Inform or offend? Religion versus Freedom of Speech

A Contemporary Ethical Dilemma in Journalism

In 2005, the conservative Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published 12 editorial cartoons of which most depicted Islam’s prophet Muhammad. In the explanatory text of the 12 cartoons, Jyllands-Posten’s culture editor, Flemming Rose, wrote, “The modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech (…)”[1]. First Danish Muslim organizations reacted by holding public protest in order to raise awareness, and once the cartoons were republished in early 2006, worldwide attention was called to the 12 cartoons and the Islamic world’s response to the “insulting images” led to, in some cases, violence. Events such as the bombing of the Danish embassy in Pakistan and setting fire to the Danish Embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, storming European buildings, and burning the Danish, Dutch, Norwegian, French and German flags in Gaza City[2] took place. Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen described the controversy as “Denmark’s worst international crisis since World War II.”[3]

Why did Muslims consider the cartoons insulting and wrong? First of all it is important to note that even though the attitudes toward depictions of living beings in the Islamic World havesomewhat varied, today “figurative art is widely rejected in Islam and depictions of Muhammad are considered especially offensive.”[4] Whether Muslims have interpreted the Qur’an wrongly, and whether the Qur’an explicitly states or implies that it is a sin to depict religious beings are questions that bare many different answers. Some critics believe the hadith, which states “Ibn’Umar reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) having said: Those who paint pictures would be punished on the Day of Resurrection and it would be said to them: ‘Breathe soul into what you have created’ “[5] clearly and consistently prohibits all images of any living being. On the other hand some Muslims, especially Shi’ites who tend to be more open to religious images than Sunnis, believe that the passages in the Qur’an should be interpreted as teachings aiming to condemn idolatry (worship of images), thus the Qur’an does not prohibit making images, only worshipping them. As for other religions, it has been said that even Christianity sees idolatry as a sin because the Bible states, “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in Heaven above, (…) You shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God.”[6] Even though Christianity’s has statues of Jesus in its churches and artistic depictions of both Madonna and God himself are key figures of the doctrine, all of the widespread monotheistic religions agree that idolatry is a heinous sin.

Furthermore, even if in the past Islamic traditions were not the same, for instance the prophet was in some cases depicted in pieces of art; or the interpretation of religious writings vary from person to person, today it is very well known that most Muslims are offended by depictions of prophets, especially of Muhammad. Yet, are Muslims, or any other follower of a religion, allowed to condemn those who don’t believe in the same sect and punish those who speak or act otherwise? It is true that drawing Muhammad is considered blasphemous for believers, but is it illegal for non-believers to do so? Or in other words, was it right for Muslims to harass those who didn’t abide by religious teachings? Of course it wasn’t. “And freedom of expression, remember, is (…) a pillar of western democracy, as sacred in its own way as Muhammad is to pious Muslims.”[7] Yet another question at hand is: Is it up to us, or any other entity to decide whether what people worship in is right or wrong? Isn’t everyone free to believe in any religion and interpret the teachings of any doctrine as pleased and finally isn’t everyone obliged to respect the beliefs of others?

Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Posten’s culture editor, defended the cartoons by saying “it was time to stop being cowed by Islamist fundamentalists, time to confront European media’s timid self-censorship. If we don’t, as the saying goes, the terrorists will have won.”[8] In addition he added: “The cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions.” There are two issues at hand; the first is about referring to Muslims as terrorists; the second is about criticizing Islam in the same way other religions are criticized. Did Rose refer to Muslims as terrorists because their reaction to the cartoons were mostly violent and led to over 100 deaths in total or does this statement directly reveal xenophobia (fear of Islam)? The answer is clear only if one knows exactly what the cartoons of Muhammad were about: One cartoon has Muhammad with a bomb for his headgear, and thus the cartoons can be read as equating Islam with terrorism. Obviously, xenophobia in the Western world did not start because of a dozen cartoons, but the cartoons “adds to the sense, which has grown among Muslims since America launched its war on terror after September 11th, 2001, that their faith itself is being branded as violent and criminal.”[9] Depicting Islam’s venerated prophet as a terrorist is not a mere criticism, but an attack to Islam as a whole, in fact an insult that is likely to deepen a widespread stereotype. But what about treating Islam the same way other religions are treated? Have there been cartoons that ridicule Jesus, Buddha or videos, songs that make fun of religious beliefs? Yes. Were they banned, no they weren’t, so is Rose right at saying that “Islam demands a special position?”[10] On the other hand, isn’t insulting any religion unethical?

Finally on the point of freedom of speech: Who has the authority to decide which newspaper can publish what and are journalist allowed to write or draw what ever they want? “It is not a good idea for newspapers to insult people’s religious or any other beliefs just for the sake of it. But that is and should be their own decision, not a decision for governments, clerics or other self-appointed arbiters of taste and responsibility. In a free country people should be free to publish whatever they want within the limits set by law.”[11] Was Julian Assange right when he said, “Censoring as a result of cultural morals or the desire to protect people is still censorship?”[12] Was publishing a dozen cartoons really worth the death of many people, threats to institutions, but more importantly a struggle dispute between Islam and the Western world? “Yet long before making a drama out of the Danish cartoons, a great many Muslims had come to equate the war on terrorism with a war against Islam.”[13] If it’s not ethical and in some cases even illegal (law against inciting racism exists in many countries), then why is it permitted to insult religions? “Although a law against inciting racism already protects religious groups like Jews and Sikhs who also form racial or ethnic minorities, Muslims are not covered.”[14]

To conclude, freedom of speech is what defines contemporary journalism, and it’s an indispensible aspect of modern society, but is there an ethical limit to it? If the Danish editors were aiming to criticize Islam in that many people are afraid of expressing themselves since the response of Muslims to actions that don’t fall in line with their teachings is violent, then in fact there is nothing wrong with doing so, owing to the fact that the editors’ goal was to inform and to criticize. Nonetheless, there is a right and a wrong way to criticize religion. One can find fault in the ideas of a person, but can one criticize in such a way that leads to unjust generalizations of a group of people who only have one common characteristic, they all believe in the same ideology? Muslims believe depicting Muhammad is a sin (and no one should questions this belief since everyone has the right to believe in anything) hence they don’t draw pictures of him; they also think it’s an insult when others portray their prophet, but they can’t deny anyone (including ‘believers’ and ‘non-believers’) the right to speak freely.

Below: countries that re-published the cartoon