Majid Nawaz's Misjudgment

Why should we not take offence of someone mocking the person you hold most dear to your heart? I have discussed the matter of cartoons in a previous post here.

 Majid Nawaz, the founding member of Quilliam, a think-tank of sorts, found himself is a muddle after posting a cartoon from an atheist website depicting Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him). His intentions were innocent enough, but sadly, Mr. Nawaz has learnt that the reform he has been striving for did not bear fruit.

Making friends with Tony Robinson and then hoping to enter Parliament would have been a great success for Quilliam, but they forgot to notice the general cynicism about Robinson's damascene conversion to tolerance and reason. Also, they are seen as a tool for the establishment to 'reform' and educate the Muslim population of Great Britain.

While I support anyone who speaks against violence and intolerance, Quilliam foundation have been very unclear on their religious ideology. As an organization which claims to have the ultimate answer to religious extremism among Muslims, they have little to show about it in their publications. There are booklets available challenging the notions of violent Jihad and issues of blasphemy and apostasy, but there has to be a deeper, much needed debate to be had about the role of the clergy in the modern Islamic world. Quilliam has to challenge the Mullah, the source of all that is wrong with the 'Ummah'. 

But before they can do that, they have to come clean themselves. Do they feel that Quran has to be revised because just like Bible it has commandments no longer applicable? Also, they seem to be very dubious about Hadith literature and want to interpret Islamic values and practices based on how the western minds would want them. Yes, they will cite 'scholars' from Islamic history to support one idea or another, but when it comes to defending the validity of early Islamic history, they beat a hasty retreat.

Why would any Muslim want them on their side?

I know Majid did not mean to offend his fellow Muslims by sharing the cartoon. He wanted to make a point that these cartoons do not threaten his faith.

He wanted everyone to know that he is not offended by a cartoon which was created solely to offend. At one level, I do understand Mr. Nawaz's predicament. Why should we Muslims waste our time getting offended by a bunch of small-minded atheist bigots who have nothing better to do?

Indifference is the best response. Just as the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) advised his companions to leave such gatherings where his opponents abused or ridiculed him. But at the same time, he also advised his companions to deliver the message of Islam by taking every opportunity to engage with such people.

But by sharing the cartoon, Mr. Nawaz not only engaged with the offenders on their own terms, he also alienated many Muslims who for the right or wrong reasons took offence yet again.

If Quilliam foundation had any sense of duty towards Islam, they will correct their error and avoid taking part in the atheist mockery of all faiths.

We should only engage with them when they are serious about talking, not playing street jesters to please themselves.

And also, Quilliam foundation is not a grass-roots movement. It is a working party to find a solution for the government.

Sadly, it is destined to fail because it is trying to find political solutions to a spiritual problem.

Drawing Pictures: Since when has it become offensive?

Over the last many decades, a large majority of the western Christian world has in practice stopped being Christian, thus reactions to insults and blasphemies have dimmed down to solitary voices here and there. Atheism is the fashion. No one wants to declare openly that they revere a person or deity because of their religious faith.


But this is not a question of existence of God. The question here is.. Can you force a group of people to change their values that you do not agree with? Aggressive atheists these days are happy to shout at every forum how religion has caused intolerance and bigotry in the society. But here is a test case.. UCL's atheist society publishing cartoons of Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them) and expecting this to go unnoticed!

Muslims do not draw human form; they do not build statues for religious purposes. Yes, there are Muslim artists who paint and draw human form, and there is nothing wrong with it. But this has to be kept strictly outside of religious sphere because of the express command of the founder of Islam (peace be upon him). This is a strong value that all practicing Muslims adhere to. No pictures are to be found in any Mosque around the world. A Billion Muslims hold this belief which safeguards the monotheistic basis of Islam. Yet a handful of atheists think that drawing a picture of Muhammad (peace be upon him) for whatever reason should be acceptable?

Atheists, born and brought up in the West (or influenced by European values) may think that drawing pictures is what humans have always done. What is wrong with that? European art galleries are full of depictions of religious figures on canvas and in stone and in metal. But Islam is not a European faith. Neither was Christianity. Regardless of what Greek and Roman art did to Christianity, Islam has not “traded in” its values for the sake of gaining adherents.

This is despite the fact that Islamic scholars re-discovered Greek philosophy and had decades of conflict with the Romans. Usually such interactions results in softening of certain closely held values, and they did. Early rationalist movement in Islam (Mu’tazillites) had deep roots in Greek logic. Yet, no Muslim ever thought of painting or sculpting a Holy figure or a saint. Enough proof that depiction of religious figures was an absolute taboo for Muslims.There are some very rare depictions of Holy personalities in Iranian Shia culture, but it has never been accepted by the wider Muslim world. Those paintings in which the prophet has been depicted can only be described as only limited to a particular era and was largely unknown by the Muslim majority. Most other depictions in Islamic minature arts show the prophet as a halo or a veiled figure.

All reasonable Humanists and Atheists will understand why Muslims take offense when someone tries to depict the Prophet of Islam (peace be upon him). It is because drawing of a picture has never been an Islamic tradition. Yes, it has been a tradition in the conquered lands and Islam has not forbidden artistic representations of human form, but only as a secular art. It has become a Christian tradition, which is why even many Christians do not take offense when Jesus has been mocked at by cartoonists and comedians. People at this atheist society at UCL want practicing Muslims to “tolerate” their attempts at mocking Muslim values? Where is the sense in that?

Why should we not allow BNP and EDL to mock and vilify Islam and Muslims too? What is the difference? And what is wrong with a bit of holocaust denial and some “good-natured” anti-Semitism? Some "fact based" scientific racism.. anyone? Let us accept all this in the name of tolerance!! Updated: 28Jan2014