The ongoing cartoon crisis is symptomatic of a profound estrangement between Western and Islamic cultures the causes of which have to be addressed if one wants to stop the escalation and prevent future antagonism. In my opinion, the present crisis has revealed once again that the West has fallen short of the ideals it boasts and proclaims so brazenly, namely tolerance, understanding and secular neutrality. This discrepancy between ideals and reality manifests itself in three major flaws:  basing judgment on profound ignorance, showing duplicity towards the Muslims and applying wrong criteria to judge them.

As far as judging is concerned, one ought to normally  avoid it as much as possible, but if one is forced to,  one should make sure – all the more as Westerners claim to be civilized- that one knows well enough the thing or person to be judged. And the truth of the matter is that Westerners in general are completely ignorant of Islam. Despite that ignorance or because of it, they share a common ancestral belief that Islam is crude, violent and backward, hence the rise of Islamophobia in the West and the repeated blasphemous attacks on the Qur'an, the prophet and Islam. The question is, where  does this belief originate from? Does it build on an investigation of Islam from within? From a direct contact with Islamic sources, namely the Qur'an and Sunnah (the prophetic Tradition)? Of course not!

That belief originates from two main sources: a deeply ingrained hatred of Islam handed down from one generation to the other ever since the very first clash between Islam and Christendom and permanently maintained and rekindled through education, literature and the media. As a matter of fact, the present slanderous cartoons of the Prophet of Islam shamelessly reverberate the slanders of the early Christians and the crusaders, strongly suggesting that the Dark Ages are still with us! Some Westerners may have rejected this bigoted attitude but at the subconscious level it is still there waiting only to be reawakened. The only way to remove it once and for all is through adopting a critical and objective approach to Islam. The second source is the wrong behavior of the Muslims themselves - personal and social, including, of course, the repeated terrorist attacks and the killing of innocent people. These two sources ought to be questioned by all fair-minded westerners (whose number- thank God- is considerable) on the basis that the former is groundless and grotesquely prejudiced and that the latter is unfair and misleading in that one cannot measure Muslims against Islam or Christians against Christianity, for neither of them is a perfect and reliable embodiment of their respective religion. Indeed, all sensible people would agree that one has no right to ascribe to Christianity the horrendous crimes committed by Hitler in Europe. it would be likewise unfair to attribute to Islam the terrorist attacks and the crimes perpetrated by Muslim rulers in the past and at present as the cartoonist have attempted to. Suffice it to say that Muhammad (PBUH)  proclaims that "If anyone wrongfully kills even a sparrow, let alone anything greater, he will face Allah's interrogation", that he was a man of peace, that he strived to establish peace throughout his life, that his religion is called peace ( one of the basic meanings of the word Islam). Thus, to judge any religion, one must objectively study and scrutinize its basic teachings as they are revealed in their primary sources. In other words the questions that ought to be asked by all are: does Islam/Christianity enjoin violence? Does Islam/Christianity encourage racism and intolerance? Does Islam/Christianity demean women? Etc...

Now that the reader knows where to go, let him/her find the answers for himself! However, given the urgency of the matter at hand, let me brief you on the man the Danish press is attempting to ridicule and leave it to you to check for yourself:

It is historically demonstrable that Muhammad (PBUH) was the very embodiment of meekness, truthfulness, faithfulness, humbleness, courteousness, generosity and rectitude; that he gained from that the esteem and admiration of all those who lived with him, dealt with him, accompanied him or simply accosted  him, including his deadliest enemies!

The encyclopedia Britannica calls him "the most successful of all religious personalities of the world". George Bernard Shaw said," If Muhammad were alive today; he would succeed in solving all those problems which threaten to destroy human civilization in our times". Michael H. Hart, a non-Muslim contemporary American thinker ranks Muhammad (PBUH) in his book The 100: A Ranking of the  Most Influential Persons In History, as the greatest man that has ever lived on earth and he justifies his choice by saying:" My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world's most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular level." 

