Muhammad/cartoon riots

A caricature of the Prophet Muhammed sparks riots and leads to the burning of the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus (Syria), the Danish consulate in Beirut (Lebanon), and much uproar in the Muslim world.

Comments

This is where two key modern ideals – freedom of speech and religious tolerance – seemingly crash into each other. On the one side, we have a group excercising their right to freedom of speech by satirizing religious figures. On the other side, we have a group who feels that their faith is being threatened, and so they use their freedom of speech to protest against the lack of religious tolerance displayed. So far so good. The problem comes when the offended group also presume a right to physical revenge against printed insults, a right which is not mandated by the laws of any civilized nation.

Freedom of speech is a key element of modern, enlightened society. We have found, through long, painful experience over the centuries, that it is the only way to prevent tyranny.

Freedom of speech does not guarantee freedom from being offended. It not only almost guarantees that someone will eventually say something that offends someone else, it also guarantees them the right to say it. A number of followers of Islam, unfortunately, apparently did not share a belief in the freedom of speech as a key element of modern civilization; apparently they believed that any affront to their prophet Muhammed gave them the right to deliver deadly retribution.

Another key concept in modern, enlightened civilization is the idea of reciprocity, which is the idea that any laws must sound just as good if applied to me as they do when applied to you. So if you were to have the right to burn down my embassies when I make fun of or insult your core beliefs, then I must also have the right to burn down your embassies when you make fun of or insult my core beliefs. A brief examination of history would show that this would have resulted in considerable retaliation against representatives of Islam and the Islamic nations, had it been applied within recent memory (think "Death to Carter! Death to America!" in the late 1970s, for starters).

Fortunately, modern society has learned, through long experience, that allowing that sort of retaliation is a bad idea – in part because it leads to just that sort of useless violence, followed closely by magnified retaliation from the other side (who is now not just verbally insulted but physically assaulted), and on into ever-escalating cycles of retaliation until both sides are decimated. Even though death threats – such as those America is used to hearing from the Islamic world on a regular basis – are not considered free speech, physical retaliation for solely verbal abuse is not an enlightened behavior pattern. We only retaliate when attacked, and we only attack when a real, physical threat can be shown. (This concept is, in fact, at the core of the current debate over the morality of the US invasion of Iraq, where the evidence of threat may have been largely invented, thus making the United States the illegitimate aggressors.)

In enlightened countries, we are taught these principles from a very young age: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me" and "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you".

Those who were offended by the cartoons had every right to publish their own equally scandalous or scathing ripostes. They did not have the right to pillage, burn, and kill. To the extent that they insist upon this right, they are the enemies of civilization, and would have us return to fighting endless wars of retaliation and revenge until we are reduced to savagery.

Reference

• Wikipedia

Timeline

• 2005-09-30 Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten publishes "12 different cartoonists' idea of what the Prophet Mohammed might have looked like." The paper's editor later characterises these depictions as "sober" and "not intended to be offensive". Other papers reprint the images and their accompanying story.
• 2005-12-15 (approx.) a delegation from several Danish Muslim organizations went on a tour in several Middle-Eastern and Arabic countries, reportedly to gain sympathy for their point of view (see Wikinews)
• 2006-01-23 (approx.) two European newspapers Die Welt in Berlin, France Soir in Paris, and two small weekly Jordanian newspapers, Shihan and Al-Mehwar, reprinted the cartoons and characterized the publications as a matter of free speech.
• 2006-01-26 a massive boycott of dairy produce from Denmark-based Arla Foods starts in Saudi Arabia (see Wikinews) and spreads to Kuwait
• 2006-01-30 Jyllands-Posten explains and apologizes for the original publication
• 2006-02-03 (Friday) Pakistan's government unanimously passed a resolution condemning the cartoons [1]. About 800 people protested in Pakistan's capital, Islamabad, chanting "Death to Denmark" and "Death to France," "Death to America". Another rally in the southern city of Karachi drew 1,200 people, but only about 20 protesters showed up for a rally in the eastern city of Lahore.
• 2006-02-04 (Saturday) Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said his "government condemns the publication" of the drawings, but he urged his citizens to remain calm. According to Jordan's Petra News Agency, arrest warrants were issued for the editors-in-chief of the Jordanian newspapers (Shihan and Al-Mehwar). Shihan's editor, Jihad Momeni, who is a former member of the Jordanian Senate, was fired after publishing the cartoons.
• 2006-02-05 (Sunday) Danish embassy in Beirut torched [2]

Opinion

• 2006-02-07 Woozle's opinion:

First, it seems clear to me that the outrage was manufactured. There have been countless depictions of Muhammed throughout history, including many within the past couple of decades (not to mention the bas relief in DC), with no kind of furor whatsoever. The pamphlet which apparently incited the riots contained three additional, crudely photocopied images almost calculated to be insulting to Moslems, and which had no connection with the original 12 cartoons. The supply of Danish and Norwegian flags, as one observer has pointed out [3], was suspiciously ample on such short notice. (...although this may have been partly free-market forces at work [4])

Second, it also seems clear that if we apply the filter of symmetricality to this situation, the protestors are in the wrong. How many American flags have been burned by angry Moslems, with no threat of retribution from America? A little anger in response, perhaps – but surely burning a country's flag is calculated to achieve just that response. By behaving like spoiled children with dangerous weapons, the rioters who burned the Danish and Norwegian embassies (severe material damage, in exchange for what damage done to them?) have given up any weight their opinions might have carried.

Standing by itself, the suggestion that freedom of speech should be overridden by a religious law is, at least, an arguable point of view. However, I think it goes directly against all the political progress we've made in the past couple of centuries toward replacing the "strongman" form of government with something accountable and resposive to the will of the governed, and basically points us back to before The Enlightenment, when religious hierarchies were the only game in town. I don't know who might want to do that, I don't know of anyone who does, and I definitely don't want it.

Anyone should have the right to publish a depiction of anyone's religious figures. Any further discussion should be just that – discussion. Riots and fires are not an appropriate way to express your opinion. If they have an issue with the west's idea of freedom of speech, then they need to openly criticize it – not attack the individuals and institutions who lawfully excercise it. --Woozle 20:31, 7 Feb 2006 (CST)

• 2006-02-16 another opinion

News

• 2006-02-05
  • Danish, Norwegian embassies in Syria attacked by Muslims
  • Danish consulate in Beirut ablaze
• 2006-02-04 Danish and Norwegian embassies set on fire
• 2006-02-03:
  • Pakistan parliament slams cartoons
  • U.S.: Muhammad Cartoon 'Offensive'
  • Outrage Grows Over Muhammad Cartoon
• 2006-01-30 Honourable Fellow Citizens of the Muslim World: the Danish paper explains and apologizes
• 2006-01-26 Saudis boycott Danish dairy produce

Links

• Face of Muhammed blog: includes the original images
• Depictions of Mohammed Throughout History