|
Muslims have been offended by cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed. The Imam of the Maltese Islamic community, Sheikh Mohammed El Sadi, condemns the violence but insists the sacred remains untouchable 
From his pulpit, Shiekh Mohammed El Sadi preaches peace and tolerance, and the Islamic school he is responsible for is a living example of this. Built next to his mosque, it has been run for years by a Christian headmistress, following the same curriculum for state schools with Islamic classes being the only substitute for Christian doctrine.
“Respect” is the word he likes to use. Christians and Muslims have to respect each other and each other’s customs – a condition that is more or less prevailing in Europe, to the extent at least that Muslims are free to practice their religion and follow their traditions, while bowing at the same time to the rule of law.
We meet on Wednesday, coincidentally the feast of Ashurah for Muslims, a day of fasting in remembrance of Moses for the Sunnis, and the commemoration of martyrdom of Caliph Ali for the Shi’ites.
“You know why we’re fasting today?” he tells me after offering me coffee. “You see we respect all the prophets. Moses is very important for us, as is Jesus and all the founders of religions.”
As Muslims vent their rage all over the world over cartoons depicting the Prophet, the imam admits the situation has got out of hand.
He says he was shocked to see how Muslims reacted violently, torching embassies and even killing people in their ferocious demonstrations. But he is equally categorical in reiterating that the sacred remains untouchable, even in mainland Europe.
“I can’t explain to you in words the position of Mohammed in our hearts,” he says clasping his forehead, clearly lost for words when faced with my repeated question about why all this fuss about a couple of cartoons.
“People cry, people are passionate about the Prophet, peace be unto him. I disagree with violence, but they feel they were offended about the dearest thing they have. I would have never expected it to develop in this negative way, but I think it’s a warning call to us all not to play with fire.”
Not to play with fire? Is that the lesson that comes out of this tumultuous incident? Not according to the secular west, at least that part that is sticking to its fundamental right to freedom of expression, even before religious sensibilities.
That is a point which Sheikh Sadi finds impossible to accept. He champions freedom of expression, but he says there are ‘red lines’ that can never be crossed. The Prophet is a red line.
“You see,” he says calmly, “there is no absolute freedom of expression in the world. Everywhere there are restrictions and exceptions. For example in the west you cannot doubt the Holocaust; it’s against the law. You cannot criticise Semitism. In some countries, even in Malta, you cannot for example publish the names of minors involved in legal cases. So there is no absolute freedom. We believe in freedom of expression but we say that this freedom should be practiced in a responsible way, in a wise way.”
Determining who is responsible and wise, however, is not the point of democracy, where the free press is independently responsible to take its editorial stand on anything, even the sacred, independently of governments and institutions.
“In this case we know that governments are not responsible, legally, for the publication of these cartoons,” the imam says. “But governments have the moral responsibility, because they represent the citizens of their countries, so there is nothing wrong with making an apology about these cartoons which offended more than one billion Muslims all over the world. It would also defuse the tension that has been created.”
Why should European governments apologise when they believe in freedom of expression? Can’t you understand European governments saying, ‘to us respect towards and dialogue with Islam are important, but the value of free speech is even more important, irrespective of the content of those cartoons, because it is an essential founding value of Europe’.
“You see,” he replies. “These are human codes and human conceptions, and these can be changed. If we find out, for example, that we are mistaken, that they are not in the interest of world peace and cooperation, then we have to review them.”
Do you really expect Europe to review its laws and abandon its values because Muslims would like so?
“Why not? It’s not just about Europe. If we, for example, find that in our society that there is something which endangers our relations with others and offend others we review it. Why not? At the end, the law is to serve man, not man to serve law.”
Let’s be honest, Sheikh Sadi, there have been millions of Muslims living in Europe for centuries in complete freedom to practice their religion and to settle here; there are whole generations of European Muslims who have been living with these freedoms. So what’s the problem?
“We are grateful for the good treatment of Muslim minorities and the great privilege they enjoy in these countries, and we want good relations with Europe and America and with all countries. We are not happy with the situation, we are very sad actually. We want to calm down the situation and rebuild the trust and mutual respect. We have to rebuild good relations, with Denmark in particular and the European Union in general. But what happened in Denmark and in other countries, which republished these ridiculous cartoons, offended the Muslims even in Europe. Maybe Muslims in Europe did not express themselves in the same way as in Muslim countries; they were calmer and more civilised and law-abiding. But it doesn’t mean they were not offended.”
Do Muslims have a sense of humour? Can you take a joke about your religion, Shiekh Sadi?
“Of course,” he replies. “Mohammed himself used to joke, but in a responsible way, with respect to all the sacred symbols of religions. So we can express ourselves in a respectful and responsible way. The prophets are considered models for us. If we mock the prophets and disrespect them, what is left to guide us? What remains to inspire us and our children? Prophets are red lines and should not be transgressed.”
It is hard, actually impossible, to argue with a statement like that. When God is one’s exclusive reference point and the sacred is untouchable, there is little room for discussion and rationality.
I tell him I find it amazing how Arab and Islamic governments rarely lift a finger on issues involving Muslims’ lives – like the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the Palestinian question – yet they conveniently egged on the masses to protest against a few cartoons.
