The Saudi Connection: Pilgrims deaths and Prophet Mohammed cartoon protests

Are the protests on the Propehet Mohammed's cartoons in Jyllands-Posten orchestrated by Saudi Arabia to deflect attention from pilgrims' deaths?

13 February 2006
MUMBAI, INDIA

In an interesting twist to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, an Internet writer has suggested that the issue is not about "Free Expressions/Speech" vs. "Sensitivity to Religion," as it has been publicly framed, but is actually a saving-face project launched by Saudi Arabia.The nation came under huge criticism after several hundred pilgrims died yet again during the Haj. According to this article one of the major instigators of the protest was the Saudi government, which went on a major offensive against the Danish cartoons to deflect attention from its failure to protect the lives of the pilgrims.

The article points to several interesting facts to prove its case. There is firstly the time lag between the date of publication of the cartoons (Sep 30, 2005) and the trajectory of the protests. Then there is the fact that depicting the Prophet Mohammed (at all) is not inherently offensive or prohibited in Islam. The author points to the depiction of Mohammed in several unflattering situations in some Christian churches in Europe, as well as an actual sculpture on the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., as evidence on this point.

Further, one must consider that Denmark has a long history of multi-cultural tolerance, and is famously remembered for maintaing solidarity with Jewish citizens during World War II. In addition, the newspaper had apologised, and for two months, no protests had been made.

In Jan 12, when 350 pilgrims were killed in Saudi Arabia, the outburst from the Muslim community intensified against the unnecessary 'tragedies' that occurred only because the government had (again) failed to keep its promises on security issues. Coincidentaly (or not so coincidentaly, according to the article), all four state-run Saudi newspapers began running articles that criticised the Danish cartoons.

A final fact that the author noticed: that the various rioters protesting the cartoons were waving Saudi flags.

While clearly Muslim sentiments have been negatively affected to such a huge degree only because of prevailing attitudes of hostility and suspicion against Muslims in the Western world, it is also interesting to consider how the force of that legitimate protest has been blunted and made to look ridiculous, fanatical and traditional. Do we go on reading the protests as an objection to the depiction of the Prophet Mohammed (something that may only concern a minority of the Muslim population, considering that it is not even universally agreed that it is a prohibition), or is it possible to read the violence of the protests as anger against a stereotyping of the Muslim by the Western world, something that every Muslim has to face and struggle with?