I have been following closely the arguments regarding the recent riots across the Muslim world in response to the depictions of the Prophet Mohammad in European newspapers. ÿI am particularly astounded by the likes of arguments proferred by Mike Inganamort and the "free speech" contingency. ÿThe people offering this argument have no real understanding of "freedom" because if they did, they would understand that the flip side of "freedom" is "responsibility." ÿYou have the freedom to act as you like inasmuch as that freedom is used responsibly and not wrecklessly, merely to promote freedom. ÿThe writers of the major documents in the liberal-democratic tradition all had this in mind - not a freedom gone awry to insult whomever one pleases.
I am a Palestinian Christian who was incredibly offended by the cartoons depicting the Prophet. ÿTo equate these cartoons, as Mike Inganamort so erroneously did, to depictions of Christianity's figures - is to do a disservice to the entire history of Christianity. ÿChristianity has always supported depictions of Jesus Christ, Mary, the Apostles, and religious figures. ÿWhile I agree that extreme and offensive depictions of Christ are inappropriate, these depictions come from centuries of a tradition of portraying these figures. ÿIn Islam, only a small minority of Muslims actually depict the Prophet and only within the Shi'a tradition, which is the minority sect within Islam. ÿTo then have a Dane, a non-Muslim, depict Mohammad in as offensive a way as the most extraordinary Muslim wearing a turban with a bomb in it is absolutely absurd! ÿ(Please note that I am very distressed at the violence of the protests that have taken place across the Muslim world. ÿTo protest is one thing - to burn down embassies is quite another!) ÿThe fact that the Danes KNEW this was offensive and insulting is beyond doubt. ÿThe history and relationship between Europe and the Muslim world is well-documented and the understanding of the latter by the former in no way excuses religious insult guised under the banner of "freedom". ÿ
Mr. Inganamort then uses the "chronicling" of Tom Gross who shows anti-Israeli cartoons in the Arab world. ÿFirst, Tom Gross is blatantly anti-Palestinian and his interpretation of the cartoons is incredibly inaccurate. For anyone with a modicum of knowledge about Islam, they would know that Islam would never disrespect the religion or fundamental teachings of Judaism or Christianity as they are "religions of the book." ÿOf course, we know fundmentalist Muslims do kill Christians and Jews in the name of God, but we also know that this is political and not religious. ÿ
Second, both Messrs. Gross and Inganamort wish to blindly approach the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as if the Palestinians are not getting killed, shot, murdered, mutilated, raped, imprisoned and tortured on a daily basis by the government and military authority of the state of Israel. ÿAll the cartoons that Gross "quotes" use symbols and imagery that are associated with the state of Israel and thus the attacks are against the state of Israel, and not Judaism. ÿAnd if Mr. Inganamort has a problem with rabbis being depicted in cartoons (which they aren't in any of the Gross examples, excuse the pun), then one need only look at depictions of Islamic leaders in the West (which has never caused an outrage in the Muslim world). ÿI reject the new standard that attacking the policies and practices of the state of Israel is anti-Semitic - by that standard, attacking the policies and practices of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia is anti-Muslim, and we all know that surely isn't the case.
The point of this is that the fundamental teachings of a vast majority of Muslims was knowingly and willfully attacked by those who would favor freedom without respect and responsibility. ÿThe two cannot exist without the other and to let the former run rampant without being checked and balanced by the latter causes problems on this level. ÿTo assume, as Mr. Inganamort oh-so-willingly does that an exception is being made for Islam to make it superiour is erroenous and fallacious. ÿHis argument holds no water except among those that would wish to see Islam insulted and ridiculed. ÿIslam and Muslims have suffered plenty of attack and have developed quite a thick skin. ÿHowever, there comes a point, after constant ridicule, two countries attacked, and an entire nation abandoned and held hostage to apartheid-like policies, that a people's voice must be heard. ÿAnd that is what happened. ÿI can only hope that this will spark a debate on how to responsibly use freedom, and if it is the West's goal to promote "freedom" and "democracy" in the Arab/Muslim worlds, that they will set the example by which this is done.
Issam Khoury is a Resident Director at American Univesity. These views in no way represent those of the Offices of Housing & Dining, Campus Life, or the university in anyway
