c. 2006 Religion News Service

(UNDATED) Watching the Muslim indignation at caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad spill over into outbursts of anger and violence, I find myself, an American Muslim woman, wondering.

Which would make the prophet sadder _ the libel of his character by Danish non-Muslim cartoonists or the actions of his followers that are so out of keeping with his own example, actions that would seem to prove that the cartoonists’ depictions are not so far from truth?

During his life, Prophet Muhammad was revered by many, but there were some who resisted his teachings. He was insulted and cursed, at times physically assaulted, and yet, he did not return insult for insult, attack for attack. Rather, he asked God to forgive the people who harassed him, much as Jesus asked God to forgive his tormentors.

His example of forbearance is in keeping with the Quran, which advises Muslims, “Keep to forgiveness and enjoin kindness, and turn away from the ignorant” (7:199). Clearly, those Muslims who threatened the cartoonists with murder, and those who set fire to embassies, have betrayed these injunctions and abandoned the prophet’s example. To me, that is a greater insult to the prophet they claim to follow than a few offensive drawings, especially as people who know little of the prophet’s true character and history attribute their violence to him.

Furthermore, Islam brooks no compulsion in religion, nor does it demand followers of other religions adhere to its religious sensibilities. “There shall be no compulsion in matters of faith” (2:256) and “To you your way, to me mine” (109:6) lay out Islam’s cardinal tenet of tolerance and make it clear that non-Muslims are not expected to follow Islam’s religious rules. Even though many Muslims believe Islam prohibits portrayals of the prophet, protests of blasphemy are misplaced as the Danish, non-Muslim cartoonists aren’t bound by Islam’s rules.

Having said that, I must also say that the drawings are indeed deeply offensive, not so much for the mere fact that they portrayed Prophet Muhammad, but because some of them are hateful, slanderous and inflammatory to the point of verging on racism, particularly the ones showing the prophet with a bomb-turban, as the devil in disguise, or blindfolded and bristling with knives. The cartoonists had to know those images were going to be as provocative and insulting as Martin Scorsese’s “The Last Temptation of Christ” or Andres Serrano’s “Piss Christ” images.

Freedom of expression is a cardinal value in both the West and in Islam (another value that many in the Muslim world have neglected to uphold), and we must defend the right of cartoonists to draw satirical, biting commentary, and papers to publish items which may be offensive or perceived as blasphemous by some. A society without such freedom rapidly becomes poisonously repressed and out of balance. Or worse, it begins to resemble a Barney cartoon with all its saccharine sweetness. Even though we may hate what another person might say, we must, like Voltaire, defend to the death his or her right to say it.

Similarly, if people are going to publish offensive items, they must accept our right to express our distaste, our disagreement, and our outrage. No people can be expected to sit by quietly while the central figure of their religion is defamed.

While we defend the right to freedom of expression, we must use that right responsibly. Protests must be peaceable. And there are items that, rightfully, no editor should publish, particularly ones that foster hatred and bigotry. It is never easy to draw the line between what is ironic reflection that will make people laugh, what is pointed commentary that will open the doors of discussion on difficult issues, and what will merely inflame existing prejudices.

Could a cartoon of Muhammad with a bomb turban or with devil horns reinforce hatred for him and his followers? Could it provoke a dialogue exploring the root causes of the violence that has ripped through the edges of Muslim society, threatening to plunge us all into chaos? Could it lead to a substantive discussion about issues in freedom of expression? Or was it predictable that it would result only in defensive posturing that drives yet another wedge between two communities, both of whom feel under siege?

Given the tensions between the Muslim and non-Muslim populations of Europe, I believe there were better ways to open those dialogues. Publishing confrontational and defamatory cartoons in the tinderbox that is modern Europe was akin to crying “Fire!” in a crowded theater. If it’s not illegal,it certainly wasn’t very responsible.

MO/RB END RNS

(Pamela K. Taylor is co-chair of the Progressive Muslim Union and director of the Islamic Writers Alliance.)

Editors: To obtain a photo of Pamela Taylor, go to the RNS Web site at https://religionnews.com. On the lower right, click on “photos,” then search by subject or slug.