"Let Us Learn Lessons from the Reeking Graphics!"

That was only seven years ago. In 2005, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published 12 cartoons insulting to Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. The world got turned upside down in the Islamic world, and thousands of protesters staged demonstrations in most capitals, which resulted in the death of dozens in clashes with security forces. In Denmark itself, demonstrators of Muslim descent attacked Danish foreign affairs buildings and European Union offices. Danish embassies in several Muslim capitals, as well as in London, were raided as well, and their flags were burned, while shouts resounded calling for bin Laden to revenge the Prophet. Most Muslim governments demanded that Denmark apologize; their ambassadors requested meetings with Danish Prime Minister, Rasmussen (who later was appointed secretary-general of NATO), but he refused to meet with them for a period of three months.

In the course of these three months, 143 newspapers in 56 countries, including Muslim ones, republished the same cartoons or some of them. They announced that they did so not only to support the Danish newspaper, but also in the defense of freedom of expression. Many of these newspapers attacked Muslim governments and said that the latter would be unable to restrict their freedoms as they do in their own communities. It was observed then that American and British newspapers sympathized with Jyllands-Posten, but most of them did not publish the graphics. The U.S. State Department issued a communiqué describing the graphics as being offensive and said that “incitement to racial and religious hatred is unacceptable.”* The British Foreign Minister stated that “freedom of expression does not necessarily require humiliation.”*

Finally, Rasmussen met Arab ambassadors in Copenhagen, but he refused to make an explicit apology, since his government was not responsible. Syria, Saudi Arabia and Libya withdrew their ambassadors, and demonstrations reignited in the Muslim world calling for revenge. At that time I was living in Dubai, where calls resounded, as throughout the Gulf states, for the boycott of Danish products. It was not a strange sight to see these calls typed on paper and hung on the doors of most shops and commercial centers. I remember Sheikh Qaradawi then delivering a sermon in which he said, “We should let Europeans know that we can live without them, but they can not live without us.” As for me, I was enthusiastic to boycott the products as much as possible. In the a program entitled “Pencil” that I presented on television, I demanded the restriction of the boycott to one Danish butter consumed throughout the Gulf. The television administration refused to rebroadcast the program as they usually do, for fear of losing advertising contracts estimated at thousands of dollars. However, the ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid, having learned of the news, decreed that the program be broadcast twice during prime time instead of once. Perhaps the boycott campaign succeeded, as the dairy company that produces the butter in question cut production and laid off some workers, but not a large enough number (only 125 people) so as to affect Denmark’s economy.

Despite the congestion in international relations caused by the cartoons, the position of the United Nations was lukewarm. Its then-Secretary General, Kofi Annan, contented himself with making a statement in which he called on the two parties (the Muslim and Western worlds) to not add more fuel to the fire. Muslim countries condemned this apathy, and within the framework of the Islamic Conference, ambassadors of these countries to the United Nations put forth a proposal to the General Assembly to issue a strong recommendation on the defamation of religions, focusing on respect for Islam in particular, and demanding that Islam not be associated with terrorism. The recommendation was issued, and yet the publication of the cartoons did not cease. In 2006, they were reprinted in countries stretching from New Zealand to Hungary, Norway, Switzerland, Germany and Italy; France Soir found it a rich material that would save it from its financial difficulties. Hardly two years passed before 17 Danish newspapers republished the cartoons under the slogan “in defense of freedom of opinion,” although the newspaper Jyllands-Posten had apologized for publishing it before. In 2010, it came to be that a book containing all the cartoons was published in Copenhagen. However, Muslim communities continued to chase the Danish artist for years in all forums, so much so that a young Somali tried to kill him. (He was sentenced to 10 years in 2011.) Also despite the fact that the Danish newspaper was attacked several times and a French newspaper was bombed, Europeans sympathized with the cartoonist, and German Chancellor Merkel honored him in 2010.

I cite these facts with no comment, leaving the reader to infer what he wants. But if we compare the situation at the time with the insulting film crisis of the Americans, we’ll find that the situation is now more complicated for several reasons. The other party this time is a superpower – the United States, not Denmark. In Libya, an ambassador was murdered this time with two colleagues in his embassy, and this is the first test of the worsening relations between the United States and the Arab Spring states, which is also the first test for political Islam ruling in Egypt and Libya in the face of the United States. Egypt in particular wants to take a strong stance on the issue of the insult to the Holy Prophet. However, it is constrained by the worrisome internal situation, its quest for foreign investment and possible civilian and military aid. The people in Egypt and the countries of the Arab Spring generally have broken the barrier of fear and have their word and weight. There are feelings of firm hatred towards the United States that have surfaced again to start the crisis, and the release of the movie was masterminded in order to coincide with the memory of Sept. 11, which reminds Americans of the nightmare of Islam and terrorism. Then although anger swept all people, it was divided on the nature of the response between bids and maneuvers. And finally, there is now a mutual vendetta between a part of the people and the police storming the domestic scene.

In addition to all this, there are other differences between the crises of the cartoons and the insulting movie. Most notably, there are Egyptian Christians among the film producers, which has compounded the domestic complexities. Also, the film has been watched on a large scale and broadcast on YouTube. Thus other parties are in the crisis, including Google and the rest of the pillars of the web. Finally, a part of the film was broadcast by an Egyptian religious channel.

In “Hamlet,” Shakespeare famously said, “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.” As for us, we smell the reek in America. Perhaps I’ll have the opportunity to write another article wherein I see what to do.

* Editor’s note: The original quotation, accurately translated, could not be verified in English.