Posted on 02/05/2006 1:23:20 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
The uproar in the Islamic world over Danish cartoons lampooning the prophet Muhammad reminds us that much of that world misunderstands what democracy means.
A Danish paper published the 12 cartoons in September. One showed the prophet with a turban made of explosives; in another, he greets a line of suicide bombers in heaven with the words "Stop, stop, we have run out of virgins." The drawings have inspired protests from Muslim presidents, Arab boycotts of Danish goods, Pakistani demonstrations that torched the Danish flag, and calls by Gaza imams to sever the hands of the artists.
In the Muslim world, where physical depictions of the prophet are blasphemous, the drawings were viewed as a Western attack on Islam. But elsewhere in Europe, newspapers have reprinted the cartoons in defense of freedom of speech.
The whole episode is a classic case of cultural collision. Yes, these images are insensitive and heighten tensions between the West and Islamic countries. It might have been better had they never surfaced.
But the assumption by many ordinary Muslims - and even Muslim leaders - that Western governments should censor such drawings is a nonstarter. As the newspaper France Soir, which reprinted the cartoons, wrote: "We had no desire to add oil to the fires as some may think. A fundamental principle of democracy and secularism is being threatened." This is a principle many Muslims apparently don't understand.
Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan, perhaps reflecting the sentiment of angry constituents at home, reportedly called for a limit on press freedom. Afghanistan's Hamid Karzai said that "an act like this must never be allowed to be repeated." And, according to the Financial Times, Saudi Arabia's Interior Minister Prince Nayef suggested the Vatican should intervene to stop the spread of the cartoons. Apparently, the prince thinks the Pope can dictate personal behavior in the manner of the late Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini, who issued a fatwa condemning novelist Salman Rushdie for blasphemy.
Sorry, Prince Nayef. Sharia does not apply in the West, where freedom of speech is a right protected by law and constitutions. The exercise of that right aggravates Western leaders, including President Bush. And Western media are more likely to insult their own religious icons than they are those of Islam.
Remember Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ? Or the infamous New York exhibition that included Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ," a photo of a cross dipped in urine? Both were widely condemned by America's religious leaders.
Such protest is totally legitimate, and part of Western tradition. If Muslims want to picket newspapers that publish the cartoons, more power to them. What's not legitimate in democratic society is threats against artists or demands to curb free speech.
This point must be emphasized over and over, as Europe struggles to better integrate its 15 million Muslim citizens. European leaders can soothe hurt Muslim feelings but shouldn't apologize for free speech.
Many Muslims view Western freedoms as license. But those freedoms offer Muslims the opportunity to practice their religion freely in Europe, despite the growing social tensions between them and the non-Muslim majority. In Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, Christians aren't permitted to worship openly or carry a Bible in public. And one sees no outrage in Muslim countries when cartoons defame Jews, or newspapers quote the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a notorious forgery claiming Jews want to take over the world.
Respect for another faith's core religious values can't be a one-way street.
Nor is it sufficient to explain the flare-up as a reflection of deeper Muslim grievances against the West. "This [protest] reflects a collective frustration building up about the way Muslims feel they have been treated," says New York's Imam Faisal Abdul Raouf, a noted interfaith activist. "There is a perception on the street that the war on terror is a war on Islam."
True, but Western leaders have gone out of the way to debunk that canard. Surely the way to bury it is not to threaten Western cartoonists with violence, or stay silent when fundamentalists do so. Challenge the cartoons, yes, point out the prophet never condoned suicide, decry the misuse of Islamic symbols by terrorists. Use Western freedoms to make these points, but don't blow the episode into a war of civilizations.
As one gutsy Jordanian newspaper editor named Jihad Momani asked last week: "What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide bomber... . ?" Momani was fired by his editors for daring to challenge conventional wisdom. But his question rings true.
A gratuitous shot that isn't germane to the point of this article; these antiquers simply can't restrain themselves.
I read that completely differently than you did. I'm thinking specifically of the NYTreasonTimes. They report what they want to, with the slant they chose - I'm sure President Bush must get frustrated at what they chose to report. But he certainly doesn't call for their hands to be severed.
if any true committed muslim speaks to you honestly, he will tell you this. the earth is islams property, sooner or later everyone will be subject to islam. after understanding this, it is no surprise they cannot tolerate other social mores other than their own, since they think everything is theirs anyways. i say this even though i do think the cartoons are wrong and should not have ever been published.
Yes; and somewhat misleading as posed
. It is hardly the exercise of this right that is agravating. . .and when exorcised; Bush is the first to point out the 'rights' as granted by the Constitution he endeavors, always, to protect.
Someone should tell the Philly (national) inquirer that this is not a democracy we live in. Oh well, the point would be lost on them anyway.
"As one gutsy Jordanian newspaper editor named Jihad Momani asked last week: "What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide bomber... . ?" Momani was fired by his editors for daring to challenge conventional wisdom. But his question rings true."
apparently, its more accepted to murder people in cold blood on TV/Video than it is for a silly cartoon to be published.
-Islam, a Religion of Peace®? Some links...--
-Time to kick the tires & light the fires, folks- terrorism gathers across the World...--
-Jihad! Across the World....--
-All Terror, All the Time-- FR's links to NBC Warfare, Terror, and More...--
Oh...Fox News showed the drawings
Sorry for the multipal posts...need coffee
Boston Globe is for Sharia
You hit the nail on the head. They do not understand sovereignty. They are not concerned with whether or not Sharia applies to the West, as the goal is imposing Sharia law via the West becoming Al Dar Islam.
I believe Mr. Momani has now been arrested for his crimes.
exactly and until people understand where they are coming from, they will continue their march toward their goal unabated. all this while the west is fumbling over some cartoons.
that this is not a democracy we live in
Even the ones that are presently making excuses to assure the local Islamist populations surely can't miss the bigger implications of these actions.
you are the heart of the problem if you think people will wake up to islams attitudes. where have you been the last few years? it is time for those among us that still have some sanity left to realize that islams supporters know full well what they are supporting. alot of democrats are highly schooled, they know full well the consequences of bashing the president on arab media. same with all the news media types. wake up and look at the problem, quit wishing for help, it aint coming.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.