Muslims in many locales are protesting and burning things because of some cartoons printed in a Danish newspaper. Wikipedia describes the origin of the controversy:
The drawings, including a depiction of Muhammad with a bomb inside or under his turban, accompanied an article on self-censorship and freedom of speech. Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten, commissioned twelve cartoonists for the project and published the cartoons to highlight the difficulty experienced by Danish writer Kåre Bluitgen in finding artists to illustrate his children’s book about Muhammad. Cartoonists previously approached by Bluitgen were reportedly unwilling to work with him for fear of violent attacks by extremist Muslims.
The question arises: why can’t non-Muslims depict Muhammad visually? It’s not against their religion (if they have one) to draw pictures of this self-proclaimed prophet (or any self-proclaimed [or even proclaimed] prophet). Blasphemy is reserved for the believer. Nonbelievers may irritate the believer; they may undermine the believer’s beliefs; they may even be rude (though one would prefer, of course, they not be). But they cannot, by definition, blaspheme. If a Muslim blasphemes, other Muslims are perfectly within their rights to rip that person’s eyes out. If a Dane, however, does the same thing—sorry, Muslim law doesn’t apply in Denmark.
Okay, but what about depictions of the prophet that are unflattering? In my view, the best course for the believer is to ignore those who criticize or even mock their religious beliefs, since the alternative—addressing the “attack” head-on (and we must always put the word “attack” in quotes when we’re talking about words or pictures)—will almost certainly mar the exquisite psychological nimbus that believers desire so deeply. The idea of violent protests against those who print images of Muhammad as a violent prophet—irony doesn’t come any richer.
That old pain-in-the-ass Christopher Hitchens has argued, in effect, for equal-opportunity mockery of religion. Makes sense to me. Maybe the Danes should’ve run some parodies of Jesus and Moses alongside the Muhammad cartoons: Jesus dressed as a magician, pulling loaves and fishes out of a hat; Moses dropping one tablet of the Fifteen Commandments, looking around and, seeing no one, brushing the shards under a rock; that kind of thing (or worse!). But given the origins of the controversy (see above), one can see why that didn’t happen. Jokes and even slanders about Jesus and other Bible folk have been published for years in the West. My Lord, look at The Life of Brian! I don’t think Eric Idle has suffered a fate like Salman Rushdie’s.
I’m not saying Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to prohibit depictions of Muhammad among themselves. (“Allowed to prohibit”—lovely!) Let everyone construct the society they prefer—if it works for them, God love ’em. I’m just saying: keep your society to yourself, please. (And that goes for us, too.)
I think the editor should have commissioned the Danish illustrators to just go ahead and illustrate the book, rather than do what they did. I really doubt there would have been even one-tenth the uproar; my guess is that it was the insults that made the situation combustible, not so much just drawing a picture of Mohammed, “forbidden” though that may be.
You may be right. My understanding is, the illustrations in the children’s book would be respectful. But according to reports, the illustrators were afraid to take the commission.
You’re also right (implicitly) that this brouhaha didn’t have to happen. What causes people to throw stones in a placid pond? Maybe they saw monsters under the surface. Maybe they wanted to show they aren’t scared of no one, no how.
If I were the editor, I probably wouldn’t have run the cartoons, simply because it seems like a boring experiment. (“Hm, let’s see what will happen if we print a picture of Muhammad with a bomb in his bonnet …”)
Well, it looks like there’s a bit of hypocrisy at work here:
Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that have caused a storm of protest throughout the Islamic world, refused to run drawings lampooning Jesus Christ, it has emerged today.
The Danish daily turned down the cartoons of Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny.
(From the Guardian)
Meanwhile, Slate offers a rundown of which religions allow depictions of their gods and which do do not. And Juan Cole has posted a letter from Denmark that adds some valuable context.
P.S. (2006.02.09) Geoffrey Wheatcroft in London has some disturbing thoughts to share. And, of course, how could Jesus not weigh in (channeled through Mark Fiore). Finally, Chris Bertram is offended (a lovely send-up of all who take offense). And I mean finally—if I say another word about this subject, you can … oh, I don’t know—make fun of me.
You wrote: “…mar the exquisite psychological nimbus that believers desire so deeply….”
What psychological nimbus is that? (I so want to add “pray tell.”) I assume you are referring to believers in general here? Do you think that religious belief is essentially a “psychological nimbus”? Or that the desire for such a state is what motivates faith? Is this perhaps just a bit reductionistic?
Religious belief, I think, is much more complex both individually and socially. It is a peculiarly western (I’d say particularly U.S.-American), individualistic stance to say that blasphemy is in the eye of the believer when you are talking about the viewpoints of other cultures and faiths.
As a religious person, I am offended by mockery of the symbols of my faith, regardless of who created them or what the creator’s intent may be. I hope I would never become violent in response to desecration of the symbols I hold dear — that’s certainly not in the spirit of Christianity — but fundamentally I can understand the impulse.
But then again, it sounds like maybe you don’t think blasphemy should be a serious concern for anyone, believer or non-. And I think I see your point (if that IS your point; I’m guessing). But I also think you’re missing something here: Religious belief is by its nature passionate. People don’t like to see the things we’re passionate about ridiculed. Really, it comes down to that.
Would love to hear more of your thoughts on this!
P.S. I have yet to achieve that exquisite psychological nimbus and would like to know where they’ve been hiding it….
For some strange reason, I used a rather vague term for something rather specific. When I said “psychological nimbus,” I think I meant “certainty.” Or did I mean “placidity”? (Or some fusion of both?)*
Whether that answers all the very good questions you asked, I don’t know. I’ll have to think a bit.
Maybe I’m alone in how I understand the word “blasphemy.” If I don’t accept the Biblical injunction not to eat pork and I eat pork, I’m not blaspheming Yahweh. If I eat pork in a synogogue, I’m still not blaspheming Yahweh. I’m being rude. I think the Danish newspaper was rude to its Muslim readership.
I agree it’s not nice to ridicule things people feel passionately about. It’s not nice to ridicule people about anything, really. Why do people do that?
__________
*Maybe the “something” wasn’t so specific after all.
While researching Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s views on the ideal form of government, I stumbled on a remarkable essay at a site devoted to Russian Orthodoxy (not the official site of the Russian Orthodox Church outside Russia). Its author would clearly take issue with my understanding of “blasphemy”:
He also sees a pedagogical use for ridicule:
As someone with more than a passing interest in science, I found this passage striking:
With breathtaking efficiency, the author conflates “fact” and “dogma,” considers scientific findings “one man’s opinion” (or says such findings are more than “one man’s opinion” and thus rise to the level of scientific “dogma”—I’m not sure which), and blithely dismisses evolution as “untrue” (despite the consensus among those who study the topic that its validity is on a par with the assertion that the Earth is not flat).
Oh, well. Back to the hunt for Solzhenitsyn’s ideal state.