STEPHANIE TANIZAR
Assistant Perspectives Editor
On Feb. 14, Denmark’s foreign ministry advised Danes to avoid travel to Pakistan. Why? On that day, Islamic students in southern Pakistan torched the Danish flag. But this was not the only instance of anti-Danish demonstration. In Kuwait, a call for a boycott on Danish goods was sounded.
Three men were arrested for planning to murder Kurt Westergaard, a 73 year-old cartoonist with the Jyllands-Posten two days before.
The Jyllands-Posten is a Danish newspaper that retaliated against the murder plot by republishing cartoons of the prophet Mohammed. These cartoons incited the burning of three Danish embassies around the world and the deaths of at least 50 people two years ago. At least 15 other newspapers followed suit, in the name of free speech.
The most controversial drawing of the original 12 depicted Mohammed with a bomb fizzing away in his turban.
That cartoon, incidentally, was drawn by Westergaard.
When they were first published two years ago, the cartoons raised an outcry from the Islamic Danish population. Normally, the incident would not have created waves beyond Denmark’s borders. But this time, with America’s war on terror freshly carved in public memory, word of the cartoons spread worldwide via the Internet and text messaging, until the world’s Muslim population was up in verbal arms.
Today, the repercussions of the cartoons still hold weight, as can clearly be seen in the murder plot on Westergaard’s life.
According to BBC, Islamic countries around the world have launched protests against the cartoon’s republication. Demands for an apology from the Danish government were rebuffed in the interest of upholding the right to free speech.
Freedom of expression is the motivation behind the cartoon’s republication. For many, including writers at The Economist, the foremost problem with demands from Islamic leaders to pull the cartoons is the repugnant wraith of censorship.
Ironically enough, the 12 cartoons in question were commissioned as part of a discussion on free speech in the Jyllands-Posten.
Contrary to popular belief, as the BBC Web site recounts, the cartoons were not deemed offensive because of visual representation of the prophet Mohammed, which can be considered idolatrous under Islamic law. Instead, the problem lies in the cartoons’ depiction of Islam and terrorism as intertwined concepts.
In a time when the war on terror is a significant proponent of modern society, tying the membership of an entire religion to said war can only be a recipe for catastrophe.
Right to free speech is a significant aspect of the democratic world, and one that should be fought for. Freedom of the press, a byproduct of the censorship issue, is equally important.
However, fighting for these rights does not preclude the right of the Islamic public to protest against them. Nor does it prohibit Muslims from some measure of human respect.
It remains true that the Jyllands-Posten and the other Danish newspapers had the right to republish those cartoons. At the same time, it also remains tasteless and removed from any vestige of respect for the Danish Muslim community, which according to IslamicPopulation.com is the largest minority religion in Denmark at a grand total of 2-5 percent of the overall population.
Comments to an article about the republication of the cartoons on The New York Times Web site unearthed an alarming number of “Islamophobic” commenters. Many feel that Islamic immigrants should put up with and shut up about the desecration of their religious values. Claiming Jesus has also been mocked in other cartoons without resort to rioting and murder, these commenters believe putting up with the religious slander is part of becoming assimilated into Western culture.
The ethnocentric outlook displayed by the commenters demeans Muslims as a subset of humanity on the strength of religious conviction alone. Insistence on instant assimilation into Western beliefs, instead of working out how both can work together, is one of the reasons why the divide between East and West has grown so vast.
Unfortunately for those commenters, the ideal of free speech fully allows those of the Islamic faith to voice their displeasure. The call for Muslims to “put up and shut up” is a call for censorship in its own right.
Currently, Islam is the second largest religion in the world (a full 10 percent behind Christianity), as documented by Adherents.com. One might surmise that if all Muslims were extreme as exaggeration has made out, a great deal of bloodshed and violence would be visible in today’s world. Happily, not all Muslims are extremists.
In fact, many Islamic leaders in Denmark, like Imam Abdul Wahid Petersen, have asked that violence be kept away from any protests. The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has denounced the murder plot on Westergaard’s life, boycotts on Danish products and violence of any kind.
While the Islamic population may have resorted to extreme and overbearing means to get their point across, the reason behind their protests is not insignificant. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press has its place in society, but it does not supersede the basic right to respect that every human being deserves.
02-21-2008