Death to the Cartoonist

If fundamentalist Muslims, or indeed anyone, want to be recognized among world citizens, or have a valued voice in world politics, they must first understand and accept the terms upon which the civilized world operates.

This includes, at a bare minimum, a rejection of mob violence as a means to an end, a tolerance for cultural and religious differences, and a fundamental respect for the freedom of speech.

Needless to say, none of these virtues were present in the recent worldwide protests of the Danish daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten’s political cartoons, which depicted the Muslim prophet Mohammad in various unfavorable lights. The most severe of those cartoons have been reprinted with this article – judge your own outrage.

In response, protesters from Britain to Pakistan took to the streets, some carrying banners reading “Be Prepared For The Real Holocaust!” and “Freedom of Expression, Go To Hell!” In Syria, the Danish and Norwegian embassies were set on fire. In Beirut, hostages were taken and the Danish consulate destroyed.

All of this over some cartoons.

It’s difficult to accurately place the blame for the clusterfuck. Hard-liners and leaders in Muslim states like Pakistan and Afghanistan want the Danish government to apologize, but Denmark is right to refuse. In fact, the newspaper commissioned the cartoons in direct response to what it perceived as a “climate of intimidation” on the subject of all things Islamic. To renege on those principles now is to abandon the bedrock of a free society.

Islamic Imams – religious leaders who, to the Shia, are appointed by God and must be followed as perfect examples – certainly exacerbated the situation. Rather than adopting moderate or respectful positions on current events, prominent Imams often echo the invective spawned in radical Islamic sects. Imam Shaykh Ibhrahim Mogra, for example, decrees that “even the vilification of God is not as offensive as this.” In the West Bank, Imam Hassan Sharif ominously told worshippers “if they want a war of religion, we are ready.”

It might be that a few specific Danish Islamic leaders had the greatest part to play. The cartoons themselves were actually printed in late 2005, but “gained a wider audience when radical Danish clerics toured the Middle East” in January and made a point to show them off, as the Washington Times February 8th editorial notes. And, it continues, “just in case the originals weren’t offensive enough, the clerics also supplied a few of their own cartoons, ever more inflammatory” and attributed them to the Jyllands-Posten. Mission successful, it would seem.

Of course, it’s the fool who fails to recognize and appreciate the very real complaints Muslims have against the West, whom they correctly perceive as hostile and exploitive. And it’s the racist who generalizes all Muslims as being cut from this same fundamentalist cloth, or attributes the lunatic actions of a group of committed individuals to some inherent flaw in their unique perversion of their faith. Those are inarguably reprehensible judgments. While it’s certainly possible the cartoons acted as a catalyst, fanning the flames of their grievances, in a civilized world, that cannot justify their extremely uncivilized reaction.

Believe it or not, voices of moderation on this subject are quite hard to find.

The Jordanian newspaper Shihan, for example, published an editorial pleading for “Muslims of the world [to] be reasonable,” smartly asking “what brings more prejudice against Islam — these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras?” But according to the Boston Globe, Shihan’s editor was immediately fired by the paper’s owners and threatened with lawsuits from the Jordanian government.

It’s true that with the freedom of speech comes the responsibility to exercise it with caution. But on topics of contention, a just society must always recognize the right of expression over the right to not be offended. Intelligent Americans ignore almost inconceivably dumb ideologues like Ann Coulter when she laments that her “only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building.” We ignore Bill O’Reilly when he tells Al Qaeda to “go ahead” and “blow up the Coit Tower [in San Francisco].” We obviously take offense to their diatribes, but we do not attempt to squelch them. “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” – this is the attitude all modern societies and cultures have accepted as essential.

Were the cartoons offensive? Quite possibly. Is that any reason to torch a building, call for the death of editors or cartoonists, or any other completely idiotic reactions? Not a chance. And until fundamentalists of all types – be they Christian, Islamic, or anything else – respect the basic tenets of tolerance and freedom of expression, they will neither get, nor deserve, the respect of those of us who have.

*While the Forum understands the current severity of this issue, we have merely reproduced these cartoons within an editorial to give individuals an alternate point of view. We at the Forum do not condone any form of religious intolerance or discrimination; however, we feel that freedom of speech is of utmost importance in any society, not only our own, and, in the spirit of this, we hope individuals will take this into consideration.

Editorial Response - 02/26/06

The staff of the Clemson Forum appreciates President Barker’s concern for Clemson’s community and diversity, and understands the concerns raised by those who were offended.

Our purpose in printing the cartoons was never to work against these principles, and we feel that any reasonable analysis of our article makes this self-evident. The Clemson Forum stands with the University in championing “the transmission of knowledge, the pursuit of truth, the development of students, and the general well being of society.” We, like the University, recognize that “free inquiry and free expression are indispensable to the attainment of these goals.” We printed the cartoons to educate our readers on a controversial issue, and to responsibly exercise and celebrate the freedom of speech, in a way that was civil and respectful.

We therefore regret that President Barker, among others, draws no distinction between our treatment of the issue and that of our peers. We vehemently disagree with The Tiger Town Observer for printing the cartoons in a manner designed to offend, inflame and incite, and condemn the racist and factually incorrect article that accompanied them.

Mohamad Melhem, a Greenville imam, said that “people should be sensitive to other people’s religion or beliefs, no matter what their beliefs, even if they don’t agree with it.” We hope that everyone abides by that statement in their everyday lives. Mr. Melhem also highlights the “need for better dialog between Muslims and non-Muslims,” a point with which we also completely agree. But the way to achieve that dialog is not by acquiescing to radicals, or by limiting a fundamental right of expression for fear of offense or violent reprisal. Censorship and encouraging an open dialog are incompatible principles.

As student journalists, we carefully questioned if the offense of publishing the cartoons overrides our duty to provide the public with the information that sparked riots, caused deaths & the burning of embassies, and a call for war against the Western world. We hope our paper, and this statement, reflect our unequivocal answer.