Freedoms that cross lines
I'm all for Freedom of Speech and the Press, but there are some things that cross the line when that ideal is practiced.
I'm talking, of course, about the latest drama with a Danish newspaper publishing a caricature of the Prophet Mohammed in a disrespectful manner, angering Muslims around the world. Being a Muslim, myself, I can see the lack of understanding from the West about the Muslim religion and its practices. I'm not an expert on the religion, but I practice it by praying five times a day and trying to live my life as a Muslim in the best way possible. I don't drink alchohol, as that's part of being Muslim. I don't eat pork, as that, also, is part of being Muslim. I don't lie, I don't cheat, or steal, I respect my elders and... well, I pretty much follow the Ten Commandments and then some. The "some" is where the lack of understanding, and even more lethal, MISunderstandings from the West come in.
In Islam, producing or even looking at images of prophets, or any other religious figures is forbidden. Muslims take this rule very seriously. Movies and television shows about the Prophet Mohammed and other religious figures are acted out without those characters depicted. The Message, the story of Islam and its beginnings is a good example of how Muslim directors eliminate the need to show images of religious figures and still make powerful statements.
When the Danish Newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a series of 12 cartoons, one of was an image of the Prophet Mohammed raised a red flag for Muslims. Forget the fact that the Prophet was depicted as a terrorist, which is an issue all on its own. A very serious line was crossed with an image of the Prophet being produced and published by people who don't truly understand what Islam is all about. Al Jazeera, the infamous Arabic news channel which I heard this news of the images through, blurs out the images when they are shown on camera, because although they are an unbiased source they still understand that there are lines not to be crossed out of respect.
Many negative things have been thought and said of Islam and its followers, and Muslims have learned to live with the negativity surrounding them by trying their best to educate the world about their religion. Islam is a religion that teaches its followers to respect not only Islam, but also Judaism and Christianity. The stories of Moses and Jesus are both mentioned in the Holy Koran, Islam's holy book.
I have not seen any of the images published in the Danish newspaper, and I don't plan on looking at any of them because I am Muslim.
posted by Futbol Lover Girl @ 12:20 PM
8 comments
8 Comments:
Well there are a whole host of things going on here. Based on my quick search through cyberspace on the topic I have found several interesting points.
First, perhaps we should look at why the images were printed in the first place. It seems as if a Danish author had been looking for an illustrator for his book on Mohammed. He complained to the newspaper after being unable to find anyone willing to do it, presumably out of fear. (You remember the artist who was killed recently for his photos of verses of the Koran written on the naked backs of women?) So the editor of the paper wondered if Danish freedom of speech was being compromised because of fear of Islamic retaliation. So as a kind of experiment (this guy is both brave and stupid) he commissioned the cartoons from 12 different cartoonists. He asked each to show what Mohammed might look like. Though some are (to me) undeniably offensive, he felt they were simply satirical and published them in the newspaper in September. I have had a long look at each one and I don't know that any of them clearly depict Mohammed as a terrorist. One of them doesn't even depict Mohammed at all and even disses the newspaper with the following words written in Arabic "Jyllands-Posten's journalists are a bunch of reactionary provocateurs." Most of them I don't really get, because to be honest, I have never really been good at interpreting political cartoons. So I really don't know if that part of the anger is founded.
Now I am not Muslim, and I have absolutely no issue with creating an image of anyone or seeing any images (except of people as they are dying, but that's my own thing) of Mohammed or anyone else. I understand that Muslims have this belief (Christians are supposed to too, but that didn't really stick) but that is totally a Muslim thing and I don't think that someone of other belief systems has to abide by Muslim or Christian or Hindu or any other rules. So I don't find the act of creating images of Mohammed to be implicitly disrespectful. Of course, I would find it direspectful if someone were to hang pictures of Mohammed on the door of a mosque or something, but just because I believe you have the right to your beliefs and practices and I would never put pork in the food I feed you, doesn't mean I won't chow down on pork right in front of you. I have my own beliefs.
