Cynics Unlimited

See Also: Drawing Conclusions on the Danish Cartoon Debacle

First and foremost, it should be noted that many reasonable people both inside and outside the Islamic world found the Mohammed cartoons by Kurt Westergaard and others to be offensive in nature (this blog included). Devoutly religious people of all stripes were slightly jolted by what appeared to be yet another example of an increasingly secularized West openly mocking its religious citizens for both pleasure and profit. Christian commentator Michael Coren summarized this viewpoint in a recent column for the Toronto Sun:

“Modern Western liberalism despises religion, and Islam and Christianity are equally in its sights … In some ways it is shocking to see men, women and children outraged and taking to the streets to defend their religion against crude blasphemy. But in others ways it’s refreshing and delightful.”
-Michael Coren, “Protesters right to be outraged” (February 2006)

That said the loudest protests from the Muslim world (or at least the politically prolific Muslim world) had to do with:

• Muhammad being depicted at all
• The creation of a cartoon challenging (aka “defaming”) Islam

Regarding the depiction of Mohammed, the cartoons in question were posted in Jyllands-Posten once before, several months prior to the riots. The strongest response at the time was a written condemnation from a Danish Muslim group - so why is there such a strong response now? The answer may have more to do with politics than religion. The strongest rioting occurred in states where the government and/or opposition parties are most hostile to the West: Iran, Afghanistan and Syria. Iran in particular knows it risks imminent attack by the U.S. or Israel over its refusal to cease nuclear enhancement activities; however Islamic republic could slow down any hostile counter response by stoking the flames of worldwide Muslim anger against this “blasphemous” cartoon. Indeed, the strong wave of anger across the Muslim world will cause America to tread gingerly around the issue of attacking yet another Islamic nation. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently accused the Iranian Government of fanning violent protests in order to “wag the dog”, which the government quickly denied. Bottom line: if it takes two printings of a cartoon to cause outrage, it may not be solely responsible for the riots.

The defamation issue is more clear-cut. Middle-Eastern nations have shown the greatest anger towards the anti-Muslim cartoons … but what about anti-Jewish cartoons in the Middle East? Many of the editorials and cartoons in Arab newspapers are critical of Ariel Sharon and Israel, both of which have a complex and antagonistic relationship with longer-term inhabitants of the region; however, some cartoons simply denigrate the Jewish religion and its people. A recent editorial cartoon in the UAE-based Al-Ittihad depicted a hook-nosed Jewish man holding a gun to a humanized character representing the world. The Jewish man’s other hand was stretched out in expectation of payment, and the words “The Holocaust” were written over top of the gun. An even more recent (as in this month) cartoon in the Iranian newspaper Al-Wifaq depicts a devil wearing an Israeli armband and holding a Danish flag sitting at a desk, exclaiming “I don’t admit the limits of freedom of speech except the Holocaust”.

The former cartoon (pictured above) trivializes the holocaust as a Jewish attempt to extort money from Europe and the world. The latter cartoon subscribes to the predictable assertion among radical Muslims that Jews engineered this entire Danish Cartoon debacle. Without any conclusive proof of such a conspiracy, these Arab editorialists are just as guilty of religious slander and racism as any Westerners who draw or endorse cartoons that stereotype 1.2 billion Muslims. The fact that anti-Jewish cartoons are quite common in these newspapers suggests that restricting dissent may be more important to these rioters than the defamation of their religion (that and the protest placards with statements like “Freedom Go to Hell”).

Thus, moderate Muslims have to understand why so many people are somewhat wary of the “offense” being taken at these cartoons. It is very suspect to condemn offensive characterizations by another group when members of your own group commit the same offense regularly and to a greater degree.

To be fair, Western counter-outrage has also been less than sincere. Citing the need to preserve free speech, a “Buy Danish” campaign has emerged to counter Muslim boycotts of Danish goods. This well-intentioned protest went awry when several prominent bloggers and their even more rabid groupies used the conflict to promote anti-Muslim ideas and rewrite history to promote Christian and Western moral superiority (apparently the Spanish Inquisition and antiabortion terrorism cannot be attributed to Christian extremism). As usual, columnist Ann Coulter took this sentiment to the extreme by referring to Muslims as “ragheads” during the Conservative Political Action Conference last Friday. Among conservative pundits she is hopefully the exception, but the truth is that bigotry is playing a role in the voraciousness of the Western counter-attack.

Furthermore, some forms of free speech are apparently more valuable in the West than others: the odious anti-Semitism of Ernst Zundel earned him a deportation from Canada (which often does little about illegal immigrants) to Germany where he was promptly arrested for the crime of denying the Holocaust. There is more than enough historical evidence to defeat this erroneous viewpoint so it is not clear why denying the holocaust deserves any more punishment than, say, minimizing the effects of African slavery or justifying the bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki (both of which are done regularly). These lapses in endorsement of free speech weaken the argument provided by those who would like to present this conflict as one based on liberty rather than cultural conquest.

The real problem with all of the “outrage” on display is that very little of it –on either side- seems to be born out of principle. With the developing revelation of civilian abuse by British soldiers in Iraq, this cultural flare-up may complicate further.