For those of you who haven’t kept up on the news, there are riots going on all over the world because of some political cartoons satirizing the Prophet Muhammad, depicting him and Islam as a religion of violence and zealotry. A few people have been killed in Afghanistan, diplomatic ties have been severed, and a number of embassies have been attacked or firebombed.
Having a rudimentary understanding of Islam, I feel for them. They very sincerely believe that Muhammad should not be depicted in art or any other medium. To do so – especially in a satirical manner – is a heinous insult.
There are two reasons why we as Westerners don’t understand what we’ve done here:
1) We have a paramount belief in the freedom of speech and of the press.
Since the inception of Democratic-Republicanism, the press has been fundamental to the protection of freedom against tyranny. It is the fourth estate. Because of this privileged status, the press has become tyrannical in its own right: allegedly justified to print whatever it wants with little consideration to privacy or social responsibility.
A journalist would probably disagree: saying that their social responsibility is to print anything they can – consequences be damned – in the pursuit of truth. Well, monsieur journaliste: journalism is as much based on selling papers as it is on truth.
2) Western society is filled with cynicism for religion.
There is very little that is held “sacred” in Western ideology. Nothing is outside of the bounds of criticism (unless, of course, it is backed by an interest group or the ACLU). This is a sign of our maturity (putrification) as a society. America is not quite as bad as Europe in this regard, but we’re getting there.
We have criticized and made fun of our own religions for so long that it is beyond us to imagine that others would take offense to the point of violence.
On the other hand, the political cartoonists were trying to show that Islam has a fundamentally violent streak. This is something many Muslims have protested in the past: Westerners’ view of Islam as a religion of violence. This would have been the perfect opportunity to disprove us. They didn’t. They have added to our stereotype. And we have added to theirs.
7 years ago
5 comments:
It is truly sad to see how so many have protested against an image of violence with... violence.
Once again, the violent actions of a few Muslims draw the attention of the world and casts the whole religion in a poor light. Such is the way of the media, I suppose.
(That last comment was posted by Stacey. Sorry about that!)
it is a strange and mystifiying issue. i tend to be of the opinion that it's better to avoid bashing someone's faith, yet.... it is complicated. good post. the thing is, apparently now, in order to get even, a contest has begun wherein the offended are trying to come up with the 12 best holocaust cartoons. it is a sick sad cycle.
However, I think you were taking it too far when you wrote this: "There is very little that is held “sacred” in Western ideology. Nothing is outside of the bounds of criticism (unless, of course, it is backed by an interest group or the ACLU). This is a sign of our maturity (putrification) as a society. America is not quite as bad as Europe in this regard, but we’re getting there."
It seems that when you treat people like babies, they act like babies. Go to the Netherlands, where pretty much every drug is legal, and nobody is having a problem with the drugs but Americans on holiday, greedy to make the best of it. Go to a place where everything is taboo, and you find a lot of pain boiling under its skin. Myths and rumors permeate the air, rather than fact. As far as the ACLU, it's never been above criticism. Extremes are the wingtips that make balance possible.
I do agree with this, however: "We have criticized and made fun of our own religions for so long that it is beyond us to imagine that others would take offense to the point of violence." It seems that we could have a lot more diplomacy, empathy, and tact when dealing with paradigms so foreign to our own.
great post.
A thought-provoking post, J.
It's cynical, even for me, to say that "journalism is as much based on selling papers as it is on truth." I'm not arguing that there are no commercial concerns, and I think it's gotten worse in recent years, but you're insulting a lot of hardworking reporters. You don't have to reach very far back to cite Watergate as an example of two journalists working against pressure from authority to uncover the Nixon administration's shenanigans.
The importance of our right to criticize and lampoon authority cannot be understated. Yes, maybe Western society has become a bit jaded to that sort of mockery, but that's because we realize it's one of the small prices we pay for freedom.
The cartoons probably were in poor taste, but a so-called lack of understanding is no reason to condone the violence incited by Islamic radicals.
Some quotes from a recent editorial (February 8, 2006) by Iranian journalist Amir Taheri:
"There is no Quranic injunction against images, whether of Muhammad or anyone else. When in spread into the Levant, Islam came into contact with a version of Christianity that was militantly iconoclastic. As a result some Muslim theologians, at a time when Islam still had an organic theology, issued 'fatwas' against any depiction of the Godhead. That position was further buttressed by the fact that Islam acknowledges the Jewish Ten Commandments--which include a ban on depicting God--as part of its heritage. The issue has never been decided on way or another, and the claim that a ban on images is 'an absolute principle of Islam' is purely political. Islam has only one absolute principle: the Oneness of God. Trying to invent other absolutes is, from the point of view of Islamic theology, nothing but sherk, i.e., the bestowal on the Many of the attributes of the One....
"Now to the second claim, that the Muslim world is not used to laughing at religion. That is true if we restrict the Muslim world to the [Muslim] Brotherhood and its siblings in the Salafist movement, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al Qaeda. But these are all political organizations masquerading as religious ones. They are not the sole representatives of Islam just as the Nazi party was not the sole representative of German culture. Their attempt at portraying Islam as a sullen culture that lacks a sense of humor is part of the same discourse that claims 'suicide-martyrdom' as the highest goal for all true believers."
Taheri goes on, in both cases, to provide examples.
Oh, and incidentally, I think I live in a state, and arguably a country, that could use a little more cynicism for religion. Well, not cynicism per se, that's not the right word, but certainly more of a sense of humor.
great comment, dan!
Post a Comment