It seems that a lot of the anger has been at the mere fact that these were images of Mohammed. Even your post seems to suggest that that is your biggest beef with the cartoons (aside from the possibility that Mohammed was depicted as a terrorist, but you spend a lot less time discussing that point). But like I said, the cartoonists aren't muslim. Should we draw up a list of all religious beliefs of all people around the world and force everyone to adhere to every rule so as not piss anyone off? No!
So as far as I am concerned, anyone can print images of religious figures out the wazoo if they want. On the other hand, it would be best if they weren't disrespectful content-wise, but even more importantly in my mind, we should exercise a little responsibility when putting things out into the world that could inflame sentiments of bigotry -- particularly when times are so sensitive and certain ties are already so tenuous. I mean, some of these cartoons should definitely have not made it past the editor's desk.
Well, I guess the experiment was a success, in terms of finding a definitive answer, eh? But in a world of many standards, it is interesting to me also that there is muslim in Belgium who advertises his play with a poster that depicts a topless Virgin Mary, and he receives backing by the Ministry of Culture. He has faced some mild anger from the Catholic church, but no death threats. Meanwhile, the editor of the Danish paper under question has now had to issue a public apology (available in Danish, English, and Arabic) after receiving numerous death threats; the cartoonists themselves have had to go into hiding and reportedly there are Al Qaeda websites that call for an attack on the paper/Denmark. There are also boycotts of Danish goods going on (which may unfortunately also include Faroese goods). I know that Christians have long ago tossed out the rule of not creating images of religious figures, but certainly Christians will see the topless Mary as disrespectful.
The point of my blog was to explain that there are a lot of things people don't understand about the Muslim faith, and hence, the crossing of the line with freedom of the press as the engine. I didn't say anything about apologies or anything like that, I was just trying to make a point that sometimes freedom of the press can cross lines, and that could happen with anyone.
I have a problem when there's caricatures with Jesus, or Moses, or any religious figure that I can comprehend, but Muslims aren't gonna sit there and go "HELLOOO... Jews and Christians... this is offensive!" when they have their own organizations that watch out for these things. So, we have to pick our battles, and we've picked this battle, because it's something that is personal to us, as Muslims.
Anyway, the point of my blog, as the title so clearly states, or so I thought, is that there are freedoms that cross lines, and if only there were a bit more education out there and "respect" for all religions, freedom of the press would exist, but still have limits when it comes to issues that are unnecessarily offensive. I mean, honestly, does the world need any more bad info about Muslims? Do Muslims need any more negativity surrounding their existence??? Ok, fine, we're terrorists... I think there's enough bias in the news to make that point loud and clear. Enough already! Everyone hates us, just hate us quietly already!
Freedom doesn't free you from respecting others and their beliefs. Whatever the reason is for the printing of the pictures is irrelevant to me and my point... my point is that a line was crossed, and hopefully with all the protests and issues coming up afterwards there will be more caution exercised in these sensitive matters.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
K,
Thanks for your comment, it was very insightful and said a lot of thoughts I have trouble formulating into understandable sentences.
I assume you are also a Muslim trying to bring the real point of the anger to light. It's a simple case of: it's not OK to produce images of Prophets, whether it be Mohammed (PBUH), or Jesus, or Moses, or whoever else is mentioned in the Holy Koran as a "do-gooder". The terrorist thing is not an issue for me, because that's the way Muslims are viewed by many westerners, so I'm pretty much used to that misconception and it doesn't phase me anymore. It's the line that was crossed that bothers me.
Thanks again for reading my blog and participating in a discussion with rich writing.
Thank you.
R.
I don't want to beat a dead horse, but see, that was really my point. I find it objectionable to print derrogatory pictures of any ethnic or religious group. (And please don't become complacent in that regard just because you are inundated with those images.) But I don't find it objectionable in and of itself for someone to print an image of a religious figure of someone else's religion.
