On Danish Cartoons: A Rejoinder to Chris Barrigar
Olufemi Olayinka Oluniyi Friday, 20 October 2006
The satirical cartoons of Mohamed, the prophet of Islam, published by Jyllands-Posten, a Danish newspaper, in September 2005, and later reprinted by newspapers across Europe as well as in Yemen, Malaysia, Algeria, and Jordan drew different reactions in different parts of the world. Displeasure with the cartoons found expression in peaceful protests in several Western cities while reactions in Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan and Nigeria resulted in loss of at least 200 lives in a matter which they knew nothing about. With special reference to Nigeria, some Muslims in Maiduguri, capital of northeastern Borno State, rose from their weekly Friday prayer on February 18 2006, went to town and unleashed violence on innocent Christians. The four hours of surprise attack left 24 people dead, 101 churches, houses and shops belonging to Christians and the Igbo community destroyed, 7 hotels, 3 offices including a library burnt, 2,500 persons displaced, and property worth N1.5 billion destroyed, the stated reason being a cartoon in Danish newspaper five months earlier. Similar attacks took place in Bauchi, Katsina, and Kaduna.
Chris Barrigar's article, "The Danish Cartoons and Free Speech" in Global Perspectives of March 17 2006 offers Christians a guide to the inalienable right to freedom of expression in their conduct towards Muslims by examining two ethical approaches: communitarian ethics and libertarian ethics. He made a conscious effort at grounding the communitarian approach in Scripture thereby demonstrating its alleged superiority to the libertarian approach which, in his suggestion, Christians should shun. While one accepts the communitarian approach in principle, my argument in this rejoinder is that the libertarian ‘lighten up' advice to Muslims is not an anathema but a conclusion that Christians can rightly share without necessarily espousing a thoroughgoing libertarian doctrine. This article is based on the assumption that Barrigar's explanation of the two ethical approaches to the freedom of expression is global in scope but shaped by a regional consideration, "Islam and the West" or Islam in the West, where the cartoons were published followed by peaceful reactions. Similarly, this rejoinder is a country-specific perspective molded by reactions to the Danish cartoons resulting in mayhem and murder.
My point of departure is Barrigar's rhetorical question, "who are any of us to tell others, ‘Don't be insulted'? Virtually every person, including satirists and cartoonists, has a psychological point at which they will feel insulted by particular comments or attitudes of others". Our contention here is that Christians may be nobody to tell their Muslim counterparts ‘Don't be insulted". However they are certainly somebody, as responsible citizens, to expect and even demand that their Muslim counterparts self-restrain and not resort to violence, even when they (Muslims) feel insulted or aggrieved. The reasons are as follows.
First of all, Barrigar found in Jesus' choice "not to exercise his divine right to escape humiliation and crucifixion" a basis for Christians to forgo their rights in certain circumstances for a greater good. However, while Jesus chose to forfeit his right to life by going to the Cross, He did not allow the men of violence to execute premature crucifixion just because they felt offended by His teaching and deeds (Lk. 4:28-30). Similarly, he upheld a woman's right to life when religious bigots sought to kill her (Jn. 8: 6-9). Lastly, on this point, Jesus upheld the right to life rather than the waiver of the rights of potential victims of violence in the hands of fanatics whose religious sensibility was offended, when Jesus relativized Pilate-Ceasar's power with the declaration, "You have no power ... " (Lk. 19:11 KJV).
In order to capture the force of Jesus historic reply to Pilate, it is important to recall the fact that in New Testament times, there were two categories of Roman governors: governors of peaceful provinces that were appointed by the Roman Senate for a period of one year (although renewable) and governors of turbulent provinces that were appointed by Caesar himself for an indefinite length of time. Judea was regarded as a turbulent province because the Jews did not at any time voluntarily accept Roman rule over them. Therefore, the incumbent Caesar personally appointed Pilate to deal ruthlessly with the Jews who were not ready to submit to Roman authority. Jesus' declaration to Pilate, therefore, was not some saying in an obscure synagogue in some Galilean valley but a pronouncement in the praetorium; eyeball to eyeball. It was as good as Jesus standing before Ceasar the most powerful ruler of the time. By relativizing Pilate-Caesar's power, Jesus defended the rights of potential victims of violence. It follows therefore that violent men, violent Muslims inclusive, do not have an inalienable right to violence and the right to get away with it just because someone has offended their religious sentiment.
Secondly, Barrigar referred to 1 Cor 9:12-15 and Acts 25 11 as if rights- waiving is the all-round norm for Christians and rights-assertion is an exception to the norm, or something of poorer moral texture. However, rights assertion was not an exception in Paul's ministry but a consistent practice of his. For example, Paul was aware of his accusers' ploy to kill him whereas they could not establish a case against him. His proactive move, within the law, preempted violence (Acts 25). Prior to that, Paul working closely with his cousin forestalled murder by a timely move at protecting his right to live and to preach (Acts 23:12-32) rather than waiving it. At Philippi, Paul delivered a girl; asserted her right to freedom from a spirit which dominated her destiny and from exploitation by human masters. The ensuing scenario was such that he waived his right to fair treatment at first, but he in fact asserted his right to proper procedure with great effect in due course (Acts 16:35-37).
