Islam and Norway – Weathering the Storm?

Picture from: http://pressthat.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/reinterpreting-islam/

Most of the links contained in this article point to Norwegian-language websites – as such I hope those of you who do not speak Norwegian and are interested in their contents make good use of Google translate. All the quotes below are translated from the original Norwegian by myself. If any Norwegians amongst you find any wrong or questionable translations, please email me and I will do my best to correct them.

During the last few weeks the homeland of Evolution-Revolution’s authors has been the stage of a fiery public debate after Dagbladet, one of the biggest newspapers in Norway, printed a picture on their front page of the Islamic Prophet Mohammed as a pig scribbling in the Koran with his trotters. However, despite its unpleasantness, the still ongoing furore following the publication has arguably been very valuable in that we have learned a whole lot about the state of immigration, integration, and Islam in Norway.

The picture in question was linked to in a post on the the Norwegian Police Security Service (PST’s) Facebook-page discussion board, amongst other posts containing highly racist remarks. After recieving a tip about it, Dagbladet wrote an article presumably meant to criticize PST for allowing a considerable amount of hateful and racist statements to be posted on their discussion board with apparent impunity. In doing so, however, they put the  - to Muslims – extremely offensive caricature in question on the front page of their print edition.

Predictably, there were heated reactions from many of Norway’s approximately 140 000 Muslims. In particular, many saw Dagbladet’s “lack of sensitivity” as wanting to capitalize off of controversy caused by humiliating Islam, and as a symptom of media bullying of Norway’s Muslim population. Many Muslim-owned shops and newsstands would not sell Dagbladet on the day the pig-picture was published. On the Friday and Monday following the publication more than a thousand of Oslo’s Muslim taxi drivers stopped their cars for several hours in a protest against what they saw as Dagbladets complete lack of respect for their religion and values. And during the next week, Dagbladet’s website was shut down for two and a half hours by a group of Turkish computer hackers – as a protest against the publication of the depiction of Mohammed as a pig on their front page. At this point, a surge of “counter-outrage” from many ethnic Norwegians, already skeptical of immigration, began to become apparent. When Dagbladet’s website came back on its discussion-board moderators had to shut down the comments thread on the news article about the hacking of their site due to the large number of “unwarranted and racist remarks” (this statement is made at the bottom of the Dagbladet article linked to above).

More controversy ensued when a group of young religious Muslim men organized (via Facebook, again) a public demonstration to protest Dagbladet’s publication. There were, already before the protest, concerns that some of the organizers were considered radical. In particular, Arfhan Bhatti, who was administrator of the Facebook group advertising the event, has previously been under investigation for his alleged involvement on an attack against a Jewish synagogue in Oslo. Also, last years demonstrations against the Israeli intervention in Gaza were still fresh in mind for many. These demonstrations, also attended by many Muslims, deteriorated into some degree of violence and vandalism. As a result of these concerns, the Norwegian Islamic Council, amongst other groups, advised against attending the planned demonstration. Still, around 2500 people showed up – mostly young, male Muslims – and a peaceful and civilized demonstration took place. In encouraging the protesters to abstain from violence, the organizers told the crowd to “…not let them win, do not let them see us in rage”; them referring to those who predicted the demonstration would turn turbulent. Notably, there seemed to be a strong commitment on the part of the organizers to protest in a way consistent with Norwegian democracy and law.

Nevertheless, there was little  attention left for this fact after one of the organizers, 24-year old Mohyeldeen Muhammad, referred to the September 11th and May 7th terrorist attacks and suggested that Norwegian politicians would be wise to “get the message” before something similar happened in Norway. The fact that he followed up his somewhat inflammatory statement by saying “this is a warning, not a threat”, did not inhibit many Norwegians from interpreting it as precisely that. Nor did it help that Mohammad, in an interview he gave soon after, argued that homosexuals deserve the death penalty. He also stated that “democracy has no place in Islam, because Islam forbids man-made laws.” In doing so, he did much to fuel the concerns of those Norwegians who remain unconvinced that most Muslims can be successfully integrated into Norwegian society.

Reassuringly, however, Muhammad’s views hardly appear to be representative of those of most Norwegian Muslims. Shortly after the statements were made, they were condemned by the other protest organizers (amongst them the convert and blogger Yosef Assidiq), the Norwegian Islamic Council, several Muslim politicians, amongst other Muslim organizations and public figures. If anything, this goes a long way to show that Mohammad’s radical views are not at all mainstream amongst Norwegian Muslims. In particular, this is also the case in the more conservative part of the Muslim community, which has also been vocally . In a commentary in Dagbladet, Olav Elgvin, Christian author of a the blog Muslimprosjektet (The Muslim Project) as well as a forthcoming book on Muslims in Norway

“…it is a misunderstanding to think that the conflict is between “Norwegian values” and radical Islam. The established Muslim milieus and mosques in Norway are relatively traditional and conservative. Some of them front values and opinions that many in Norway react negatively towards – especially when it comes to gender relations. But they have all accepted that disagreement should be solved within the democracy, and they are all against using violence as a means to achieve political goals. The radical stay lonely.”

