For the past few days the world has been seeing a direct confrontation between Islam and liberal democracy. It is ugly and painful and at times comically surreal to watch. It is unpleasant to contemplate the long-term consequences, and the temptation is strong to just look away and hope for the storm to blow over.
But if the world is going to resolve this problem, we will have to look it straight in the eye, even if we have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the face-off.
So far the problem has not touched the Philippines. Preoccupied with venomous politics, counting the additional costs of the higher value-added tax, and now grieving for the dead at Ultra, we are in a state of blissful ignorance.
That blissful state is unlikely to last long. In this global village, the conflagration that has been ignited by 12 editorial cartoons published last September in peaceful, prosperous Denmark is bound to touch our shores soon. When this happens, I wonder whose side human rights advocates will take.
On one side are the defenders of Islam, who believe any depiction of the image of the Prophet Muhammad is blasphemous and could encourage idolatry. They want non-Muslims to respect Islamic beliefs.
On the other side are the defenders of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which certain societies in Asia and the Muslim world believe is a Western imposition on other cultures. This side invokes press freedom and the right to free expression in defending the publication of the cartoons, which were reprinted recently by newspapers in Britain, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, and the latest addition — New Zealand.
The British Broadcasting Corp. featured the cartoons — in proper context, the BBC emphasized — and the cartoons have landed on the Internet. Muslims are offended, but British opinion writers defend the right of a free press to offend. Some people think Muslims need to lighten up and develop a sense of humor.
Instead they are staging protest rallies at the embassies of Denmark and other European countries, and are boycotting Lurpak butter and other Danish products.
Last Saturday the embassies of Denmark and the Netherlands were torched in Syria. Security threats have prompted several European embassies in the Middle East to shut down and foreign diplomats to evacuate. Arab countries are recalling their diplomats from European capitals. Yet editorials in European newspapers continue to defend the publication of the cartoons as an exercise of freedom of expression.
Is this an unnecessary provocation, as Washington believes? Journalists will probably invoke their freedom to provoke.
So far the major American newspapers have not published the cartoons, saying they find the material offensive to religious and cultural sensitivities, although they are behind the exercise of press freedom.
There are those who argue that this is not a matter of freedom versus Islam or a clash of civilizations, but merely a question of good taste and sensitivity to religious beliefs.
The predominantly Christian West has turned the life of Jesus Christ into blockbuster movies and a racy rock opera. Liberal democracies consider it a basic human right to lampoon God. People in these societies may disagree with author Dan Brown, but they will defend his right to spread the theory that Christ started a family with Mary Magdalene and their line lives to this day. The Vatican may express its displeasure but the days of the Inquisition are over; Rome can only offer guidance to its flock. When it condemned Brown’s The Da Vinci Code, book sales even went up further.
Christians take such freedoms regarding their faith for granted, and are perplexed by the rage that the caricatures of Muhammad have stirred up from Indonesia and Malaysia to Pakistan and the Middle East.
In the age of political correctness, the answer is that the two need not be irreconcilable, that secular democracies are possible in the Islamic world. Turkey, Malaysia and the world’s largest Muslim country, Indonesia, are cited as examples.
Secular France tested this viewpoint by banning Islamic veils as well as other overt manifestations of religious beliefs in its schools, including crosses, Jewish skullcaps and Sikh turbans. So far the measure has survived the firestorm that ensued. But certain quarters, including the prime minister of Turkey, believe the scarf ban contributed to the riots staged by predominantly Muslim out-of-school youths from immigrant families in the French suburbs last year.
The land of liberty, fraternity, equality has been undergoing deep soul-searching in recent months as it fears the rise of Islamic fundamentalism among its poor immigrant communities.
Now Paris is once again in turmoil. The newspaper France Soir fired its managing editor for running all 12 cartoons of Muhammad. This is the land of liberté?
Huntington discussed several civilizations, but the terrorist threat has highlighted his theories about the Islamic world and liberal democracies.
Critics of his work have pointed out that there are fundamental differences within societies in the Muslim world, that Islam and democracy are not necessarily incompatible.
There are some reasonable voices amid the rage. An American imam in the UK, Luqman Ali, while condemning the cartoons, declared, "… Muslims once again fall into the reactionary trap set for them and confirm the thesis of the offending cartoons by exploding in rage and violence…"
Voices such as Ali’s, however, are being drowned by the rage. European governments that are being pressed for public apologies are pointing out that they do not control the press. The explanation cannot possibly be received well in societies where freedom of expression and satire are alien concepts.
The confrontation is escalating, and we must brace for its consequences.