I have to confess that I have mixed feelings about the controversy regarding the cartoon images that were printed, first in Denmark, of the founder of Islam, Muhammad. On the one hand, I place a high value on free speech. Free speech is an essential component of a healthy open society. And I think free speech is particularly important in the religious arena, where claims about ultimate truth and salvation are frequently made. Religion has enormous power in the lives of people all around the world. And that power needs to be questioned, tested, and occasionally it even needs to be laughed at to keep it from taking itself too seriously. Long live Monty Python's Life of Brian!
On the other hand, when one is in a forest in the middle of a draught, is it smart to start a fire when you know that the slightest spark could burn the whole forest down? I am reminded of an admonition of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthian church that "All things are lawful, but not all things are benificial." And I wonder about the wisdom of publishing cartoons in what was already a flamatory environment.
If you read this Washington Post account of how the cartoons came to be printed, it appears that they were intended as a provocation. The Danish newspaper invited political cartoonists to draw Muhammad as they "saw him" as a way of challenging what they perceived as self-cencorship and fear at insulting the growing Muslim community in Denmark.
In addition, in recent years there has been a rising tide of anti-immigration fervor (some of it specifically directed at Muslims) in Denmark, and much of Europe. In Denmark, this culminated in the election in 2001 of a new right-wing goverment that immediately clamped down on immigration. Even before the cartoons were published, tensions between the Muslim community and the government and the largely Christian population were already heightened.
In the midst of this tension, the newspaper printed the images, certainly knowing they would be offensive to Muslims. Of course, they could, because Denmark is a free country and "all things are lawful." But should they have done what they did given the political climate? That is debatable.
What is not debatable is that the same government that was swept into power on the strength of anti-immigration sentiment, was initially deaf to Muslim protests, as was the paper. What is also not debatable is that the protest was eventually fanned into a conflagration by repressive Islamic governments who saw value in fanning the flames of anti-western sentiment. As the New York Times reports, a meeting in Mecca in December among Islamic goverment officials led to "organized" protests in Syria and Iran. These kinds of protests in repressive regimes against outside enemies, be they fascist, communist, or religious, are necessary means of channeling anger and dissent away from the home goverment.
All of which is to say that there is plenty of blame to go around. A more prudent newspaper editor might have decided that given the climate, publishing the cartoons could wait. A more sensitive goverment might have at least listened to the initially peaceful Muslim protests. And the repressive goverments that have tried to use this to their advantage, well, they are just doing what you would expect them to do.
1 comment:
You're right when you say that the necessity of publishing these cartoons is debatable. Arguments from both sides have been flying around the media since the story broke. As someone who has lived in a predominantly Muslim country and enjoyed many friendships with Muslims, I find it very disappointing when people in the west deliberately insult Muslims and Islam. It is a sign of ignorance and bigotry. Nevertheless, the cartoon controversy has sparked a more powerful reaction in me - one of anger, frustration, and incredulity.
The violent protests by portions of the worldwide Muslim population and the threats of torture and massacre directed not just toward the newspaper editors but entire countries are absolutely unjustifiable. They violate the tenets of Islam and secular law alike. While I know of no murders yet carried out in the name of revenge, such an act would be as justifiable as an enraged motorist shooting another driver after being cut off. We can debate the motivation for publishing offensive cartoons until the cows come home but one thing is self-evident; arson, vandalism, and threats of murder are an intolerable response to mere words and images, no matter how offensive.
This controversy highlights the identity crisis facing Islam and Muslims. While I was in college I took part in a counter-protest involving many students and faculty. We took to the streets to protest the demonstration being held by a hatefully anti-homosexual church group from Kansas. One of my professors described how inaction by local Christians in effect would allow the anti-homosexual group to "become Christianity", if only for a time. With no alternative Christian identity being portrayed, the image recorded by the media and observed by people outside Christianity would be one of hate and anger. So my question in regard to the current situation is this: Where are the alternative identities for Islam? Where are the counter-demonstrations? We hear about Muslims disagreeing with the violent protests and being disappointed in their brethren, but where are the masses of moderate Muslims willing to organize and take a stand to represent the authentic face of Islam? One could argue that Western media has an agenda of portraying Muslims as universally violent but I am pretty sure tens of thousands of Muslims taking to the streets worldwide to non-violently condemn the violent response of their brethren would garner a little TV time. And that would provide hope to those who search for peace and understanding between the world's two largest religions.
Jamil Momand states, "in several countries where the majority is Muslim, it is illegal or incredibly difficult for minority religions to build churches, synagogues or temples." If only the situation were that benign. In countries such as Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, et al. it is not just difficult to build churches, synagogues, or temples. In these countries, Christians and people of other minority faiths are routinely discriminated against, threatened, assaulted, raped, tortured, and murdered, with the country's government often looking the other way. I know these horrors do not represent true Islam or the majority of the Muslim population. But without the portrayal of an alternative, this indeed is becoming the identity of Islam. The solution is not just individual Muslims living peacefully with their neighbors, but massive, organized, and visible effort around the world to demonstrate a peaceful Islamic option. The world's people need such demonstrations. They need them as an image of hope. They need them as something to latch onto and say, "There is another way." In their absence, the sad reality is that even sincere, open-minded people will increasingly come to see Islam as just another name for hate.
Post a Comment