared in a number of publications. He resides in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
<EM>Tariq A. Al-Maeena:</EM> It's not just about the Danes
Opinion by
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.