After taking out the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus,
I suppose we can expect Islamic extremists next to firebomb the
U.S. Supreme Court building.
The violent reaction to the publication by a Danish newspaper,
Jyllands-Posten, of a dozen cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad
has spread around the world and left many dead. Justification for
these heinous riots is said to be found in Shari’a law’s
prohibition of images of the prophet, which also forbids the
depiction of any person
or animal.
After taking out the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus, I suppose we can expect Islamic extremists next to firebomb the U.S. Supreme Court building.
The violent reaction to the publication by a Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, of a dozen cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad has spread around the world and left many dead. Justification for these heinous riots is said to be found in Shari’a law’s prohibition of images of the prophet, which also forbids the depiction of any person
or animal.
Yet on the north frieze of the Supreme Court building, there he is, Muhammad himself, holding a scimitar and positioned between two other famous lawgivers: Charlemagne and the Byzantine Emperor Justinian.
Several European papers have reprinted the cartoons out of solidarity with the Danes, who in the meantime have apologized for giving offense. But according to Amir Taheri, a respected Iranian Muslim journalist, no such prohibition is to be found in the Koran itself.
Good thing too, because Muhammad has been portrayed in art and literature for centuries, and not just in the western and secular press. A Turkish biography of Muhammad, Siyer-i Nebi, originally published in 1388 and reprinted 200 years later, contains 814 illustrations, many portraying Muhammad.
So maybe this isn’t just about images per se. Muslim umbrage has as much to do with the nature of these particular cartoons – although no sane person has argued that the death and destruction that have resulted are justified.
One objectionable cartoon depicts Muhammad with horns; another shows him with a turban shaped like a bomb. On the other hand, Muhammad in heaven confronting a line of approaching martyrs and saying “Stop stop we ran out of virgins!” is simply irreverent, and makes light of a practice, suicide bombing, most Muslims abhor.
If offended religious sensibilities are the main issue, there is plenty of that to go around. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has also produced years of merciless political cartooning. And recently the Persian-language daily Hamshahri announced an international competition for cartoons about the Holocaust – not surprising in Iran, whose
president has called the Holocaust a myth.
Or how about the retaliatory cartoon published a few days ago on the Web site of the Arab European League. It shows Hitler in bed with Anne Frank with the caption: “Write this one in your diary, Anne.”
The American press has been reluctant to reprint the Danish cartoons, but in the aftermath of 9-11 and in the run-up to the Iraq war, this country produced many unflattering images of Muslims and Muhammad. The most notorious came in late 2002, when Pulitzer Prize-winner Doug Marlette published a cartoon modeled on the anti-SUV campaign, “What would Jesus drive?” His drawing showed a Middle Eastern man behind the wheel of an atomic bomb-carrying Ryder moving truck, the kind used by American terrorist Timothy McVey, with the caption “What would Muhammad drive?” Marlette received more than 20,000 e-mails, some threatening violence and even death.
Much of the outrage against the Danes and sympathetic West has been manufactured by cynical governments who are manipulating the issue to distract their citizens from other problems. Syria is under pressure from the United Nations over its alleged role in the murder of Lebanon’s former Prime Minister Rafik Harari, and Iran is in an international standoff over its nuclear fuel program.
On the other hand, Danish credibility wasn’t helped when it was revealed this week that in 2003 the editors of Jyllands-Posten rejected cartoons making fun of Jesus Christ “on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny,” according to Britain’s The Guardian newspaper.
In the end, taste matters – or should. I may object to the depiction to a warheaded Muhammad, but I think the February 1 issue of France Soir got it right. The cover shows a cloud in heaven on which is seated the Buddha, a prophet with a star of David (Abraham? Moses?), Muhammad and God. God says: “Don’t complain, Muhammad. We’ve all been caricatured.”
As long as faith-based politics encourages extremism, the war of ideas will find expression in the shorthand of political cartooning. I may not have printed the Danish cartoons on the grounds that they were simplistic and crude, but I reject religious censorship. Muslims are free to police expression within their own ranks, but they are out of their jurisdiction in trying to limit Doug Marlette’s, or the editors of Jyllands-Posten.
