©Religion News Service
Cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist and misogynist have offended Muslims in the United States as they have Muslims worldwide. But the debate raging among Muslim-Americans on college campuses, the Internet and in Islamic media has its own unique flavor because of this country’s constitutional commitment to free speech.
American Muslims are adamant in their support of exercising their First Amendment right to protest the drawings through boycotts and other peaceful means, but many are embarrassed by the torching of European embassies in the Middle East and other forms of violence that have accompanied some demonstrations.
Because the cartoons constitute what he considers hate speech, the issue is not “black and white,” said Junaid Ahmad, a student at the College of William and Mary’s Marshall-Wythe Law School in Williamsburg, Va., who is active in national Muslim organizations. “This is not just a matter of being for freedom of speech and against freedom of speech,” Ahmad said. “The first thing we should realize is that Muslims don’t accept the basic framework. The principal issue here is not freedom of speech, but the Islamophobic context in which such a caricaturing of the prophet is taking place. I think that’s the issue here.”
Nevertheless, Ahmad said he was against laws restricting such speech. “You can’t give the state too much power. It’s better to fight hate not through laws but education and community organizing and activism.”
The Council on American Islamic Relations, the Muslim Public Affairs Council and other American Muslim groups have condemned the violent reactions to the cartoons and have urged Muslims to protest peacefully, write letters or take part in boycotts. For their part, CAIR, MPAC and other groups have met with European officials in Washington to explain why Muslims were offended by the cartoons.
“As a Muslim, I can understand the emotional intensity of the issue, however, responding through violence does not uphold the dignity of our faith,” said Mahdi Bray, head of the civil rights bureau of the Washington-based Muslim American Society, in a statement following a meeting with Denmark’s ambassador to Washington. “Burning buildings and throwing bricks is definitely not the answer. Muslims united and using their economic leverage, now that’s something the world can respect.”
While Muslim-Americans disagree over reactions to the cartoons, a consensus seems to have emerged that the cartoons crossed a line that demands some type of response.
“On the legal level and from an Islamic perspective, people have a choice,” said Dr. Sayyid M. Syeed, secretary-general of the Indianapolis-based Islamic Society of North America, the largest Muslim organization in the United States. “I don’t expect my neighbor to have the same reverence about the Prophet Muhammad. All that we are expecting is that they don’t insult a personality that’s made such a historical contribution. This is more a responsibility of living in a pluralistic society than a question of legal restrictions.”
To some U.S. Muslims, the cartoons of Muhammad are more a question of racism than blasphemy. “The cartoons border on hate speech. If people depicted Jews in that light, people would be very upset. If you look at them, they are very similar to cartoons drawn of Jews in Nazi Germany,” said Dega Muna, 40, a Somali-born Muslim who grew up mostly in the U.S. and Canada and who coordinates a weekly “progressive Muslim” meet-up group in New York City. “I agree it’s free speech, but with free speech comes responsibility, and knowing the consequences of your actions. They were provoking … and this is the reaction they got. Unfortunately, it kind of proves their point, that Muslims are violent.”
There are several traditional legal interpretations within Islam regarding blasphemy, said Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl, an Islamic legal scholar at UCLA Law School.
The most extreme Muslims believe that blasphemy is punishable by death unless the perpetrator apologizes, while other schools of thought recognize the right to blaspheme, referencing Quranic verses that suggest that men need not seek retribution for defamation or mockery of Muhammad because God is his protector, El Fadl said. In fact, books are sold in Egypt, Syria and other Muslim countries that are critical of Muhammad, but these don’t spark protests, El Fadl said. Perhaps that is because the (Danish) cartoons are seen by Muslims as the latest in a long line of western crimes against Muslims, he said. Those crimes include colonization and the ethnic cleansing of Bosnian Muslims to more recent images of the U.S. invasion of Iraq and perceived western Islamophobia.
“These disparaging drawings were like the straw that broke the camel’s back,” said El Fadl.
On the Internet and elsewhere, some American Muslims are acknowledging that there are Islamic extremists who are hostile to free speech and would impose their standards upon others. But others resent the suggestion that only members of their faith community advocate censorship. When Martin Scorsese released “The Last Temptation of Christ” in 1988, Christian fundamentalists firebombed a Paris movie theater, injuring 13, while Christian groups in the United States organized boycotts and protests that eventually compelled some cinema chains not to show the film.
The conservative Danish newspaper, Jyllands Posten, first published the 12 cartoons — some depicting the Islamic prophet as a terrorist — last September. They were met with minor protests. But after newspapers in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Switzerland reprinted the cartoons Feb. 1, Muslims protested in Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia and other Muslim countries because depictions of the prophet are considered blasphemous.
Imam Mohamed Magid, executive director of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society in Northern Virginia, said while he understood Islamic offense at the cartoons, Muslims would be better off protesting defamations against the faith perpetrated by their co-religionists.
“Prophet Muhammad is offended every day when somebody blows themselves up in a marketplace in Iraq. He’s offended whenever somebody is beheaded. Prophet Muhammad would have opposed the burning of these embassies, or calls to kill Danes or other people,” Magid said. “You can’t be untouchable and then call other people infidel.”
