Respecting Religious Values

“Why are Muslims so sensitive to images of the
Prophet Muhammad(pbuh)?”

Affinity Intercultural Foundation has organised its 11th Panel tackling one of the most controversial topics on the international agenda – the publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammadpbuh in some European papers. The event was attended by 220 people from a mixture of backgrounds including Members of Parliament, academics, imams and church leaders.
The panel title was “Respecting Religious Values: And Muslim sensitivities to the images of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).” Mrs Zuleyha Keskin, the Vice-President of Affinity, said “The title was chosen because the reason why Muslims are so offended by these caricatures is lost in the current debate. Also this issue should not be a concern to Muslims only, as all religious values and figures suffer from such public ridicule and insult in our time.”
“We wanted to provide an objective atmosphere where certain questions could be explored, for instance, is freedom of speech limitless; why are Muslims so sensitive to images of religious figures; how do Muslims see the role of the Prophet Muhammadpbuh; is this sensitivity extended to Mosespbuh and Jesuspbuh as well; what is the role of media and religious communities in maintaining social harmony?” remarked Mrs Keskin.
Speakers from a diversity of backgrounds will be joining us this evening to explore some of our queries in relation to the consequences and repercussions of such acts in our multicultural and multi-faith society in Australia, and what measures and attitudes we should carry as Australian
Four speakers from a diversity of professional backgrounds comprised the panel:

1. Prof Terence Lovat, Pro Vice-Chancellor, Newcastle University - <view speech>
2. Prof Peter Manning, Adjunct Professor of journalism, UTS - <view speech>
3. Rev John Bales, General Secretary, Anglican Church, Missionary Society NSW - <view speech>
4. Mehmet Ozalp, President Affinity Intercultural Foundation & author of “101 Questions You asked about Islam” - <view speech>

Reverend John Bales began his address by defining the meaning of freedom, “The question therefore is who decides how much freedom one should have, what responses are required. The current debate regarding values and what we hold dear to us inevitably leads to a clash of values in our society, such as in the struggle of some cultures wanting children to marry within ones culture.”
Reverend John Bales continued to state that both Christianity and Islam share common moral values and added, “We want to reserve the right to propagate our values, we Christians and Muslims want to say ‘no’ that there is a distinction between God and secular values.”
After making the point that respect for human dignity and human being is a fundamental shared value and that this should extend to those who are no longer with us, Reverend Bales concluded, “Those cartoons should not have been published.”
The second panellist, Peter Manning, centred his address to explore whether freedom of speech has its limits or not. Coming from an extensive media experience, he said, “The Australian Broadcasting Act has codes of practises, with informal and formal codes of ethics. For journalists there are codes – 7 ways in which the Australian media has freedom of speech restricted… The truth is the media happily operates under laws, codes and deals that already compromise freedom of speech. The media managers are hard headed business people trying to increase circulation.”
After expanding on these points, Prof Manning concluded, “It’s viable for Muslims to ask ‘what about us’, Muslims have every right to say they are hurting badly as we are living in racist times. Muslims are the butt of this racism, the world is awash with Islam phobia. The cartoons were part of a drive to delegitimise Muslims and they should not have been published.”
Professor Terence Lovatt focused on the historical figure of the Prophet Muhammadpbuh, “Muhammad himself was very conscious of idolatry as a trap for the religious-minded by which one could become distracted from the essence of a religion and, over time, that essence be lost altogether.  He saw idolatry posing as religion all around him in his Semitic world and, he believed, he saw it even in the Judaism and especially in the Christianity of his day.” He noted that the legacy of the Prophet Muhammadpbuh is best expressed when “Abu Bakr, Muhammad’s chief successor, is reputed to have said to the crowds that gathered after his death: “Those of you who worshipped Muhammad; Muhammad is dead.  Those of you who worship God, God is alive and lives forever.”  
Referring to the offending cartoons, Prof Lovat remarked, “The freedom of speech exercised here was relatively bad.” On a constructive note, he continued, “All people of good will can unite in the common purpose of maintaining social cohesion and by which all of us, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, who believe in the beauty and pristine benevolence of Islam can work together to preserve its good name… Perhaps we should all take whatever opportunity we have, through political life, media, teaching or simply in the home, to underscore the ludicrousness of Muhammad being portrayed as an artisan of terror when the testimony is of a Prophet of Peace, integrity, compassion and social justice who painstakingly crafted a religion for his own people that would capture these qualities and ensure their survival as the People of God, the Ummah of Allah.”
Prof Lovatt underscored the imperative need to educate people and concluded, “Perhaps our energies would be better utilized in grasping the opportunity to educate, both by our words and our witness, by calmly pointing out to whomever might listen that the imagery of the cartoons is at odds with all that we know of Muhammad and of the foundational witness of Islam.”

Final panellist, Mehmet Ozalp, supported the ideas posed by Prof Lovat and spoke of the root cause of the responses from both camps as “the non-Muslim world does not really know the Prophet Muhammadpbuh and the Muslim world need to study and improve their understanding of the character of the Prophetpbuh”.
Mr Ozalp outlined the reasons why Muslims were deeply offended by the cartoons, “1- According to Islamic theology and law no images of the Prophet can be made and him along with other prophets of God are infallible; 2- what Muslim’s know of the character of the Prophet (p) is diametrically opposite to how he is depicted in those caricatures; 2- The delicate relationship between the Muslim and the Western world in contemporary times has extraordinarily accentuated the responses to unreasonable levels”.
He then raised the question, “What should Muslims do?” and continued, “Muslims have to know where they should stand and hold firmly on their rightful stance. The Qur’an warns us in Chapter 42 verse 40, “But [remember that an attempt at] requiting evil may, too, become an evil: hence, whoever par­dons [his foe] and makes peace, his reward rests with God - for, verily, He does not love evildoers.”
Mr Ozalp followed on to give examples from the life of the Prophet Muhammadpbuh to argue that he responded in forgiveness to personal insults and slanders. Referring to a narrative of a man who came to assassinate the Prophet Muhammadpbuh but was forgiven by him, Mr Ozalp, concluded, “I say to the Muslim audience tonight – remember the story of Fadallah, he found life when he came to kill the Prophet (p). We should embody the character of the Prophet (p) in us so well that the same people who come to hurt us or kill us, should find life in us!”
Barbara Perry, the state member for Auburn, commended Affinity Intercultural Foundation and said. “This was one of the best events Affinity has organised. It is good that Affinity is tackling contemporary issues concerning our society.”