|
With the ongoing worldwide discussions that were triggered by the recent publications of cartoons that ridiculed Prophet Muhammad in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, and with IslamOnline.net's continued commitment to dialogue as a stepping stone for understanding, the Muslim Affairs section introduces this heated debate between British journalist Felicity Arbuthnot and American cartoonist Signe Wilkinson over whether there should be limits on freedom of expression when it comes to the sacred in religions. Below are some of the comments we received from our readers.
What do you think of this dialogue? Which argument do you support? E-mail us your comments: cartoondebate@islamonline.net
|
Muslims are using people like Arbuthnot to make themselves look like pious martyrs to the rest of the world.
|
|
With regard to whether Muslims are being singled out for harassment and vilification, I say "Doctor, heal thyself!" Muslims are using people like Arbuthnot to make themselves look like pious martyrs to the rest of the world. They cannot (and will not) look at the response of the rest of the Western World in a rational, thoughtful way and it's starting to cost them.
If there were worldwide riots of Muslims protesting people who were truly blaspheming their religionby screaming "Allah is the Greatest!" as they sawed off the heads of innocent women and children, rammed planes loaded with innocent people into buildings loaded with thousands more innocent people and hung the charred bodies of innocent people from lighthouses, I would have understood their point and possibly agreed. However, the silence exhibited by the vast majority of Muslims around the world concerning these true blasphemies tells me everything I need to know about Islam.
Oh sure, most Muslims will condemn these actions if you ask them. But, you never see a protest sign. After all, which is really worse: the destruction of innocent people’s lives or an ink and paper drawing of Muhammad?
Joseph Thinn
May 13, 2006
|
The cartoons perpetuated the stereotype that Muhammad, and all Muslims, by extension, are terrorists.
|
The issue is about the right to caricature the founder of a world religion or one of its sacred symbols, and by implication to stereotype the adherents of that faith. The Danish cartoons did just that: they perpetuated the stereotype that Muhammad, and all Muslims, by extension, are terrorists and will kill indiscriminately to get the virgins of paradise.
Most people would agree that one's rights are not absolute; rather, they must be balanced by the rights of others, the dignity afforded to an entire people and the effects of such insensitivity to the beliefs and historical memory of a people. Hence, anyone in their right minds would hesitate to caricature the suffering of Jews during the Holocaust. To make fun of such suffering in order to make a point is mere foolishness.
Most Muslims will not have a problem if you caricature any person within the Islamic World to draw attention to a political or social issue. Most will, however, have a problem if you caricature the founder of a religion or a sacred symbol of that religion, as it reflects a deep insensitivity on your part to the adherents of that faith. It does not matter whether you believe in the faith or not.
The above is the hallmark of civilization: a mutual respect for the dignity of people. When this is absent, all people will be subject to attack; and the most vulnerable will feel the brunt of it. It's the first step towards genocide.
Mohamed Khadim
May 12, 2006
Felicity Arbuthnot describes the cartoons in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten as blasphemous and Islamophobic, raising the question yet again whether that person is commenting on something she has never seen. First, I fail to see how they — collectively or individually — are "Islamophobic." They range from a simple portrait of Muhammad to sharp commentary on the practices of his alleged adherents to sharp commentary on the process of cartooning on the issue.
|
To demand that religious beliefs should dictate what unbelievers do or say would abolish all notions of freedom.
|
Second, they are "blasphemous" only if one accepts the premise that Islam outlaws images of Muhammad (questionable), and that Islam rules the world. Blasphemy is in the eye of the beholder, and to demand that religious beliefs should dictate what unbelievers do or say would abolish all notions of freedom.
I don't think the United States was built on "racism and xenophobia." It was built by immigrants from hundreds of different countries. Racism and xenophobia were (and are) no more present or persistent in the United States than radical terrorists are in Islam. It's ridiculous to complain of stereotypes yet employ them in the same time.
Margaret Manning
Los Angeles, CaliforniaMay 12, 2006
|
