The Islamic Cartoon Crisis

The world is in an uproar this week over a series of cartoons published back in September. I had not intended to comment on this issue, but the daily flow of news on the subject finally wore down my resistance. I am writing, of course, of twelve cartoons depicting stereotypical images of the prophet Muhammad which were originally published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. The best known of these caricatures is an image of the prophet wearing a turban shaped like a bomb, and all of them seek to mock the supposedly violent nature of Islam. Interestingly enough, the newspaper first came up with the idea of such cartoons after several incidents of self-censorship involving people who feared Muslim reprisals. Even though these images originally appeared back in September, all hell seems to have broken loose after they were reprinted last month by a Norwegian paper, causing others to follow suit. Technically, Islam forbids the production of any images or illustrations of Muhammad for fear they could lead to idolatry. Now, I actually respect the basis of their belief. In fact, Muhammad borrowed the “graven image” concept from the Hebrew Old Testament and the Ten Commandments, which predated Islam by some two thousand years. (around 1496 BC) The more serious discussion of idolatry comes from the Christian writers of the first century AD, still more than five hundred years prior to Muhammad. And, while Islam has held this belief regarding the image of their beloved prophet, this is the first that most of the west has heard of it. However, there is something larger going on here and three important issues need to be addressed.

First of all, whether or not these images are offensive, the whole reason for their having been published in the first place was as a commentary on the violent nature of at least some factions of Islam. Islamic organizations in the west, and occasionally elsewhere, are constantly up in arms over this subject. They proclaim that Islam is a religion of peace and love and that a few isolated radical groups are giving them a bad name. That’s an extremely difficult argument to make from a historical standpoint. Can a person really say that Islam is peaceful and just gets a bad reputation from: riots, assassinations, decades of terror attacks on five different continents, malicious and public threats by the president of Iran, the ruling party in Gaza, the previous Iraqi regime, the current Iraqi resistance, Hezbollah, the Taliban, the burning of embassies, the bombing of embassies, the text of the Koran, the charter of Hamas, suicide bombers, rioting youths in England, decapitating kidnappers, airline hijackers, flag burners, and Al Qaeda? Can it really be argued that the world misunderstands Islam all because of a few million bad apples in Great Briton, Spain, France, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Indonesia, America, Greece, Argentina, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, Pakistan, Egypt, Gaza, the West Bank, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Libya and the Sudan? This is just a sampling of supposed bad apples and activities based upon a very few minutes of research. Sadly, it appears that the west thinks of Islam as violent because that has been the bulk of our exposure. Having believers thereof rioting, attacking embassies, burning flags, murdering, and otherwise running amuck over a cartoon, only serves to support the violent stereotype. Thus, however religiously offensive it may be to Muslims, such depictions of Muhammad may not be entirely off base in a free and somewhat cynical western press. When I went online and Googled this subject in an attempt to view the vaunted cartoons I found only one of them, but accidentally stumbled upon dozens of images of angry Muslims burning and destroying things over the issue. I’m sorry, but it the bomb-shaped turban fits, wear it.

Second, international freedom of speech and censorship issues have been brought to the forefront by this issue. Does Islam have the right to dictate what the western press is allowed to print? That is a huge question. Historically, political cartoons, just like every other form of editorial expression have freely bashed every world religion, ethnic group, political party and pet cause imaginable. (Including my own father, from time to time.) That is the right of the press. If one group demands and receives some special treatment then all groups deserve such accommodation, and suddenly there will be nothing left which we are allowed to discuss anymore. Therefore, there must be no sacred cows. That’s what a free press is all about. Now, at this particular moment it might be considered insensitive or inflammatory to print these particular cartoons, but that is a choice that every editor should be free to make. We don’t have any say over the press in other countries or the programming on Al Jazeera and we shouldn’t. We don’t even want to. But we will not, we cannot tolerate censorship by any group, religious or otherwise. If the governments and press of the free world buckle on this issue, tomorrow it will be someone else with another axe to grind. If the proponents of a supposedly peaceful, cooperative and politically integrated Islam want equal rights and fair treatment by the western press then they have to play by our rules … and that means they are subject to political cartoons and editorial scrutiny. Welcome to the real world, boys and girls. We will not be censored.

Third, activist Muslims worldwide are using violence to protest caricatures of Muhammad depicting that very nature. Essentially, they are using violence in an attempt to bend the will and actions of the civilized world. Excuse me, but that’s terrorism. When one group employs violent acts in order affect social or political policy it’s just plain old terrorism. One sector of Islam is claiming to be peaceful and asking the press to respect their political beliefs, but other outspoken Muslims are threatening more violence if we don’t bend to their will. If the west submits to that sort of message, it will simply be sending another message to all other would-be terrorists that violence works. If you want to be respected, to be listened to, to be accommodated, then come to the table … don’t burn it. All civilized governments must deal with this kind of behavior, with these kinds of threats, in the strongest possible way so disgruntled people come to understand that nothing can be accomplished with violence. If we don’t meet violence head on it will become an incurable socio-political cancer that our children and grandchildren must inherit and live with. We must not bow to riots, threats and violent activism. That is terrorism and we shall not stand for it.

In conclusion, there seems to be no easy answer to this current conundrum. The western press is not likely to back down. Western governments have no right to squelch freedom of expression in their respective countries. Muslims are unlikely to become satisfied with the situation, and there are certainly some Islamic factions and nations who are committed to using this religious outcry to their political advantage. What I do know is that this is merely the latest skirmish in a clash of ideologies which has been raging for years and isn’t likely to diminish anytime soon. However, freedom of speech, like other liberties enjoyed by the free world, must remain cherished and protected. I have the freedom to write these words and you have the freedom to read them, or not. May we never stand for anything less.