More than five months have passed since the independent Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten first published its series of cartoon images of the Prophet Mohammed. To date, media outlets in fifty countries have reprinted the images in some form, eliciting protests from Muslims around the world. The cartoon affair raises serious questions that liberals must face.
Tariq Modood considers some of these in his openDemocracy article "The liberal dilemma: integration or vilification?" Here, I have two further questions in mind:
- what can liberals do to better address those Muslims who are wary or suspicious of liberalism?
- must liberalism and Islam inevitably clash, or are there values that liberals and Muslims might both affirm?
Stanley Fish has weighed in on the Danish cartoon furore, claiming that liberalism itself cannot be squared with any strongly held faith. When it comes to freedom of speech, he contends, liberals have committed themselves to a kind of withdrawal from morality. For liberals want chiefly to "let it all hang out", as he puts it: they are wedded to a principle of freedom of speech long divorced from any real belief in the particular expressions at issue. Fish has dug down to the pressing, central issue here. It is not simply whether there is a "value gap" between Muslim and western worlds, but whether the chasm between devout Muslims and liberalism is bridgeable.
Also in openDemocracy on the "cartoon war" in Europe and the Muslim world (February 2006):
Neal Ascherson, "A carnival of stupidity"
"Muslims and Europe: a cartoon confrontation" a compendium of views from twenty writers
Doug Ireland, "The right to caricature God
and his prophets"
Tariq Modood, "The liberal dilemma: integration or vilification? "
Ehsan Masood, "A post-Satanic journey"
Sarah Lindon, "Words on images: the cartoon controversy"
Fred Halliday, "Blasphemy and power"
S Sayyid, "Old Europe, New World"
Sakia Sassen, "Free speech in the frontier-zone"
Daphna Vardi, "Jews and cartoons: why the connection? "
Kalypso Nicolaïdis "Europe and beyond: struggles for recognition"
Farhang Jahanpour, "Cartoons, caricatures, and civilisation" (February 2006)
Ulf Hedetoft, "Denmark's cartoon blowback" (March 2006)
If you find this material enjoyable or provoking please consider commenting in our forums and supporting openDemocracy by sending us a donation so that we can continue our work for democratic dialogue
It is true that liberals have faltered in their attempts to give devout religious believers good reasons why they should affirm liberal governing institutions. And I believe that commentators are correct to note how liberal governments have often done an unsatisfactory job of treating Muslims, too, not only regarding the uproar over the Danish cartoons but more generally. But Fish is wrong to dismiss the possibility that liberalism might provide grounds for principled toleration and religious liberty for Muslims. For there are rational solutions for the problems at hand, and liberals can make positive contributions if they return to consider the universal value and applicability of cardinal liberal principles of liberty of conscience.
Here are three ways that liberals can employ principles of conscience as part of a more moral, optimistic approach for handling religious conflict.
First, liberals can entreat fellow citizens and government officials in liberal democracies to aim for a more sympathetic engagement with Muslims. One needs to appreciate and understand why Muslims' religious beliefs reasonably can be very important to them. To this end, liberal parties will do well to engage in conscientious interactions with Muslims who may not be convinced of reasons there are for them to affirm liberal institutions. Engaging with religious parties carefully and respectfully can help to demonstrate that one is not against them or their religious values, but rather that, in this case, one affirms and appreciates the meaningfulness of Muslim principles and otherworldly values to followers of Islam.
Second, where liberals interact with Muslims wary or doubtful of liberal values, liberals should give them reasons they should accept for affirming liberal institutions. Liberals have failed to identify and provide such reasons, but a careful assessment of the value of liberty of conscience can bridge the gap. Liberals should reconsider and emphasise the common importance of liberty of conscience, explaining how principles of conscience are robust for both devout Muslims and liberal westerners alike.
For example, it is a universal principle that conscience must be free to reject lesser religious doctrines and conceptions of the good. This principle supports limited governance with individual protections for religious freedom, including the right of persons to exit their communities of faith in cases where they feel compelled to depart. And it gives cause to value free speech for culturally and religiously plural societies in which vulnerable religious minorities are often ensconced. I provide an extended treatment of these matters in a new book entitled The Liberal Conscience.
But liberals should not just stick the value of free speech in the faces of those Muslims who are unconvinced. Freedom of speech is certainly worth defending, but simply trumpeting its value will not help objectors to adopt a more liberal mindset. Indeed, in this melee over the caricatures of Mohammed, freedom of speech is a secondary issue. The real conundrum here concerns the many citizens of western societies who are bewildered when it comes to Muslims, and whether anything can be done to make that situation better. Commentators and media outlets fail to assist where they just state and restate the magnificence of freedom of the press. That approach is not only unhelpful: it obscures the deeper and more troubling issues concerning relations between Muslims and liberal-democratic values and institutions, both domestically and abroad.
Third, Muslims are not united in opposition to individual rights and liberties. They differ one from another in their opinions, attitudes, and beliefs, and liberals can use this to their advantage. In engaging conscientiously with Muslims, liberals can work to mollify tendencies for them to develop adversarial ideas regarding outsiders, in part by resisting temptations to call Muslims crazy or to assume that they cannot be reached with reasons or reasoning. This can help to prevent new Islamic groups from becoming religious extremists or engaging in violent behaviour.
What is more, liberals can also highlight the disgraceful and unfair nature of Arab newspapers' political cartoons vilifying Jews. And liberals can employ these strategies internationally, joining the careful promotion of liberty of conscience with other efforts to deal fairly and squarely with groups, countries, and peoples around the world. There are real opportunities here for liberals to make a positive impact, and substantial social-science research leading one to think that these strategies for interacting and engaging with Muslims hold promise of success.
More radical and hardboiled Muslim extremists may not be able to be reached by this approach. But for the many devotees of Islam who are peaceful and moderate, steps forward of the sort I describe could make a significant difference. For Muslims can discuss their views reasonably and fruitfully; and where less liberal-minded Muslims do engage with liberal parties, both sides should expect mutual transformation. In the end, it is just not true that we are living in an "age of unreason". Liberal principles of conscience can assist in making the world a better and more peaceful place, and conscientious liberal engagement holds the promise of delivering us finally to shelter.