This point is echoed by the a recent press release published by the Norwegian Islamic Council:

“The Norwegian Islamic Council distances itself from the radical attitudes of Mohyeldeen Muhammad. These are not representative for our member organizations or for most [Norwegian] Muslims, who appreciate the rights the democratic Norway gives us the live in tune with out values.

We hope that with maturity, the young man with achieve a better understanding of his religion and the world around him.”

Such messages are reassuring. And if anything good comes out of Muhammad’s inflammatory remarks, it may be that it allows for mainstream Norwegian Islam to clearly show itself as separate and different from those that do.

However, the outburst of ethnic Norwegian anti-Muslim outrage on Dagbladet’s website following the hacker-strike has hardly been an isolated incident. In the aftermath of the Pig-picture publication discussion-boards on major newspapers, blogs, and Facebook pages (a.o. PST’s) have seen a very large number of more-or-less racist or islamophobic remarks presumable posted by ethnic Norwegians already highly skeptical of non-western immigration to Norway. In particular, many are upset by what they see as Muslims continued demands for “special treatment” and “extra sensitivity” towards them on a number of issues – demands immigration-skeptics hardly think they have a right to make. On a broader level, some are concerned whether “Islamic values” are compatible with modern Norwegian society at all – in particular with important features of it such as gender equality, a high degree of personal freedom (as opposed to a more traditional family-focus), tolerance of homosexuality, secular politics, and free speech. The latter has of course been a major component of the recent debate. Dagbladet has from the beginning argued that it has the right to print anything relevant to its news – and of course it does. As a response to this, some Norwegian Muslims have argued that expressions such as Dagbladet’s front page should be made illegal – either through a “blashpemy-law” (which in fact already exists, as a so called “sleeping” or “dead” law, as it has effectively gone out of use) or a broader regulation against publishing highly offensive materials in general; something akin the more specific ban on hardcore pornography – also based on the reasoning that such materials were highly offensive – which was lifted some years ago. Such appeals are seen by some as evidence that Islam is incompatible with free speech and democracy. In response, some point out that if public racism is punishable by law in Norway – which they are, although the law is rarely invoked in practice – then public exhibits of racism-like prejudice against a certain religion be punishable as well. However, it does not appear that most of the people protesting Dagbladet’s decision want a special law limiting what can be published and not. Rather, it appears that many are offended by what they see as a kind of cultural bullying by Dagbladet and the media more generally. An apology is asked for, and more generally – respect. In an interview made by Olav Elgvin for the conservative periodical Minerva, Sarah Selaihi made this point

“…No, I am not opposed to freedom of speech. But even if you are allowed to express yourself freely, you can always assess what you say, and when you say it. You don’t see Norwegian media testing the limits of freedom of speech by affronting the Jews, for example. Why should they always prove their freedom of speech by provoking Muslims?”

It appears that many non-Muslim  Norwegians also agree with this point. Amongst others, Per Anders Madsen – the editor of Aftenposten, argues that even though Dagbladet certainly has the right to publish whatever they want, and even though this right should not be infringed upon in any way; the decision to publish material they knew would be highly offensive to a large group of people was still disrespectful and highly questionable. As such, it would not appear to be an issue of free speech or rights, but whether it is appropriate for one of the country’s largest newspapers to print highly offensive pictures on its front page. In a commentary in Aftenposten, he wrote that

“When Peter Mueller was fired as ice-skating coach (for the national team) because of sexual harrassment, I wrote a commentary which Inge Grødum illustrated with a drawing where a bulging phallos came out of Mueller’s mouth – he is known for being big-mouthed.

The drawing was good, and it illustrated the main point of the case in an excellent way. But it was never printed. It was sleazy and could appear offensive.

To compromise freedom of speech? Self-censorship?

Rather, it is one of many examples of the kind of undramatic decisions the editors make  all the time when we edit a newspaper in line with our basic philosophy, profile, and desired readership.”

In a another commentary he also argues that in this particular case, printing the picture on the front page where it is visible to anyone as opposed to inside the newspaper did not add any particular news-value to the article – in fact, it appears to have done the opposite, as nobody appears to worry about the actual news item, but rather the controversy ensuing from it.

