Devangshu Datta: Faith versus free speech

Some 25 years ago, I first saw pictorial depictions of the Prophet, courtesy a Hyderabadi Shia. He was drawn surrounded by a halo of fire in some 17th century miniatures that one of my friend’s ancestors had acquired on pilgrimage in Iran.

My friend said similar artwork could be bought at any mosque in modern Iran under the Ayatollahs. He also pointed out that anybody who carried these into Saudi Arabia, or any other Sunni nation, would risk a death sentence.

The Shia-Sunni differential became moot in 2005 when Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten published its cartoons. Those were manifestly disrespectful. Denmark’s diplomatic relations with Islamic nations became strained when it became clear that Danish free speech laws prevented censorship and protected the cartoonists, who faced death threats.

Rushdie onwards, those threats are normal. It is part of a pattern of extremists resorting to violence to impose their world view in incidents like the murder of Theo Van Gogh and threats against Ayaan Hirsa Ali, Taslima Nasreen, etc.

The cartoon row received fresh impetus in April. Popular US TV show, South Park, had a representation of the Prophet, (it also showed Jesus surfing porn). While the programme was censored by the network, South Park’s creators duly received the death threats.

In response, another cartoonist suggested May 20 be observed as “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day” where people would visually represent the Prophet on the Internet. The proposal quickly gained momentum.

The logic of “free-speechers” is simple. Some strands of Islam forbid visual depiction of the Prophet. Their sentiments deserve respect. But attempts to impose those sentiments forcibly on those who do not share them are not acceptable. While individual transgressors can be threatened, if thousands “broke” the blasphemy “laws”, they would be impossible to target and thus, make their point.

The world being what it is, and the Internet what it is, the purity of this free-speech argument was, of course, conflated by flame wars of an order that has never been seen before. Hundreds of thousands signed up on various Facebook pages to display pictures. Twitter, Youtube and Flickr were co-opted. An equal number of Muslims arrived to threaten or debate with “free-speakers”.

The Internet causes extreme polarisation and this is a polarising subject in itself. A lot of the “debate” was disgusting. Much of it was highly entertaining and could be best described as equal opportunity disrespect of all world faiths. Some of the Islamists appeared confounded when various free-speechers cheerfully joined in to abuse all religious belief.

There were a few, very few attempts to actually debate issues. Some moderate Muslims tried to answer awkward questions about the way dissent and minority belief are treated in Islamic nations. Free-speech advocates explained their positions regarding the right to be offended and to give offence. Most of the logic won’t get through — but some will, due to sheer scale. Acrimonious as it may have been, this was the biggest mass exchange of views that has ever occurred.

Remarkably, Pakistan was the sole nation to actually ban websites carrying cartoon content (much of Web 2.0 is banned in several Islamic nations anyway). Even in Pakistan, the media was brave enough to condemn bans. Facebook will probably remove the offending pages anyhow because a sufficiency of Facebook users find them objectionable.

But the issue of faith versus free speech is not going to disappear along with Facebook pages. Islamic extremism is only the most violent manifestation of intolerance — to put it bluntly, every religion has nut-jobs. The temporary victories of Galileo and Darwin helped shape the world we know. But the war itself is likely to escalate over the next few decades and who knows what the outcome will be?