It is noteworthy that Paul did not speak solely of his right but the rights of "us". Similarly, in Acts 9:9b-25, he preempted murder by violent men who felt insulted by his testimony, whereas he did not commit any offence. In that instance, his friends acted with his consent. In all of the above, Paul did not allow the men of violence to walk all over him and others.
Rights-assertion cum timely moves is not an exemption to rights-waiving but an alternative, of equal moral parity, and legitimate option for Christians, especially in an environment where some people guided by religious internalized intolerance can easily claim to be insulted and therefore behave as if they have an inalienable right to react violently and the inalienable right to get away with it. Admittedly, this is not the usual case in the West. But there are situations of sporadic violence to innocent lives by intolerant people as was the case in Maiduguri, where asserting the rights of potential victims of violence rather than its waiver was the more responsible operational motif for the higher purpose of peaceful co-existence in a plural society. The challenge is for Christians to exercise discernment to know which of the two approaches apply in any given context.
The third reason why Christians should expect Muslims to self-restrain even when the latter feel insulted lies in the history of peaceful Christian-Muslim relations in Nigeria. It is a history in which Christianity which accounted for an infinitesimal percentage of Nigeria's population by 1841 became the religion with more than 50% adherence of the entire population by the mid 1980s. The fact that throughout its history in Nigerian Christianity took root and prospered in a pluralistic environment, in constant interaction and in the full glare of Islam, particularly in areas of Muslim concentration, is noteworthy.
Furthermore, the fact that skirmishes erupted between the two faith-communities in 1987 and have reoccurred incessantly (mostly in a particular region) since then has not been for reason of ignorance of each other's beliefs and practices, but due largely to a military dictator who ran out of ideas in 1986 and saw in the politicization and manipulation of religion a means of shoring up his sagging popularity. Regrettably, the positive aspects of inter-faith history in Nigeria remain a victim of convenient neglect by experts.
By emerging from obscurity to having the largest following in Nigeria, in a situation of constant interaction with Islam, all within 150 years, the Nigerian Christian community deserves the most Muslim-neighbor-friendly-church-in-the-world prize. Similarly, by interacting peacefully with Christianity throughout the demographic change, Islam in Nigeria deserves the most Christian-neighbor-tolerant-Muslim-community-in-the-world trophy. Hence, this unique win-win history is a basis for Christians to expect their Muslim counterparts to exercise self restraint even when the latter feel provoked.
Fourthly, it should not be forgotten that the positive history of Christian-Muslim relations in Nigeria is itself shaped by the traditional culture of religious tolerance in Nigerian primal-plural society. The traditional culture of tolerance in the wider society remains strong, therefore, Nigerian non-Muslims and non-Christians expect Muslims in their midst to restrain themselves when they feel aggrieved.
Fifthly, Muslims in Nigeria routinely expect non-Muslims to self-restrain when the latter are inconvenienced or even provoked. For example, the Muslim faithful gather in large numbers in mosques every Friday for the collective Jumat afternoon prayer whereas the number of worshippers in many of the mosques in the metropolis far exceeds the capacity of the mosques. Consequently, worshippers spill over to public highways intuitively expecting all traffic along the affected highways to come to a halt in the interest of peaceful co-existence and traffic stops for Muslim prayer. By the same convention, it is positive reciprocity for non-Muslims to expect their Muslim counterparts to restrain themselves, as and when required, for the sake of peaceful existence.
Apart from the traffic situation, there have been instances of calculated provocation by some Muslims and yet they expect victims of such provocations to ‘behave'. For example, sometime at the weekend of 19 and 20 August 2005, some Muslims purposely cut down Igi Isembaye (the ancestral tree) that traditionalists among Lagos indigenes revere and worship at Enu-Oluwa area of Lagos Island. The Traditionalists regarded "the felled tree [as] a symbol of authority as nobody can be made a chief by the Oba of Lagos, Oba Rilwan Akiolu, without putting the leaves of the tree on his head" and described the felling of the tree as "a sacrilege on their religion." In the aftermath of this incident, non-Muslims graciously ‘behaved' for the higher purpose of peaceful coexistence.
Sixthly, Christians should expect and even demand that Muslims restrain themselves when the latter feel provoked based on the position of principled Muslims on the issue. In a reaction to the mayhem at Maiduguri, Sa'ad Ngamdu, Secretary-General, Jama'atu Nasril Islam, Borno State chapter was reported as saying that his heart bled at the action of his fellow Muslims because their action violated the teachings of Islam. According to him, his fellow Muslims who perpetrated the act will incur Allah's wrath because Islam is not a religion of violence but peace and tolerance. Similarly, the Muslim Public Affairs Centre (MPAC), Abuja, condemned the wanton violence as a complete negation of the teachings of Islam, quoting the Koran chapter 41 verses 34 and 35. Other condemnatory statements came from Saleh Yakubu and notably Shehu Sani, of the Northern Civil Society Forum. Perhaps the most significant of all the condemnatory statements was the pro-active admonition by Abdulfatah Oladeinde who warned his fellow Muslims about over-reacting to the cartoon a week before the mayhem.
In conclusion, Christian-Muslim relations in a violence-prone environment are very complex, especially when a party already feels insulted. Response need not be straight-jacketed because there is more than one scripturally-based, morally sound, historically tested, and shared-values-resonant way of responding. Consequently, Christians have a good case for calling their Muslim counterparts to order as and when necessary. What Christians require is discernment, humility, and courage for responsible action at this historical moment.