Looking for a Muslim Sense of Humor *

The furor over the Danish cartoons of the prophet Mohammad continues in the Muslim world as well as amongst Muslims living in the west. The freedom of speech defense by both the newspaper concerned and by the Danish (and other) governments is a noble one indeed, although to some Muslims it rings hollow, given that many European countries have laws against "hate speech" specifically enacted to protect minorities, but seemingly not them. And lest we forget, Muslims in Denmark and the rest of Europe are still a small minority. Muslims protesting and committing violence in Muslim countries are, unfortunately, missing the point, just as surely as secular westerners who condemn Muslim anger are when it comes to the real issue at hand.

The question isn't whether the ban on the depiction of Mohammad is relevant to western societies, for it should certainly not be in a non-Muslim country, but whether various newspapers' judgments in printing or re-printing the cartoons was flawed. Firstly, the mere commissioning of the cartoons was clearly a provocative act meant to stir up debate and test boundaries (as the best cartoon of the lot shows by lampooning the newspaper it's to be published in). Secondly, once the decision was made to portray Mohammed, which in and of itself may be offensive to Muslims but cannot be defined as hateful, should there have been a judgment as to which cartoons were "suitable" for print? It is not a question of self-censorship, nor is it a question of avoiding offense, but rather a question of whether any of the cartoons were either inappropriate in that they might perpetuate stereotypes and incite racist behavior, or whether they were just downright racist.

In my view, not all the cartoons fall into the inappropriate or racist category, but one or two certainly do. That's where the problem lies, and it is for those cartoons in particular that the newspapers should apologize. In countries where any group of people are a minority (and whether their lack of integration into their societies is their fault or the fault of the governments or the local populations is irrelevant), is it incumbent upon the media to exercise caution when it comes to perpetuating stereotypes or when it comes to racist words and images? In America, we certainly think so. Surely in a country where most of its Muslims are law abiding citizens and who pose no threat to fellow Danes, an illustration of the founder of Islam as a suicide bomber/terrorist has the capacity to be harmful. That illustration is not merely about satirizing religion as some have claimed; it feeds the stereotype of all Muslims as potential terrorists. The debate now centers on whether Muslims are taking the issue too far or whether there is a fundamental clash between western values of free speech and Islamic values of reverence for their faith; lost in the debate is the issue of why a newspaper in a liberal northern European country would feel comfortable with publishing at least some material that is clearly harmful to a minority group in its country. (It is patronizing for non-Muslims to tell Muslims how they should feel about something or whether they should feel persecuted or not, as some in the European media have. Even Muslims have a sense of humor, but if they feel that they are often portrayed negatively in the West, then let's accept that that's how they feel.)

Although we defend the absolute right to free speech, the major mainstream media exercises extreme caution when it comes to offensive words and pictures. In America, (but curiously not in parts of Europe where the debate is centered), a neo-Nazi newsletter has the right (and exercises that right) to publish hate speech and terribly offensive portrayals of Jews and Blacks, but if those publications are met with protests, the mainstream media is hardly likely to reprint the words and pictures as "solidarity" with the notion of a free press, as some European papers have done in solidarity with their Danish counterpart. Provocation? Perhaps, but worse yet, bigoted. When in 1977 the ACLU rightly defended the right of Nazis to march through the predominately Jewish neighborhood of Skokie, Illinois, it did so out of reverence for the concept liberty and free speech in the United States, but the nation was divided on the issue. (The ACLU subsequently suffered greatly for its defense of indefensible hate-mongers.) No one, however, suggested that protests be organized in "solidarity" with the Nazis.

The protests that have erupted throughout the Muslim world make for good television news but are hardly relevant to the real issue of whether Jyllands-Posten made the right decision or not. Jyllands need not be concerned with religious fervor, nor should it fear any Muslim backlash because of an editorial decision. It should have, however, been a little more concerned about how Europeans who happen to be Muslims would feel about that decision. And clearly neither they, nor the papers that followed suit, were.

*With apologies to Albert Brooks for paraphrasing his film title.