That Danish cartoon - are Westerners entitled to satirise Mohammad?
Anyone reading the press over the last few days would know that the Muslim world is in uproar. Not because of the war in Iraq, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict or the Iran nuclear issue but because of a cartoon that appeared in a Danish newspaper depicting Mohammed in a blasmphemous manner. In Gaza, mobs have tried to attack the EU building. In other parts of the Arab world there have been violent protests. Campaigns have been organised to boycott Danish goods.
The European papers to their credit have not been intimidated by these protests. In fact, many other European newspapers have since republished the cartoon. The issue comes down to freedom of expression. Henry Porter in The Guardian writes "Would I have published the cartoons of Muhammad? No, they aren't funny and, frankly, they aren't worth the trouble. Do I applaud and defend the freedom to publish such offensive, asinine work? Yes, and that is my immovable position, as intransigent as the Muslims who have demonstrated across Europe and the Middle East".
It would seem a gulf has been been exposed between Western and Islamic tradition. Western thought which prides itself on tolerance and openess against Islamic tradition which stresses authority and respect. Not to say the two are incompatabile but the extreme response from the Islamic community throughout the world suggests that they have not come to an accomodation with western modern thought.
There also seems to be an incredible amount of hypocricy for segments of the Islamic world on the one hand to claim the West have offended their Islamic sensibilities yet seem to have no qualms publishing vicious anti-semitic tirades against Jews and republishing books like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a classic antisemitic European book. The Iranian President openly questions the veracity of the Holocaust, with not the slightest care of the consequences of what he is saying, yet for vast sections of the Islamic community this is acceptable.
The boldest move that has come out of this whole episode is the work of the editor of the Jordanian Arabic Weekly Shihan who published three of the 12 cartoons. The paper commenting on the cartoon wrote "Muslims of the world, be reasonable ... who offends Islam more? A foreigner who endeavours to draw the prophet as described by his followers in the world, or a Muslim armed with an explosive belt who commits suicide in a wedding party in Amman or anywhere else."
The Islamic world have every right to be deeply offended by the cartoons. No one should expect that they should keep quiet when outsiders have deeply offended Muslim sensibilities. At the same time, the excessive nature of the response does call into question segments of the Islamic communities commitment to tolerance and openness.
The European papers to their credit have not been intimidated by these protests. In fact, many other European newspapers have since republished the cartoon. The issue comes down to freedom of expression. Henry Porter in The Guardian writes "Would I have published the cartoons of Muhammad? No, they aren't funny and, frankly, they aren't worth the trouble. Do I applaud and defend the freedom to publish such offensive, asinine work? Yes, and that is my immovable position, as intransigent as the Muslims who have demonstrated across Europe and the Middle East".
It would seem a gulf has been been exposed between Western and Islamic tradition. Western thought which prides itself on tolerance and openess against Islamic tradition which stresses authority and respect. Not to say the two are incompatabile but the extreme response from the Islamic community throughout the world suggests that they have not come to an accomodation with western modern thought.
There also seems to be an incredible amount of hypocricy for segments of the Islamic world on the one hand to claim the West have offended their Islamic sensibilities yet seem to have no qualms publishing vicious anti-semitic tirades against Jews and republishing books like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a classic antisemitic European book. The Iranian President openly questions the veracity of the Holocaust, with not the slightest care of the consequences of what he is saying, yet for vast sections of the Islamic community this is acceptable.
The boldest move that has come out of this whole episode is the work of the editor of the Jordanian Arabic Weekly Shihan who published three of the 12 cartoons. The paper commenting on the cartoon wrote "Muslims of the world, be reasonable ... who offends Islam more? A foreigner who endeavours to draw the prophet as described by his followers in the world, or a Muslim armed with an explosive belt who commits suicide in a wedding party in Amman or anywhere else."
The Islamic world have every right to be deeply offended by the cartoons. No one should expect that they should keep quiet when outsiders have deeply offended Muslim sensibilities. At the same time, the excessive nature of the response does call into question segments of the Islamic communities commitment to tolerance and openness.
posted by SJ at 2:46 AM
2 Comments:
Not to mention the blowing up of the giant Buddha statue in Afghanistan by the Taliban. I constantly hear the argument that these are not the acts of a true Muslim but isn't it convenience to say that all the bad things done were not done by true peace-loving Muslim. I say if it walk like a duck, quack like a duck, and smell like a duck, IT IS A DUCK.
It seems to me that the riots directly violate what they attempt to protect. Isn't rioting and killing over an image the most blatant symptom of idolatry? If an image is too sacred to exist... that seems a form of worship, and a violation of the strictures that the upset Moslems are attempt to enforce.
Besides, they might have the right to have laws against images in their own country, but no country has a right to censor another country that way.
Post a Comment
<< Home