The Muslim outrage at the cartoons is completely unsurprising, but
this anger is extremely hypocritical. In many regards, the Arabic
media is quite outrageous by Western standards, but it shows no
interest in kowtowing towards our cultural sensitivities. For
example, the Arabic media is unflinching in displaying graphic
pictures of wounded or dead bodies; this policy has caused anger in
Washington when those bodies belong to American soldiers. The Arabic
media is also exceptionally disrespectful to Jewish people,
frequently describing them using crude racial stereotypes and
arbitrarily blaming them for the various ills of Arabic society (see
http://www.memri.org/antisemitism.html for more details). The blood
libel, already mentioned, is commonly depicted as truth in mainstream
Arabic papers. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a notorious
anti-Semitic tract describing a fictional Jewish plan for world
domination, was the basis of a multi-part Egyptian TV show which
presented the Protocols as real (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel_against_Jews and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion for some
details). The list goes on and on. So it's a bit ironic that some
Muslims are incensed by a few cartoons, when the amount of offensive
material that comes out of their local press is much worse and much
more voluminous.

Of course, the hypocrisy factor provides no ipso facto justification
for the publication of the cartoons; just because the Islamic press
is indecent by our standards doesn't mean that we should be obscene
by Islamic standards. But we should remember the original motivation
for publishing the cartoons. Most media coverage of the issue has
glossed over the context for the pictures, but the context is very
important. The cartoons appeared in a Danish newspaper article that
discussed the relationship between free speech and Islam. Consider
some text from that article:

"The modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand
a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own
religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy
and freedom of speech, where you must be ready to put up with
insults, mockery and ridicule. It is certainly not always equally
attractive and nice to look at, and it does not mean that religious
feelings should be made fun of at any price, but that is less
important in this context . . . we are on our way to a slippery slope
where no-one can tell how the self-censorship will end. That is why
Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten has invited members of the Danish
editorial cartoonists union to draw Muhammad as they see him."

Fundamentally, the newspaper article dealt with the relationship
between religion and government. In an open, secular society, one is
free to be religious and to consider things blasphemous, but one must
tolerate plurality of opinion, even if one finds those opinions
distasteful. Personal rights derive from the agnostic pronouncements
of the government. In contrast, in a theocracy, and more
specifically, an Islamist society, the rights of citizens are
strictly derived from religious doctrines. Thus, that which is
religiously offensive is illegal. Being blasphemous becomes a state
crime, as it is in Saudi Arabia and everywhere else that some form of
sharia is enforced.

The Danish newspaper was trying to explore the tension between the
Islamist vision and the secular European one. This is an important
and relevant issue to discuss, since the Islamist vision is utterly
incompatible with Western notions of personal liberty. This is just
the truth and we shouldn't shy away from it. If we are able to
criticize and satirize America's fundamentalist Christian right, then
we must be able to criticize and satirize Islamism without fear of
sounding politically incorrect.

Note well that "Islamist" refers to the belief in Islam as a "total
system," i.e., as the ultimate and singular foundation of every
aspect of life. This is different than simply being Muslim---all
Islamists are Muslim, but not all Muslims are Islamists. The religion
of Islam is not intrinsically anti-democratic. For example, America's
Muslim population is well-assimilated and respectful of our secular
form of government. However, Europe's Muslim population is poorly
assimilated and, for various reasons, very suspicious of the secular
form of government. Incidents like the riots in France, the murder of
filmmaker Theo van Gogh in the Netherlands, and the insistence of
some European Muslim enclaves to prohibit the rights of women have
led European governments to restrict immigration and question what it
means to have a society that is both free and partially Islamic.
Europe has the right to be concerned about these issues and to
discuss them in an open manner; the fact that some Muslims disapprove
is proof that this conversation is far overdue. As stated in the
OpinionJournal article about Islam and demography, 60% of British
Muslims want to live under Islamic law in Britain itself! This is not
a good statistic, since the British government espouses
multiculturalism and is generally considered to be one of the best
European countries at assimilating immigrants.

There is no reason why the West should allow all religions except
Islam to be satirized. Islamic sensitivities are no more and no less
important than any other, and Islamic sensitivities are not the
foundation of Western ideals of personal freedom. For example, some
interpretations of Islam circumscribe the role of women, but the
Western world shouldn't stifle the creative energy of females to
placate misogynists. Some Koranic interpretations prohibit one from
charging interest on loans, but we shouldn't change our financial
system for fear of offending Muslim financiers. If Western societies
want to engage in free debate, then this is our prerogative.
Discussing the relationship between Islam and free speech is
important, both to help Muslim immigrants in Western countries to
assimilate, and to learn how to nurture open societies in the Muslim
world. The cartoons of Mohammed were published in the context of this
dialogue. One might disagree with their publishing for practical
reasons, since some amount of outrage was to be expected. However, I
don't disagree with the spirit of the cartoons.

~j