oh my Muhammed~!

I’ve been wanting to blog about the Muhammed cartoon uproar, but I’m conflicted. I won’t talk too much on it, given the extensive and much more eloquent coverage in the rest of the blogosphere (see Attempts) and the online news community. (see BBC)

The press has been quick to take the freedom of speech line, and European newspapers are rushing to back their Danish counterpart by republishing the cartoons. France Soir ran a frontpage with the headline 'Yes, we have the right to caricaturize God' along with a picture of Jesus, Buddha, Muhammed and Yahweh, with Jesus saying ‘Don’t complain Muhammed, we’ve ALL been caricaturized here!’


It’s not just purely a matter of caricatures and the Muslims too uptight to take a small jest. Islam tradition condemns idolatry and in doing so, advocates aniconism (i.e. no depiction of human beings). And when cartoons not only depict Muhammed but clearly associate him with terrorism, I think the press has hand-delivered Muslims a cause for their outrage. The cartoons are mostly tasteless, especially the most explicit one with Muhammed depicted with a bomb in his turban. It’s not funny. Nor is it clever and I do not see any other message except that Islam advocates violence. Drawing their prophet’s face is already a blasphemy, and labeling him a terrorist as well? This ignorant link does not lend support to a war on terrorism but a war on Islam, which the US and its supporters have vehemently denied.

Freedom of speech is not always compatible with society. You have the right to say what you want, even the most offensive of things. And while there is no reason to have the right to be free from everything one deems offensive (in fact the right to freedom of thought and expression should entail some kind of provocation), there is a need for self-discipline to not needlessly offend everyone, even those uninvolved. A mass boycott of Danish products is hurting by the millions, an innocent bystander whose only fault is its nationality.

I’m not saying that Islam should be insulated from media satirical criticism, but that it could have been done more tastefully and in respect for basic beliefs. Imagine if in the wake of all the priestly pedophilic scandals, one had depicted Jesus with his shaft up some kid, what would have the reaction been like? Or if Abraham and Moses were portrayed in tanks running over Palestinian women and children on the West Bank?

It doesn’t help that Muslim protestors from London, to Syria and Indonesia are reinforcing that crude caricature by openly calling for the deaths of the editors. The fact that the newspaper’s cultural editor commissioned the cartoonists to draw the Prophet as they saw him, already means that a general Western view of Islam is one of terrorism. With slogans like ‘Butcher/Slay/Exterminate/Massacre those who mock Islam’, they do nothing but underscore any gross stereotype. These represent but a small percentage of the international Muslim population. This radical minority is being exploited to substantiate blatant bigotry such as in this article by Steve Muscatello. He uses the example of Kanye West as Jesus on the cover of Rolling Stones magazine as a parallel event of blasphemy to Christianity and says:

When faced with a nearly identical situation, one faith resorted to violence, threats and rage like unruly savages; the other was civil, responding (if at all) with letters to the editor, calls for a boycott and many public denunciations.

Unholy Moses at Thou Shall Not Suck provides a nice stinging reply that lays bare for to see the ignorance that fuels this bigotry. He points out that radical Christians have had their fair share of violence, bombing abortion clinics and calling for the assasination of other world leaders. How is he is to say that Islam resorts to violence while Christianity is civil? There are Muslims, in Muslim and non-Muslim countries alike, who have called upon their fellowmen to take a step back and examine their religion and its image around the world. Sure they're offended too, but they're not torching embassies.

In short, while self-censorship is a counter-intuitive general solution, the European press should have considered the intimate level at which they were offending people with a set of crude and pointless drawings, crude and pointless being the key words. As a Muslim McGill student wrote in to the school paper, imagine the extreme disgust and humiliation if you were to parade your entire extended family naked along the busiest street in town. You can offend but be respectful. On the other hand, Muslims have to forward their own positive message to counter the general sinister picture in which Islam has been portrayed by the 'tyranny of the minority'.



I wonder though, isn't this picture a more appropriate look at today's world? And it isn't even the least bit satirical.