I
am here to defend the right to offend.
It
is my conviction that the vulnerable enterprise
called democracy cannot exist without free expression,
particularly in the media. Journalists must not
forgo the obligation of free speech, which people
in other hemispheres are denied.
I
am of the opinion that it was correct to publish
the cartoons of Muhammad in Jyllands Posten
and it was right to re-publish them in other papers
across Europe.
Let
me reprise the history of this affair. The author
of a children’s book on the prophet Muhammad
could find no illustrators for his book. He claimed
that illustrators were censoring themselves for
fear of violence by Muslims who claimed no-one,
anywhere, should be allowed to depict the prophet.
Jyllands Posten decided to investigate this. They
-- rightly – felt that such self-censorship
has far-reaching consequences for democracy.
It
was their duty as journalists to solicit and publish
drawings of the prophet Muhammad.
Shame
on those papers and TV channels who lacked the courage
to show their readers the caricatures in The Cartoon
Affair. These intellectuals live off free speech
but they accept censorship. They hide their mediocrity
of mind behind noble-sounding terms such as ‘responsibility’
and ‘sensitivity’.
Shame
on those politicians who stated that publishing
and re-publishing the drawings was ‘unnecessary’,
‘insensitive’, ‘disrespectful’
and ‘wrong’. I am of the opinion that
Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen of Denmark
acted correctly when he refused to meet with representatives
of tyrannical regimes who demanded from him that
he limit the powers of the press. Today we should
stand by him morally and materially. He is an example
to all other European leaders. I wish my prime minister
had Rasmussen’s guts.
Shame
on those European companies in the Middle East that
advertised “we are not Danish” or “we
don’t sell Danish products”. This is cowardice.
Nestle chocolates will never taste the same after
this, will they? The EU member states should compensate
Danish companies for the damage they have suffered
from boycotts.
Liberty
does not come cheap. A few million Euros is worth
paying for the defence of free speech. If our governments
neglect to help our Scandinavian friends then I
hope citizens will organise a donation campaign
for Danish companies.
We
have been flooded with opinions on how tasteless
and tactless the cartoons are -- views emphasising
that the cartoons only led to violence and discord.
What good has come of the cartoons, so many wonder
loudly?
Well,
publication of the cartoons confirmed that there
is widespread fear among authors, filmmakers, cartoonists
and journalists who wish to describe, analyse or
criticise intolerant aspects of Islam all over Europe.
It
has also revealed the presence of a considerable
minority in Europe who do not understand or will
not accept the workings of liberal democracy. These
people – many of whom hold European citizenship
– have campaigned for censorship, for boycotts,
for violence, and for new laws to ban ‘Islamophobia’.
The
cartoons revealed to the public eye that there are
countries willing to violate diplomatic rules for
political expediency. Evil governments like Saudi
Arabia stage “grassroots” movements to
boycott Danish milk and yoghurt, while they would
mercilessly crash a grassroots movement fighting
for the right to vote.
Today
I am here to defend the right to offend within the
bounds of the law. You may wonder: why Berlin? And
why me?
Berlin
is rich in the history of ideological challenges
to the open society. This is the city where a wall
kept people within the boundaries of the Communist
state. It was the city which focalized the battle
for the hearts and minds of citizens. Defenders
of the open society educated people in the shortcomings
of Communism. The work of Marx was discussed in
universities, in op-ed pages and in schools. Dissidents
who escaped from the East could write, make films,
cartoons and use their creativity to persuade those
in the West that Communism was far from paradise
on earth.
Despite
the self-censorship of many in the West, who idealised
and defended Communism, and the brutal censorship
of the East, that battle was won.
Today,
the open society is challenged by Islamism, ascribed
to a man named Muhammad Abdullah who lived in the
seventh century, and who is regarded as a prophet.
Many Muslims are peaceful people; not all are fanatics.
As far as I am concerned they have every right to
be faithful to their convictions. But within Islam
exists a hard-line Islamist movement that rejects
democratic freedoms and wants to destroy them. These
Islamists seek to convince other Muslims that their
way of life is the best. But when opponents of Islamism
try to expose the fallacies in the teachings of
Muhammad then they are accused of being offensive,
blasphemous, socially irresponsible – even
Islamophobic or racist.
The
issue is not about race, colour or heritage. It
is a conflict of ideas, which transcend borders
and races.
Why
me? I am a dissident, like those from the Eastern
side of this city who defected to the West. I too
defected to the West. I was born in Somalia, and
grew up in Saudi Arabic and Kenya. I used to be
faithful to the guidelines laid down by the prophet
Muhammad. Like the thousands demonstrating against
the Danish drawings, I used to hold the view that
Muhammad was perfect -- the only source of, and
indeed, the criterion between good and bad. In 1989
when Khomeini called for Salman Rushdie to be killed
for insulting Muhammad, I thought he was right.
Now I don’t.
I
think that the prophet was wrong to have placed
himself and his ideas above critical thought.
I
think that the prophet Muhammad was wrong to have
subordinated women to men.
I
think that the prophet Muhammad was wrong to have
decreed that gays be murdered.
I
think that the prophet Muhammad was wrong to have
said that apostates must be killed.
He
was wrong in saying that adulterers should be flogged
and stoned, and the hands of thieves should be cut
off.
He
was wrong in saying that those who die in the cause
of Allah will be rewarded with paradise.
He
was wrong in claiming that a proper society could
be built only on his ideas.
The
prophet did and said good things. He encouraged
charity to others. But I wish to defend the position
that he was also disrespectful and insensitive to
those who disagreed with him.
I
think it is right to make critical drawings and
films of Muhammad. It is necessary to write books
on him in order to educate ordinary citizens on
Muhammad.
I
do not seek to offend religious sentiment, but I
will not submit to tyranny. Demanding that people
who do not accept Muhammad’s teachings should
refrain from drawing him is not a request for respect
but a demand for submission.
I
am not the only dissident in Islam. There are more
like me here in the West. If they have no bodyguards
they work under false identities to protect themselves
from harm. But there are also others who refuse
to conform: in Teheran, in Doha and Riyadh, in Amman
and Cairo, in Khartoum and in Mogadishu, in Lahore
and in Kabul.
The
dissidents of Islamism, like the dissidents of communism,
don’t have nuclear bombs or any other weapons.
We have no money from oil like the Saudis. We will
not burn embassies and flags. We refuse to get carried
away in a frenzy of collective violence. In number
we are too small and too scattered to become a collective
of anything. In electoral terms here in the west
we are practically useless.
All
we have are our thoughts; and all we ask is a fair
chance to express them. Our opponents will use force
to silence us. They will use manipulation; they
will claim they are mortally offended. They will
claim we are mentally unstable and should not be
taken seriously. The defenders of Communism, too,
used these methods.
Berlin
is a city of optimism. Communism failed. The wall
was broken down. Things may seem difficult and confusing
today. But I am optimistic that the virtual wall,
between lovers of liberty and those who succumb
to the seduction and safety of totalitarian ideas
will also, one day, come down.