Certainly, to the extent that Dagbladet was criticizing PST for allowing the links and statements made to stay posted on their website they are certainly implying that the material was of such an offensive kind that it would certainly have been taken off the newspaper’s own online forum. In that light, it appears strange to put it on the front page of its print edition.

In a post on Aftenposten’s discussion pages, the country music singer Ottar “Big Hand” Johansen went as far as to argue that Dagbladet’s decision to publish the picture on their front page was “not only exaggerated stupidity and poor journalism… but it also represents a fundamental violation of Norwegian values and culture.” He goes on to echo Madsen’s point that there is little point to

“I am beginning to get tired of Kokkvold’s (General Secretary of the Norwegian Press Association) endless repetition of the inviolability of free speech, when this is not the core of the issue. It shouldn’t be illegal to publish a caricature like this, and I do not think that most Muslims are of the opinion that it should be either.

It is discouraging that Dagbladet is abandoning all sense of decency as a response to declining sales, and thus prints a highly offensive drawing in order to create controversy. Everyone in the Norwegian press knows the real reason why this was printed… it is a front page that sells.

This reminds me of classic bullying in the schoolyard… It is hurtful to Muslims to see these kinds of drawing of Mohammed. And it seems like this is why Dagbladet prints them, because they know it is hurtful.

Personally, I would tend to agree with Madsen and Johansen. Dagbladet has the right to print whatever they think is newsworthy, and that right should not be violated (on this point, we here at Evolution-Revolution follow the great philosopher Immanuel Kant: that the right to freedom of speech cannot be violated in a truly free society). However, that still does not mean that Dagbladet or any other newspaper should print pictures of, for example, the molested bodies of Norwegian NATO soldiers killed in Afghanistan. Not because they do not have the right to do it, but because it would be highly offensive to many and very hurtful to some. Importantly such pictures (like the drawing of Mohammed in question) would hardly add any significant value to whatever news item they were attached to justifying their offensiveness.

Per Anders Madsen also bring up another important point. In January, Aftenposten printed several of the Mohammed caricatures that sparked huge international protests several years ago after being printed by Danish and Norwegian newspapers, in solidarity with Kurt Westergaard, the artist who drew one of these caricatures, after was attacked in his home by a Somali extremist. As opposed to the picture on Dagbladet’s front page, little controversy ensued from the printing of these caricatures. One Norwegian Muslim organization even publicly stated that they were not offended, arguing that conservative Muslims had dominated the media to a far larger extent than is warranted by their actual influence in immigrant communities. He argues that there is a big difference both in the way the pictures were published and in the degree of offensiveness.

Blissfully areligious?

Moreover, people seem to forget that the Muslim community is not the only one that has heavily criticized  the media on religious grounds. In 2007, when TV2, the largest private network in Norway, aired Kristopher Schau’s De Syv Dødssynder (The Seven Deadly Sins) several conservative Christian groups organized boycotts against companies who had paid for advertising time on TV2 during the show (it is not surprising that Christian groups reacted, the idea of the Jackass-like series was that the stunt-comedian Mr. Schou would travel around the world and commit a new deadly sin in each of the seven episodes to see what would happen). As a result of the pressure, Coca Cola and Disney, amongst a considerable number of other corporations, responded by canceling their TV ads aired during the show. At that time too, there were both vocal and other protests from the other side – one store in the Expert-chain was vandalized after the company decided to withdraw its advertisements (in this sense the counter-reactions to the Christian protests in 2007 were far more undemocratic than anything we have seen from the Muslim community this time around).

There is an interesting parallel between the resistance towards the Christians in 2007 and the resistance towards the Muslims now, in that it to some extent reflects a general Norwegian skepticism towards any religion at all outside of the private sphere. Norway is arguably one of the most secular countries in the world, and today religious groups have negligible political power to influence issues such as whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry or whether women should be able to have an abortion (which continue to spark great controversy in a.o. the United States). Furthermore, conservative Christian values play a very minor role in forging mainstream social norms, such as attitudes towards pre-marital sex, homosexuality, and abortion. Nor do Christian organizations or people figure prominently in the public debate, compared to for example the United States or many catholic countries (nor do Muslim ones). This does not mean that they are without influence – but it certainly means that they are hardly “major players” as they are in many other countries. In this sense, some of the resistance towards Islam can be attributed to a fear that Islam will bring new strength to the case of religion in the public sphere – where most Norwegians arguably think it does not belong. On many web-based debate forums, this connection is often made quite specifically by Islam-skeptics. Perhaps, ironically, it could be easier for Muslims to become integrated into a conservative Christian society than a liberal secular one.

