MM - Is there any value in censorship?
Your Taboo, Not Mine From Time Magazine | Essay
The furor over cartoons of Muhammad reveals the zealot's double standard
By ANDREW SULLIVAN Posted Tuesday, Feb. 07, 2006
The iconic image of last week was in the Gaza Strip. It was of a Palestinian gunman astride the local office of the European Union. All the diplomatic staff had fled, tipped off ahead of time. The source of the militant's ire? A series of satirical cartoons originally published in Denmark. Yes, cartoons.
A Danish paper, a while back, had commissioned a set of cartoons depicting the fear that many writers and artists in Europe feel when dealing with the subject of Islam. To Western eyes, the cartoons were not in any way remarkable. In fact, they were rather tame. One showed Muhammad with his turban depicted as a bomb--not exactly a fresh image to describe Islamic terrorism. Another used a simple graphic device: it showed Muhammad surrounded by two women in full Muslim garb, their eyes peering out from an oblong space in their black chadors. And on Muhammad's face there was an oblong too, blacking out his eyes. The point was that Islam has a blind spot when it comes to women's freedom. Crude but powerful: exactly what a political cartoon is supposed to be.
The result was an astonishing uproar in the Muslim world, one of those revealing moments when the gulf between our world and theirs seems unbridgeable. Boycotts of European goods are in force; demonstrators in London held up signs proclaiming EXTERMINATE THOSE WHO MOCK ISLAM and BE PREPARED FOR THE REAL HOLOCAUST; the editor of the French newspaper France-Soir was fired for reprinting the drawings; Afghan President Hamid Karzai condemned the publication; and protesters set fire to the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus. The Egyptian ambassador to Denmark expressed disbelief that the government would not prevent further reprinting. Freedom of the press, the Egyptian explained, "means the whole story will continue and that we are back to square one again. The government of Denmark has to do something to appease the Muslim world."
Excuse me? In fact, the opposite is the case. The Muslim world needs to do something to appease the West. Since Ayatullah Khomeini declared a death sentence against Salman Rushdie for how he depicted Muhammad in his book The Satanic Verses, Islamic radicals have been essentially threatening the free discussion of their religion and politics in the West. Rushdie escaped with his life. But Pim Fortuyn, a Dutch politician who stood up against Muslim immigrant hostility to equality for women and gays, was murdered on the street. Theo van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker who offended strict Muslims, was killed thereafter. Several other Dutch politicians who have dared to criticize the intolerance of many Muslims live with police protection. Muslim leaders say the cartoons are not just offensive. They're blasphemy--the mother of all offenses. That's because Islam forbids any visual depiction of the Prophet, even benign ones. Should non-Muslims respect this taboo? I see no reason why. You can respect a religion without honoring its taboos. I eat pork, and I'm not an anti-Semite. As a Catholic, I don't expect atheists to genuflect before an altar. If violating a taboo is necessary to illustrate a political point, then the call is an easy one. Freedom means learning to deal with being offended.
Blasphemy, after all, is commonplace in the West. In America, Christians have become accustomed to artists' offending their religious symbols. They can protest, and cut off public funding--but the right of the individual to say or depict offensive messages or symbols is not really in dispute. Blasphemy, moreover, is common in the Muslim world, and sanctioned by Arab governments. The Arab media run cartoons depicting Jews and the symbols of the Jewish faith with imagery indistinguishable from that used in the Third Reich. But I have yet to see Jews or Israelis threaten the lives of Muslims because of it.
And there is, of course, the other blasphemy. It occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, when fanatics murdered thousands of innocents in the name of Islam. Surely, nothing could be more blasphemous. So where were the Muslim boycotts of Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan after that horrifying event? Since 9/11 mosques have been bombed in Iraq by Islamic terrorists. Where was the rioting condemning attacks on the holiest of shrines? These double standards reveal something quite clear: this call for "sensitivity" is primarily a cover for intolerance of others and intimidation of free people.
Yes, there's no reason to offend people of any faith arbitrarily. We owe all faiths respect. But the Danish cartoons were not arbitrarily offensive. They were designed to reveal Islamic intolerance--and they have now done so, in abundance. The West's principles are clear enough. Tolerance? Yes. Faith? Absolutely. Freedom of speech? Nonnegotiable.
Labels: please comment (: (Calvin's group)
5 Comments:
I agree with the writer on this aspect that the Danish paper has the right to freedom of speech and criticise different aspects of Islam as they do with all other religions as well. Taboos in Islam to be strictly followed by those of that faith would not apply to others with a different faith. The Danish paper has the right to continue reprinting the cartoons as it is their right to freedom of speech and they were highlighting the lack of freedom within the religion towards women. If they were to stop reprinting it would clearly mean that the fanatics have once again gotten their way due to intimidation and violence. Freedom of speech will always be handicapped due to such acts of intimidation. If the Muslims can criticise the Jews and the Jewish faith with imagery used from the Third Reich, with the Jews not reacting violently to it with death threats, then surely the Muslims should be able to maturely handle criticism of their own faith. Otherwise it would seem as the Muslims being rather hypocritical.
However I disagree with the writer on the point that the political cartoon has to be crude but powerful. It is true that the cartoons have visual impact and are a powerful way of bringing a message across. However, the cartoon is an image and it is open to interpretation especially if the cartoon is rather vague in its intended message. For example, the cartoon of Muhammad with his turban depicted as a bomb clearly highlighted Islamic terrorism. However, according to BBC, many Muslims saw it as being stereotypical. They felt deeply insulted as they saw the caricature of Muslims as terrorists to Muhammad. In this image, Muslims see depiction of Islam, its prophet and Muslims in general as terrorists. This will certainly play into a widespread perception among Muslims across the world that many in the West harbour hostility towards- or fear of – Islam and Muslims.
