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 agreed immediately. First of all, Daniel is a huge actor on stage and screen. I hadn’t had a chance to work with him, and I didn’t want to miss this opportunity. Second, right now I’m drawn more to theater, especially the classics.
