An interesting editorial by Pres. Yudhoyono of Indonesia on the spreading unrest this week over the publication of those anti-Muhammad cartoons. He makes the following, somewhat obvious, very common-sense point:
I also think that a lot of the conversation about "freedom" here is way too abstract. What if, instead of printing cartoons -- which we here in the West judge to be somehow innocent -- the Jyllens-Posten had simply set aside a page to print, in 72-point caps, the words "ISLAM IS A FALSE, VIOLENT RELIGION AND ITS ADHERENTS ARE FOOLS"? Would other Western papers be reprinting that all over the place and calling it "freedom"? Probably not. Well, then, what's the difference? There is a difference, of course, but I don't think it's as clear-cut as many in the West are making it out to be.
For those who are interested, there's a reasonably good editorial on this topic at the Chicago Tribune (registration req'd.).
The international community must work together to put out this fire. A good start would be to stop justifying the cartoons as "freedom of the press," which only hardens the Muslim community's response. Another vital step would be to discontinue their reproduction, which only prolongs the outrage.I can't vouch for the accuracy of this assessment, and I'm not sure I'd phrase it exactly this way, but the point is well taken. For Western media outlets to "take a stand" in "solidarity" with the European publishers of those cartoons is not exactly a sensible, level-headed thing to do. This is a complicated point, and I don't want to seem to be justifying retaliatory violence. Frankly, I don't understand what makes someone want to go and participate in a riot, and I don't presume to offer explanations for that. But I think I do understand that Western concepts of "freedom of speech" and other similar ideas presuppose that ideas, representations, and images are in and of themselves not dangerous. Cross-culturally and historically, this is an unusual position to take. Most cultures throughout human history haven't conceptualized "freedom" the way we do, partially because it was generally believed that images and speech wielded real power. Societies restrained people from saying or representing anything that struck their fancy not because they were conformist and repressive and mean, but because saying or picturing the wrong thing might actually be dangerous. Thus, for example, majority-Christian societies used to punish heresy in the belief that heresy itself was something like a contagious disease or a house fire -- it posed a real and imminent danger to the community. Thus, in those settings, anti-heresy laws were something more like today's fire-safety or health codes and less like censorship. This probably doesn't make much sense; if you want me to explain what I mean, ask me, and I'll try to think it through a little more fully.
To non-Muslims, the image of the Prophet Muhammad may only be of casual interest. But to Muslim communities worldwide, it is of enormous spiritual importance. For the last 14 centuries, Muslims have adhered to a strict code that prohibits any visual portrait of the Prophet. When this code was violated and their Prophet mocked for the purpose of humor, Muslims felt a direct assault on their faith.
Reprinting the cartoons in order to make a point about free speech is an act of senseless brinkmanship. It is also a disservice to democracy. It sends a conflicting message to the Muslim community: that in a democracy, it is permissible to offend Islam.
This message damages efforts to prove that democracy and Islam go together. The average Muslim who prays five times a day needs to be convinced that the democracy he is embracing, and is expected to defend, also protects and respects Islam's sacred symbols. Otherwise, democracy will not be of much interest to him.
I also think that a lot of the conversation about "freedom" here is way too abstract. What if, instead of printing cartoons -- which we here in the West judge to be somehow innocent -- the Jyllens-Posten had simply set aside a page to print, in 72-point caps, the words "ISLAM IS A FALSE, VIOLENT RELIGION AND ITS ADHERENTS ARE FOOLS"? Would other Western papers be reprinting that all over the place and calling it "freedom"? Probably not. Well, then, what's the difference? There is a difference, of course, but I don't think it's as clear-cut as many in the West are making it out to be.
For those who are interested, there's a reasonably good editorial on this topic at the Chicago Tribune (registration req'd.).
Sent using R|mail.
No comments:
Post a Comment