However, there has been a much more sinister and hostile tone in the argument this time around (although no vandalism has been reported) than against the conservative Christians in 2007. And, in defense of those who think Dagbladet is more worthy of criticism than TV2 (myself included), there is a difference between airing things that some people find extremely offensive on a TV channel which people can choose whether to watch or not, and printing something on the front page of a newspaper front page visible on every newsstand and shop across the country. Again, no laws are required, just basic decency. And when that decency is abandoned, it is more than appropriate to yell loud.  In this sense, it appears that those who claim that criticism of Dagbladet from the Norway’s Muslim community have been subject to so much resistance precisely because it comes from the Muslim community may be right. In a commentary in Aftenposen, Shazia Sarwar, editor of the online magazine X-Plosiv, argues that this kind of resistance is a threat to free speech in and of itself.

It is also interesting to compare the current controversy to a case in 2006, when Dagbladet published a caricature (inside the newspaper) depicting Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert as the Nazi concentration camp commander in the movie Schindler’s List, who famously shoots the camp inmates for sport. The caricature, which made no reference at all to Mr. Olmert’s religion, was a criticism of the Israeli assessment of their recent campaign in Gaza as a success in spite of the overwhelming number of Palestinian civilian casualties. The admittedly harsh comparison to the Nazi commander was meant to highlight the Israeli (not Jewish) apparent obliviousness to civilian deaths. Of course, Dagbladet was immediately accused by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign affairs of abusing Norway’s freedom of speech, and of championing anti-semitic attitudes. The case was given ample attention in the international media, on a.o. BBC, in the New York Sun, and on Fox News. On the latter news network, Brit Hume reported that “If you doubt there is a real strain of anti-Semitism in European opinion, consider this. One of Norway’s largest newspapers has published a cartoon…” No, there are of course no problems with complaints from the Israelis. However, the interesting part is that while the complaints made by the Israelis were rejected by both Dagbladet and the Norwegian Press Association, no one argued that “Jewish values” are incompatible with democracy and freedom of speech. On a related note, I strongly doubt that Fox News would even dream about angrily reporting that “If you doubt there is a real strain of Islamophobia in European opinion, consider this…”

Nevertheless, the controversy ensuing from the publication has brought forth a very real, very important, and very much needed discussion about immigration and integration in Norway. Part of this discussion, of course, has been dominated by those who now feel entitled to champion a kind of narrow-minded xenophobia previously thought to politically incorrect (or just plain racist) to be a viable position to take in public. While in the Muslim community, it appears some feel that now more than ever, Muslims are unwelcome in Norwegian society at large. None of these positions are in the least conducive to working towards an ethnically diverse and religiously pluralistic Norway. However, some good things have also come out of the controversy. Importantly, it seems apparent that the vast majority of Norwegian Muslims do not at all identify themselves with radical or extremist versions of Islam, and that they recognize the value and inviolability of Norwegian democratic institutions. Also, there is a sense that many non-radical Muslim organizations and public figures to a larger extent than before have become part of the Norwegian “mainstream” than before This, I think, is a good sign – isolation is hardly conducive to successful integration. Furthermore, there seems to be a real sense, both amongst Muslims and Non-Muslim Norwegians, that there still is a job to be done (and that revoking the citizenship of 140 000 Norwegians is not an option). On this point, Olav Elgvin quotes on his blog a piece advice given by the vice president of the Norwegian Islamic Council Asghar Ali: “Remember when the prophet Muhammed lived in Mecca! Do you think he experienced more or less reproach than you do now? More, of course! And how did he react? With patience.” I think Olav Elgvin’s commentary on this is worth reprinting here:

“…The interesting part of Asghar Ali’s comment is that it shows what he sees as the ideal for Muslims in the West today. This ideal is not to imitate what the prophet did as warlord and political leader in Medina, but to what he did when he lived as an ordinary citizen amongst non-Muslims in Mekka. Which means: to live like citizens who accept diversity, and who meet resistance and hostility with patience and forbearance.

Actually a quite good ideal for all of us, I think.”

Perhaps we’re not doing so bad after all.

–

By Stephan Andreas Jensen

Jørund Holterud Aarsnes contributed to editing this article

93XYWTZBQCQ2

–

Note:

In a previous version of this article I wrongly alleged that Per Anders Madsen argued that Dagbladet was motivated by the prospect of increased sales when they made the decision to publish the Mohammed-cartoon on their front page. In fact, Madsen made no such claim.  I deleted this sentence after the mistake was pointed out to me. I also wrongly named Per Edgar Kokkvold editor of Dagbladet. He is in fact general secretary of the Norwegian Press Association. Lars Helle is constituted editor of Dagbladet. I apologize for any irk or offense caused.

(Stephan A. Jensen, March 1st )