Hence I think it is important to evaluate how the cartoon may be interpreted by the religious community involved. Some cartoons are more specific and clearer in their message intended for example the freedom of women in Islam is really open to question however other cartoons may be rather vague and could lead to Muslims thinking of it as being stereotypical. However, the Danish newspaper has the right to freedom of speech even when it come to criticising religions but it should exercise it more carefully especially since if it is in the form of a cartoon where it is open to speculation.
Sharon
I agree with the author that one can still respect a religion even after pointing out their unacceptable ways of doing things. In other words, it is wrong to say that one is disrespectful just because he/she claims that another is wrong. For example, a student points out a mistake made by a teacher, is that disrespect? I beg to differ. The author states that Islam forbids any visual depiction of the Prophet, even benign ones. This means that in doing so they would deem it as disrespect. Nothing is perfect. Hence there is no reason why the people of Islam should create a mountain out of a molehill when others violate their taboos just to illustrate a political point. If it is justified, then there is no reason why they should feel disrespected. People should condemn their wrongdoings.
I disagree with the author that it is the Muslims who should appease the West. The author is being emotional and one-sided by stating so as he only looks from the point of a non-Muslim. For example, he stated "Excuse me? In fact, the opposite is the case." He used strong words like "in fact" to elaborate his point. It is impossible to throw a punch at someone and not expect him to react, even if the punch is justifiable. Therefore, both sides should compromise and apologize to each other, as both sides have a point. In addition, he stated that the Danish cartoons were not arbitrarily offensive. This is pretty subjective, to a Muslim, it is, to a non-Muslim, such as himself, it is not. Therefore, it is wrong to say that it is entirely the Muslims' fault and should apologize.
After analyzing the article the author is right to the extent when he stated that the Muslims should not over-react based on the actions of others which violate their taboos. However, he should have written from a view which also takes into account the Muslims' opinion and not disregard the Muslims from a non-Muslim point of view. In conclusion, it is not entirely the Muslims fault for reacting and the author should not put the entire blame on them.
-Calvin
I agree with the writer that the Danish newspaper does has all the right to post the cartoons. What he stated was true, taboos in a certain religion would not apply in another. Its the same like the laws in different countries. Also, the fact that the Muslim community does jest about other religions, they should not be infuriated that others mock their religion for there is a saying that goes 'Do not onto others you do not want done to you.' Thus I would ask the Muslims to meditate on their own actions and walk their own talk before being so quick to judge others. Hence, I agree with the writer's view point on freedom of speech and his phrase "Your taboo, not mine."
However, I am in disagreement with the writer on his point that a political cartoon should be crude. Powerful? Yes. Crude? Not really. Its like in a war. A government can attempt to use diplomacy to appease the enemy or just resort to nuclear weapons, both ultimately could end the war, but the fallouts would be a little bit different. For example, the cartoon about the turban bomb on the prophet's head. The cartoon might have been funny very vivid but it is a tad unneccessary. By drawing the cartoon this way, the cartoonist is stereotyping all Muslims as terrorists, with the prophet as the head. Although it does get its point across about Islamic terrorism, hence making it a powerful comic, but it would cause widespread destruction for the unhappy Muslim zealots would wreck havoc on the 'Islam Mockers'. Much like using the nuclear bomb, it does the job, but not too neatly. Hence, maybe the cartoonist might have considered increasing the clarity in his message by drawing a criss cross over a bomb with the islamic symbol to show that he is against Islamic Terrorism, this would not depict the prohpet and shows that his message is only towards the Islamic terrorists.
Overall, I feel that even though the arguement of freedom of speech will always hold, tact and delicacy should always be practiced. Calling a person fat may be your right but it is not nice. It is because we have the right of freedom of speech that we should know how to manage it. It is difficult to control a population as large as the muslim community so if you want to offend it, be ready for the consequence. Also, I feel the Muslims should also be more open-minded, man will always be a good observer of differences; the sooner we get used that fact, the faster we will be at peace. In conclusion, freedom of speech is there, but in life we should still think twice before simply telling that fat person he is fat.
Lyn-Feng
I agree with the author that the Danish newspapers have the right to publish the cartoons.In fact i don't even see any reason why the Islam community should be mad about it. The article was published in Denmark hence the Muslims have absolutely no rights to complain about it. Its not like Denmark had broken the law, the newspaper was just excersing its right to freedom of speech which is allowed in Denmark the country in which it was printed. Also if the newspapers had stop printing the cartoon as requested by the Muslilms, it would seen as the Danish submitting to the Islams and admitting that they had done something wrong which isn't the case, so i feel that the Danish were 100% right in refusing to stop printing.
I also agree with the author that we can repect a religon without honouring its taboos. When respecting a religon all we have to do is to ensure that we do not do or say anything that belittles that particular religon. For example, in Singapore there isn't total freedom of speech so people are mindful about what they say about other religons, that's all. You will never come across a Christian saying i can't eat pork because i will be disrespecting the Muslims.
However i disaree with the author that political cartoons have to crude. The aim of a political cartoon is to deliver a message across in an effective manner but it doesn't have to be crude. The cartoon of Muhammad with his turban depicted as a bomb, shows the thought of westerners when it comes to Islams-they are all terrorists. This is a cruel and false depiction. Because if it was true Singapore would have been destroyed by the vast amounts of " terrorist" in the country.
Overall, a person is governed by the laws of the country of his residence. No matter how disrespectful the comment made may be, the Islam community should learn to accept other countries laws and the way they these countries view them.
I really like the comments by this group. They were mature, showing consideration of the points raised by the author, and there was systematic attempt to support/counter the author, with own reasoning and examples. Well done!
Ms Quek
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home