If it were still widely considered blasphemous in Christian religion to print images of Jesus, and a group of Muslim cartoonists put out a bunch of drawings of Jesus in a paper that went out to mostly Muslims, it wouldn't be bad. Ok, not a perfect example since Jesus is a religious figure in Islam as well. But I feel that you are projecting your ideas of sins onto someone who doesn't share your beliefs. And holding him to laws to which he's not required by his government or his god to adhere. It is a sin for you to create or view an image of Mohammed. But how can it be a sin for a non-Muslim to create or view such an image? It is a sin for you to eat pork. But not me. I just don't know that I agree that there are grounds for such amazing anger here. I mean, yes, be angry that this editor is perpetuating the negative stereotype of Muslims, and arab Muslims in particular; be very angry. But I don't think you have the right to say whether or not a non-Muslim, Danish artist should be allowed to draw anything he likes, be it a Muslim figure or not. That's freedom of speech and religion baby.
And I disagree with the holocaust comments. I have personally met and spoken with survivors. I assure you that it is very real, very horrific and I don't understand why so many people keep saying otherwise. Just because that horror was real doesn't make other horrors unreal. And we Americans also like to forget the times we have been the perpetrators of horror, such as when we too had concentration camps, not to mention more recent horrors. I honestly must admit that maybe I don't understand Islam enough if it is true that a newspaper editor printing some offensive material can be considered to be worse than the torture and wholesale slaughter of many, many, many people!?!?! And I am sorry, who are the 6 million to whom you refer?
And I disagree with your double standard statement. It's all perspective. If someone in the middle east says something against the US or the holocaust or similar, many westerners will get angry. If someone in the west says something against the the middle east, a lot of middle-easterners will get angry. At this point, I have to start worrying about the very real possibility that I could be targeted for saying what I am saying. I lost my job because I fought against the perpetuation of the negative image of arabs in my workplace, but now, I have an idea of free speech that I believe should be upheld that may upset some of the same people I was fighting for, and so I am afraid. How sad is that? I can't even freely discuss this topic without fear. But to be fair, I was also pretty damned afraid at times to discuss openly my complete disgust with George W.. And why shouldn't I be? People have been beaten and killed in my country as in others for speaking their beliefs. And I was punished for my beliefs by termination from my job. A professor at my university was the target of national anger when he made a comment against some of the people who worked in the twin towers. And an artist in Europe was killed for taking some photographs. Why can't we have a world that allows for rhetoric (objectionable or not) without fear of retaliation?
I guess I am just an idealist.
Thinker,
This may not be along the same lines, but we Native Americans have tolerated the use of offensive images of our people by sports teams, professional, and collegiate for a long time. No one raised the issue until a few years ago, and the backlash we have received from others has been harsh and critical.
Many will say, "Don't you indians have enough problems on your hands, isn't this kind of trivial?" Well, the short answer is "Yeah". The long answer is, "Yes, we have problems with poverty, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, alcoholism, depression, high suicide rates...etc. etc. We are doing what we can in those areas and have made progress, and we feel that it is time to speak out on using negative images of us as "mascots" by supposedly "institutions of higher learning".
I guess my point is this. Although I am not muslim, nor any other of the "big" religions, my beliefs and teachings from my people is to respect others beliefs. Show deference to others, in order to live harmoniously. We all are a part of the mosaic. And a beautiful mosaic it is.
Do I believe the violence is justified? No. It is not.
Do I believe anger is justified? Yes.
Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts on your blog....
I think this discussion is the most useful argument I have read in a while about this issue. I appreciate the thinker for instigating the conversation. Thank you Elisabeth, K and Chris for carrying on intelligently without added passion. This is the only way this issue can be resolved.
Wow. I can't believe this many people actually read my blog and responded with different angles to the issue.
I haven't been checking my blog for a few days, because I felt too emotional to read comments on something that I'm passionate about, so I resolved to stay away for a few days. Now I'm back and I see opinions that differ, and opinions that agree with mine, and it's nice to see all angles of the issue. It doesn't take away my anger and me being offended, but it gives me a better understanding of what "the other guy" is thinking.
Thanks to all for participating, and in hopes of moving on to a different subject, I am done saying what I need to say about this issue. Thanks again for the participation and I hope that my future blogs will grab more readers and their comments.
Peace.
Post a Comment
<< Home