The title of my essay is based on the Hollywood film "Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World," written and directed by albert Brooks. Opened recently in various parts of America, the film was a box-office flop, though it did raise a few titters here and there, and some thought provoking questions about humour and cultural sensitivity.

Then came Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of the conservative Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. He wanted to make a point about the freedm of expression, hence he commissioned twelve cartoonists to draw cartoons of Prophet Mohammad to "highlight the difficulty experienced by Danish writer Kre Bluitgen in finding artists to illustrate his children's book" about the Muslim Prophet. After all, didn't the world need to see how the prophet of the world's most talked about religion looked like?

The challenge was great: how could one draw the cartoon of a figure whose image did not exist at all? The cartoons were published on September 30, 2005, evoking minor protests. Following the example of the Danish newspaper, several European newspapers too felt compelled to enlighten their readers and reproduced the images. The result was the "Cartoon Wars" that came to be waged between some European newspapers and the entire "Muslim world," as it were.

Avalanche of protests

As thousands of Muslims reacted to the cartoons of Prophet Mohammad violently, from Copenhagen to Cairo and from Patna to Peshawar, embassies were burnt down, a few lives were lost and Danish products were boycotted in the Middle East. The majority of the world leaders, including US President George Bush, felt compelled to denounce the cartoons.

Once again, the Muslims lucked out in the eyes of the Western world. Their image as a bomb-loving violent community were further cemented in the non-Islamic world. The voice of the radicals, a vocal minority amongst the Muslims, drowned the voice of the moderate majority.

The Danish newspaper editor, meanwhile, was sent on a holiday.

In its editorial, The Economist (February 9, 2006) defended the Danish and European newspapers' right to publish the cartoons on the grounds of freedom of expression: "Freedom of expression, including the freedom to poke fun at religion, is not just a hard-won human right but the defining freedom of liberal societies. When such a freedom comes under threat of violence, the job of governments should be to defend it without reservation." The publication was referring to the criticism made by French President Jacques Chirac who condemned the cartoons as a "manifest provocation."

But did The Economist forget the tenet that with freedom comes responsibility? Indeed, it did not. The publication noted: "Shouldn't the right to free speech be tempered by a sense of responsibility? Of course. Most people do not go about insulting their fellows just because they have a right to. The media ought to show special sensitivity when the things they say might stir up hatred or hurt the feelings of vulnerable minorities. But sensitivity cannot always ordain silence. Protecting free expression will often require hurting the feelings of individuals or groups, even if this damages social harmony. The Muhammad cartoons may be such a case."

Xenophobia

This position - pursuing freedom of expression at the cost of social harmony - has not been unique to The Economist. Many newspapers around the world have championed the same ideal. But the fallout has not been the same for all newspapers for this boldness. When The Sarawak Tribune republished the cartoons, the Malaysian government suspended its publication. Several managing directors and editors of newspapers in France, Jordan and Yemen were fired because of their decision to republish the cartoons.

Amid this entire idealistic hullabaloo, one question that begs to be answered is this: Was this really a war for the freedom of expression? Many commentators have tried to address this question but the most loud and clear answer has come from Mr. Martin Burcharth, the U.S. correspondent for Information, a Danish newspaper. Mr. Burcharth wrote in The New York Times on February 12: "We Danes have grown increasingly xenophobic over the years. The publication of the cartoons had little to do with generating a debate about self-censorship and freedom of expression. It can be seen only in the context of a climate of pervasive hostility toward anything Muslim in Denmark."

Mr. Burcharth parades some startling facts to buttress his argument. He argues that "lslam has come to be viewed by many as a threat to the survival of Danish culture." Out of 5.4 million, there are more than 200,000 Muslims in Denmark. He says that for 20 years, Muslims have been denied a permit to build mosques in Copenhagen. Also, surprisingly, there are no Muslim cemeteries in Denmark, "... so the bodies of Muslims have to be flown back to their home countries for proper burial."

Could the Danish Muslims not protest peacefully over the cartoons? Accorirding to Mr. Burcharth, "... the real story is that they and their followers ran out of options. They tried to get Jyllands-Posten to recognize its offense. They tried to enlist the support of the government and the opposition. They asked a local prosecutor to file suit under the country's blasphemy law. And they asked ambassadors in Denmark from Muslim countries to meet with Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen. They were rebuffed on all counts, though a state prosecutor is currently reviewing the case. But, really, what choice did they have?"

Muslims must be stronger

The fact of the matter is that Muslims hardly have a choice today. What choice could the weak make? Muslims need to heed Singaporean scholar Kishore Mahbubani's (Yale Global) advice: There is a need for "Muslims to engage in some deep reflection. If they were strong and powerful, no small European country could afford to anger and alienate them. The ability of a Danish newspaper to publish the cartoons and the subsequent decision of several European papers to republish them demonstrated the weakness of the Muslim world. The Europeans knew that Muslims could not retaliate and hurt Europe. Hence, Muslim sensitivities could be ignored."

Conscientious journalists and editors should also do what decency demands. They should not take advantage of the weaknesses of a community. There are many examples where an editor's sound judgment has averted many possible socially disharmonious crises. Vinod Mehta, the editor of Outlook Magazine (India), apologized to the Muslims when his paper published an illustration of Prophet Mohammad by mistake.

P.N. Balji, former editor of The New Paper (Singapore) strictly forbade his newspaper staff from publishing any picture of Hindu nationalists sitting on the rubble of the Babri Mosque's destroyed dome in 1992. "Though we were thousands of miles away from Ayodhya, we were mindful of the consequences of publishing a picture like that - after all we had a sizeable Muslim community in Singapore whose sentiments could have been hurt," said Balji. He remembers the racial riots between Muslims and Christians in Singapore about 50 years ago over the publication of the picture of an adopted Dutch girl, Maria Hertog.

Today's journalists eat and drink with the elite and have themselves become part of the elite, he noted. "Their hearts and souls have hardened and they have scant regard for the views or sentiments of the man on the street." What journalists today needed to do wasne exercise restrain and fair judgment. They should not just be the purveyors of news; they should also be the predictors of news. They should know what news would trigger what kind of a reaction in the masses.

An example

Clearly, Muslims should also exercise restrain while reacting to such emotional issues. They should forgive and forget in the tradition of the Prophet. Let me share a small story from the life of Prophet Mohammad in this regard.

An old lady used to throw rubbish on the Prophet whenever he used to pass by her house. The Prophet never reacted to the old lady's misdemeanors. In return, he would throw a smile at her and move on. This had become a routine affair. One day the Prophet was passing by her house and he found no rubbish falling on his head. He went up to find out about the old lady. She was bedridden, sick. The lady was charmed by the Prophet's gentlemanliness, and henceforth, stopped throwing rubbish on the Prophet.

Muslims should treat the Danish editor in the same manner, in the light of the above episode. And they should thank the kindness of Mr. Brooks, for he tried to look for comedy, not trouble, in the Muslim world. Even if his film was a flop at the box-office.

ZAFAR ANJUM lives and works in Singapore. These are his personal views. Do visit his blog, DreamInk.