The 'Muhammad Cartoons' have caused me a great deal of internal disquiet. On the one hand, as a Muslim I find them extremely offensive and on the other I do believe in a free press. What really galls me is the utter hypocrisy embedded in European hate-speech laws; if these cartoons had desecrated Jewish symbols they would be illegal. If they had involved physical racial stereotypes they likely would have been illegal. If they had mocked symbols of the Danish nation they may have been illegal. But if one wishes to mock the most sacred personage in Islam, the foundational pillar of Islam (the recitation of the Kalima, which, in caligraphic form, is written on the 'Turban' of the most offensive cartoon), the symbols of the Muslim Ummah (such as the Chand-Sitara or Star and Crescent), this is perfectly legal. If one wishes to publish crude stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims, this is perfectly legal. If there were no laws against anti-semitism and inciting racial hatred in Denmark or the EU (that is, if the situation were the same as in the US), I, while exercising my right to protest, would accept that the publishers of the newspaper were engaging in protected activity. But to have laws which shield some groups while leaving others to the ravages of the tabloid press is wrong; it violates the standard of equal treatment which lies at the heart of most legal and ethical thinking.
Another thing that disturbs me is the way the issue has been spun in the media. Instead of focusing on the offensive nature of the cartoons themselves, the outcry has been described as a reaction to the very act of visually depicting the Prophet (SAW). This has the advantage of making seem as though the Muslims, instead of reacting to an attack on their religion, are attempting to force non-Muslims to abide by Islamic injunctions. We have become the aggressors. While a ban on visual depictions of the Prophet (SAW) is the normative opinion within the Islamic tradition, there are extant works which ignore this prohibition, either showing the Prophet in full or with a face masked by a fiery halo. This trend is exemplified in the many books which visually depict the Prophet's Miraj, or ascencion through the Seven Heavens. The art of the Safavid era provides additional examples, reflecting Shia Islam's more relaxed views regarding visual represenations of the human form. The propriety of these pieces of art notwithstanding, they are cherished examples of the genious and beauty of Islamic culture. Therefore, it is not the act of depicting the Prophet(SAW) to which we object- it is the context. These cartoons were clearly intended to offend us; they mock and ridicule our beloved Prophet (SAW), depict us as fanatical violent oppressors of women, and denigrate the symbols of our religion. No, we are not demanding that non-Muslims obey our laws; that would be unjust both to them and to our deen. What we demand is that the laws which protect some be broadened to protect all and that the media elite seriously reflect upon the difference between the legal right to publish and the ethical obligation to promote the commonweal and to do justice to all members of society. I think this whole debacle is an example of the Faustean trend of Western Culture, which asks "Can I?" instead of "Should I?" It is this trend which must be resisted if we are ever to secure an ethically sane world in which to live.