                                        

As is clear, you don't have to be a Muslim to argue that Muhammad is unique and matchless; in fact you don't even have to be a believer (Bernard Shaw was an atheist)! No wonder, Muhammad (PBUH) synthesized the meekness of Jesus Christ, the strength of character of Moses, the military genius of Alexander the Great, the political expertise of David and Solomon. He was a religious leader, a social reformer, a moral guide, a political thinker, a leading statesman, a military genius, an administrative colossus, an impartial arbitrator, a faithful friend, a wonderful companion, a devoted husband, a loving father- all in one. One can readily find a number of personalities in history who enjoy one or some of the above qualities, such as Jesus, Moses, Solomon, David, Abraham, peace be upon them all, but to find these qualities all perfectly incorporated in one man, only Muhammad , peace and blessing be upon him, is eligible for this most elevated rank.

  

Now, does such a man deserve to be ridiculed and demeaned? Had the cartoonist but known Muhammad as they should have, drawing those cartoons would never have crossed their minds - instead they would have produced a work of art to elevate him to the lofty stature he deserves, winning thereby the respect and gratitude of a billion and a half Muslim instead of their wrath and hatred!

Invoking the freedom of speech is thus a gross and unjustifiable argument, for this freedom ought to be exercised to satirize and criticize evil not good; the enemies of peace and tolerance not the champions of love and understanding!

In case good is satirized instead of evil – as is the case at hand- we are by no means in presence of a freedom of speech but rather in presence of a freedom to lie and slander and to sow hatred and discord. Contrary to what many westerners assume, we, Muslims, greatly value freedom of speech (all the more as we are denied it!), but we believe that respect of what and who deserves respect should override the principle of free speech itself. Besides, aren't the cartoons in blatant contradiction with one of the basic tenets of secularism, namely the concept of tolerance? How can you claim to be tolerant while you are vilifying what your fellow-countrymen, your next-door neighbours hold as sacred?!

The second flaw in the western way of thinking is the duplicity and double-standard attitude shown by their media in general: Indeed would a western paper or magazine publish an article that argues that the number of the holocaust victims was deliberately magnified, or that the Palestinian armed militia should be backed financially and militarily because they are fighting a just war against the occupying Jews or that the  state of Israel should be wiped out and the Jews allowed to settle in, say,  Norway and Denmark and adopt these as their eternal homeland? Or better still, would they allow the publication of an article arguing that gays and lesbians should be severely punished by law because they are perverse and unnatural?

The third gross mistake many westerners commit when they express their attitude towards anything Islamic is that they rigidly apply secular criteria on Islamic issues, thereby distorting the actual event or idea! For the sake of objectivity, it should be said that more often than not Muslims do the same by rigidly applying Islamic criteria on western values and culture. Take the ongoing cartoon issue; it is a well-established fact that in secular societies, religion is relegated to the dustbin. In fact, religion is not an issue and nobody ever talks about it. For western societies nothing- religiously speaking, at least- is sacred. No one is sacred. Everything is relative. In contrast, religion is paramount in Muslim societies; it is part and parcel of daily life: we often talk about it. We care for it. We judge one another by it. We live by it and our dearest dream is to die for it. Profound misunderstanding arises when, instead of accepting and coexisting with one another, either party condemns the other for not thinking, behaving or being in conformity with its own standards. A manifest illustration of this distorting attitude is the dismay shown by most western media at the Muslims' outrage at the cartoons and their violent aggression towards "freedom of the press". 'All this fuss about a few cartoons?' they would be inclined to argue. Well, my answer is yes indeed and there can never be enough fuss about the desecration of the noblest man who has ever set foot on earth. Muhammad, peace and blessing be upon him, is dearer to all Muslims -including those who pay lip-service to Islam- than the dearest thing or person they have on earth and they are ready to stake their all for him. This is our belief. This is our religion.

I think it is high time that westerners showed respect for the prophet Muhammad (PBUH) not only because he embodies qualities that they highly value themselves, but because they – and all human beings - owe such respect for the messenger who was sent by Allah "as a mercy unto mankind". However, if they are still disinclined to, they are called upon to play by the rules of the game and respect the Muslims' beliefs for the sake of coexistence if what they want is mutual understanding and friendship. In a likewise manner, Muslims ought not to be shocked by the indifference of westerners at the desecration of religious creeds and symbols given the fact that these are regarded by them with utter coldness. Instead, Muslims, if what they want is mutual understanding and friendship, should treat westerners with wisdom and gentleness, invite them to think before they act and understand before they judge.