“Of course, I agree with you that the Muslim world is not acting as it should act regarding these injustices you mention,” he says. “I agree with you. But defaming Mohammed is such a sensitive matter which creates this kind of agreement in the Islamic world.”
But here is clearly a clash of values, if not of civilisations. This is a point of no reconciliation.
“We do not believe in the clash of civilisations. Islam is for peace and for the mutual coexistence of cultures and civilisations, and we should not exaggerate what is going on in the Islamic world. I think in the end the situation will calm down and relations will gradually return to normal. We are not attacking the west.”
Well, protestors in London held placards such as ‘Freedom go to Hell’. “They’re stupid.”
Aren’t they attacking the same freedom to live as Muslims in London?
“Sure. These are irresponsible persons. It’s stupid. I don’t know how it happened. I myself was shocked when I watched the news. They are ignorant people who do not know the teaching of Islam and Mohammed. This is not Islam, this is against Islam. So please do not generalise.”
They’re making the most noise right now.
“Please do not generalise.”
I tell him that while there have been outspoken Muslim denouncers of terrorism, there has been no such commotion against people like Bin Laden who have been instrumentalising his religion.
“Who is providing the wood for the fire of terrorism? Who is giving excuses for Bin Laden? Such irresponsible cartoons and people who support them are playing in the hands of Bin Laden, and giving excuses to Bin Laden and other terrorists to do their criminal acts.”
But if you look at the Catholic Church – the Vatican has now come to terms with Europe’s irreverence and biting satire after decades blacklisting literature and works of art. Even the Vatican realises it is living in a secular world in which it is just one of the players as an institution. That seems alien to Islam.
“We respect all the stands of governments and churches, but we believe that God is above the law. Religions and sacred symbols are above the law. The law is man-made, in the service and interest of man. If we find out that something is not in the interest and for the benefit of man, we have to think about it.”
The point is that Europe does not hold God as a reference point any longer. There are secular societies that refuse even a reference to God in the European constitution. So you’re basically talking on a different plane.
“They are free to choose their own laws and their own ways and ideologies, but they cannot impose their cultures and their systems upon other societies, especially when others are respecting their sacred systems.”
Aren’t you trying to impose your prohibitions on Europe?
“We are not imposing, we are requesting respect, which is a common good and a human right. We advised them this was offensive and they did nothing. They did not listen to Muslims.”
So what do you expect them to do?
“Now they have to apologise. We understand the legal systems in the EU and we know that the prime ministers are not responsible legally for these things, but at least they have to show good will towards the Muslims, to express sympathy and solidarity with Muslims, to say a good word to the Muslims, to say they regret what happened. That’s what we want. This should happen as soon as possible.”
And would that resolve everything?
“Of course. It will be solved; it may take some time but it will be solved. There are many governments, churches, clergymen and intellectuals who expressed their solidarity with us. We thank them all. I thank the Maltese Church and what many have written in this sense. We would take the same stand if Jesus was insulted in such a way.”
As an outsider to Christianity, what do you feel when you see Europeans satirising Jesus Christ?
“We are angry when this happens. I remember when there was that film, The Last Temptation of Christ, we were very angry. Certainly Muslims oppose the defamation of Christ. For Christians, it is an injustice against themselves when they portray Jesus in such a way. Now I hear there’s another film showing Jesus and his disciples as homosexuals. I am very angry at this. What will remain to our children? What kind of models, motivation, inspiration, if we mock these great prophets? What is going to guide us to salvation and to a happy life?
The irreconcilable point is this: For you the sacred is untouchable.
“Of course.”
While in the West that view is not shared, or at least not as strongly as you do. Dante threw Popes in hell, flanking Mohammed, much before these cartoonists.
“They are free, they are free to criticise Islam, to criticise Mohammed, and we are not against this. We cannot say that this can’t be done, because everyone has a right to express himself, but in a respectful way. There is no confrontation with the West, we are part of the west. Now we have more than 25 million Muslims in the west, we cannot be against them. We want to live in harmony and peace, and benefit from relations with the west. We cannot do without the west. We need the west and the west needs us. What we ask of the west is to respect us and our sacred symbols, as we respect theirs.”
Didn’t it cross your mind, at any point, that maybe there are too many Muslims giving a bad name to Islam, and that maybe that’s what the cartoonist wanted to say?
“Just as there are many Christians giving a bad name to Christianity, and many Jews do the same. We just can’t generalise. Let them portray Bin Laden as they want, not Mohammed.”
I tell him I can imagine perfectly a cartoon of Jesus sending crusaders to butcher Muslims as a way of provoking thought about the historical wars declared by the Vatican in God’s name in contrast with Christ’s message to love thy neighbour. It would be misguided to reduce such a cartoon to just a question of respect.
“There is a limit to provocation,” he replies. “It’s unwise to cross it. I understand your idea, to create dialogue and awareness, sometimes even we do this. But there’s a limit, you see, no need to provoke and humiliate the sacred symbols of religions. You can do this in other ways, without burning your fingers.”
It’s fire again. For a liberal agnostic, all these prohibitions smell like hell.
|
