So many issues are tangled up in the publication of the cartoons of Mohammed that I’ve found it difficult to think through them and come to any definite firm ground. They’re definitely worth thinking about, though, as they relate to many crucial issues in today’s global cultural environment.
\nThe original publication<\/b>
\nThe original publication of the cartoons was deliberately provocative, and succeeded beyond the expectations of the provocateurs. Indeed, the publishers have apologised for their error in judgement in publishing the cartoons.
\nTheir intent was to test the tolerance of Islam, which claims to be a religion of tolerance.
\nOn the surface this seems simple enough, although both aggressive and insensitive. However, this intention is worth examining in a bit more detail. Two points in particular are of note:
\n‘The tolerance of Islam’ firstly assumes that Islam is one body, and not a variety of cultural and religious expressions and understandings. Even the crude division of Islam into ‘fanatical’ vs ‘ordinary’ categories, itself problematic, is absent here. This obfuscation of complex and crucial variety within a category implicitly serves the purpose of demonisation, as has been seen in responses in the West, and signposts the publishers as subscribers to a view of Islam as inherently fanatical in character. (This view is in wide currency in the west.)
\nEven assuming that it is appropriate to conduct such tests of a religion’s character, we should examine whether this is an appropriate way to conduct such a test. (Certainly it is an insensitive way; I am at a loss as to how a test of tolerance could be anything but insensitive, however.) Absent from consideration is the context of the test subjects. It is widely felt in the Islamic world(s) that they are being targeted and victimised; without examining the validity of this sentiment in detail, we can all agree there is cause for it. In such a context, how can tolerance be fairly tested?
\nThere is more that you can get from digging beneath the surface of this claim, but these two points seem the most important to me.
\nImages of Mohammed<\/b>
\nAn extra layer of complexity to the whole affair emerges from the way in which depictions of the Prophet are regarded within Islamic teaching.
\nIn Islam, any image of Mohammed has a real quality of sacredness, as does the physical entity of a copy of a Koran. They are holy in the same way the communion host is to Catholics (although that dramatically overstates the degree of holiness, the principle is the same – the items themselves have a real, material sacred element).
\nBecause of this, these cartoons cannot be directly compared to other depictions. An image of Jesus is not inherently sacred, much less an image of the Pope or the Christian cross.
\nThis is not to deny that images of Mohammed are unknown; indeed, they can be found in many places where Islam is strong. One presumes that pious Muslims have been prepared to turn a blind eye to such depictions, or that they are unable to enforce the restriction of such images.
\nAll of this adds to the complicated tangle of concerns here stirred up.
\nThe republication<\/b>
\nThe decision by many newspapers and magazines around the world to republish the cartoons has its own set of concerns. Freedom of the press and freedom of speech are not at issue, despite attempts to frame the decision to republish in these terms; there is no limitation on freedom except self-censorship, which is a different issue entirely.
\nNewspapers self-censor all the time and usually without reflection. Reasons for doing so include concerns about social impact of publication, potential legal ramifications, facilitation of editorial framing of stories, perceived merit as news, potential impact on circulation, personal moral judgement of editorial staff, and so on. Offensiveness is not a primary concern in and of itself, but rather as it emerges within the above.
\nIn this case, there was definitely a desire within the public to see these cartoons, however mild. (I certainly wanted to see them.) Set against this was the inherently offensive nature of the cartoons and the variety of flow-on effects resulting from publication.
\nI can see the argument for publication in order to meet this public desire, but I think on the balance such a decision is unfortunate, principally because Islam is already a victimised community within the west and further publication is an insult to that community. It is true that no community has the right to avoid offence, or to be spared insult; but I wish the decision had been made to value avoiding offence and insult over public desire to see the cartoons.
\nThe angry response<\/b>
\nThe response in the Middle East, of riots and destruction, is unconscionable and massively disproportionate. That this is so tells us a variety of things, principally that this incident is not perceived as an isolated event but as the latest in a long series of insults and persecutions.
\nIt also indicates that, without any doubt, some religious and political leaders within the Middle East have stirred up response as much they could, to serve a variety of ends. Such activities are massively irresponsible but are par for the course; our own politicians would not hesitate to make as much political hay as possible out of any such opportunity coming their way.
\nThe extent to which the publication (and republication) of the cartoons has led to condemnation of entire other governments and nations is also extremely concerning; any framing of these events that paints the West as anti-Islam in toto is very dangerous, feeding noxious ideologies and playing into the hands of extremists on all sides.
\n(Threats of trade repurcussions, I think, best understood as political posturing, even in the case of the hardline and devout Iranian president. They are real political acts, seeking a public drama of contrition and concession, but I think it unlikely that threats will be carried out. That’s my best read of the situation, and I’m prepared to be wrong on it.)
\nThe commentary on the affair in the West<\/b>
\nI am deeply, deeply concerned to watch this whole affair provide an open season on Islam. When the tenor of letters to the editor becomes akin to discussion on toxic right-wing hate sites, then (even accounting for the polarising bias within letters to the editor) there are deepset problems within our society.
\nJust one concerning factor in the whole affair is the willingness of many parties to blithely speak of Islam as if all Muslim people and peoples are essentially the same. Protestors outside the British Parliament, inciting violence, have been characterised as the voice of the entire world of Islam. Many people have portrayed the whole affair as evidence of the hypocisy of Islam and its fundamental violent nature. Such rhetoric I find deeply divisive and essentially abhorrent.
\nServing power interests re: Iran<\/b>
\nIt’s also worth noting that the controversy serves the needs of Western power interests in their attempts to isolate and demonise Iran. But that’s another post. Next week, maybe.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
So many issues are tangled up in the publication of the cartoons of Mohammed that I’ve found it difficult to think through them and come to any definite firm ground. They’re definitely worth thinking about, though, as they relate to many crucial issues in today’s global cultural environment. The original publication The original publication of … Continue reading On Those Cartoons<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-300","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"aioseo_notices":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p8D9ZE-4Q","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/morgue.isprettyawesome.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/300","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/morgue.isprettyawesome.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/morgue.isprettyawesome.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/morgue.isprettyawesome.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/morgue.isprettyawesome.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=300"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/morgue.isprettyawesome.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/300\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/morgue.isprettyawesome.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=300"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/morgue.isprettyawesome.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=300"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/morgue.isprettyawesome.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=300"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}