The Twelve Muhammad Cartoons - Essay Example

Muhammad Cartoons Introduction The 12 Muhammad cartoons which were published on the 30th of September 2005 by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten depicted the Muslim Prophet Muhammad in various humorous and satirical situations. These cartoons were meant to depict Muhammad in line with the Muslim Extremist connections with terrorism. These cartoons have since incited the outrage of the Muslim community because these were offensive to their religion. The publishers have insisted that the publication of the materials all come under the guise and the protection of Freedom of the Speech and of the Press. They also point out that the papers also make fun or run satires on other religions as well, so they do not see why Islam or Muhammad should be any different. The outrage from the Muslim community has not abated and they still insist that Islam and Muhammad should not be included in the satires. This paper shall now analyze the effect of the Muhammad cartoons to the First Amendment and to our freedoms. This paper shall focus on how the cartoons are presented: how important or valuable they are to be seen by and revealed to the public. This paper shall focus and emphasize on whether or not they should have been shown to the public based on the details of the controversy and of free speech. Discussion On one side of this issue, some argue that the Muhammad cartoons should not be shown to the public because as discussed by Parsons, (p. 3), the cartoons have managed to invoke enough outrage against the Muslims. They contend that it is not really necessary for the cartoons to be published just so people can see a depiction of Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban. They point out that it is not that hard to imagine how the image looks like and the fact that we do not see the images does not, in any way, lessen the people’s grasp of the debate or issue. The cartoons should not have been shown out of respect for the Muslims who are obviously incited and outraged by it. They are after all, protesting the depiction of their most sacred prophet who is the foundation of their faith (Parsons, p. 3). It does not also serve any purpose to have to see a cartoon depicting what is already an imaginable figure of Muhammad because seeing it would not enlighten a person about Islam or Muhammad in any way. Parsons (p. 3) also discusses that he does not feel protective of the First Amendment because discussing cultural and religious differences can still be done even without the cartoon depictions, especially when not publishing them would be a matter of great courtesy to Muslims. Some Muslims believe that the cartoons should have been shown and that protesting other Muslims are just overreacting about the issue. These Muslims have supported the re-publication of the cartoons in order for Muslims to make up their own minds and to welcome the debate which the cartoons have raised. They also emphasize that cartoons in the Arab and the Islamic press citing the Israelis and Americans as evil people and using Jewish and Christian symbols for their own satirical depictions are also common. Hence, they support the Muhammad depictions in the press. They also point out that just as Christian, Jewish, Buddhists, and Jewish symbols and personages have been objectified in political satires, then why should Muhammad or Islam be any different? They point out that Islam should not be singled out as special or free from criticism or political depictions because they too contain the same frailties as other religions. Most of the time, the satires are all done in good fun or as political objectification. They are not meant as an attack of the entire religious institution. They are not even meant to single out the religion as a source of ridicule – not when such practice is done to other religions as well. Those who agree to the publication of the Muhammad cartoons point out that it is important not to betray the provisions of the First Amendment. Religious sensitivity is a way of weaseling out of the impositions of the First Amendment and it is an excuse for those who do not respect free speech. However, some Muslims claim that the cartoons are extremely and deliberately offensive hence should not be published. They consider the portrayal of the Muhammad in the cartoons to be offensive and inaccurate. They see it as an attack on their culture and as a means of sowing hatred for the Muslims. In some European nations, secular values are seemingly under fire from the conservative Islamic traditions among migrant nations. And some commentators see the cartoons as a response to this situation. Issues of integration have also been raised. These issues of integration have mostly revolved around the question of how much the host society should compromise in order to accommodate migrant populations and how much of the migrant population should be allowed to integrate into their new society. Some other commentators have expressed support for the cartoons saying that these cartoons accurately depict the delineations in European societies which also have to be discussed openly. The issue however has been called on by the Arab and Muslim communities based on the context of Islamophobia and an apparent attack on Islam led by the US and the rest of Europe. The protection of the freedom of the speech and of the press is extensive and also covers the publication of sensitive materials. The question of the extent to which this freedom is taken is often put into question because the exercise of freedom also carries certain responsibilities. As we support and espouse these freedoms, are we ready to face up to the consequences of this practice? Are we ready to face the possible retaliation of the Muslims in defense of their religion and their practices or values? These are crucial questions which still need to be answered before a valid resolution of this topic or issue can be gained. Based on the discussions above, I believe that the Muhammad cartoon should not have been published. Although, freedom of speech and of the press can indeed be used as justifications for the publication of the cartoons, there are limits to the exercise of these freedoms which we should respect. When the exercise of these rights conflicts with the peace and well-being of the people, then concessions must be made. The publication of the cartoons do not serve any purpose other than to portray political satire, but the debate of the Islamic extremists movements are already existent and impassioned, even without the cartoon depictions. Publishing the cartoons would only provoke an already outraged Muslim community. The depictions are not also totally accurate as they lump-up the entire Islam religion into the terrorist activities of the Islamic extremists. This is an unfair assumption considering that these are not the teachings of Muhammad or of the Qur’an. From the point of view of the Muslims, they indeed view the cartoons as something deliberately hateful, not at all about exercising one’s freedom of expression. The debate about the Islam and terrorism could still have been carried out without the cartoon depictions. And knowing that the Muslims are protective about their prophet and any image depictions of Muhammad should have warned the cartoonists and the publishers against the possibility of the cartoon doing more harm than good. I believe that the Muhammad cartoons should not have been published at all because they are deliberately goading and incendiary towards an already volatile debate. It does not contribute anything worthwhile to the current terrorism debate, nor does it ensure a more enlightened discussion on the subject matter. And for as long as we are not ready to take responsibility for the consequences of our actions and the exercise of our freedoms, then we should not attempt to seek protection under its provisions. Otherwise, we are living our lives without fear of consequence and without fear of reprisal. Works Cited Parsons, D. “Show the cartoons, or show respect?”. p. 3, 26 February 2006, Los Angeles Times. “Q & A. The Muhammad Cartoons Row” Rivenburg, R. “Cartoon Display Protested”, p. 6, 01 March 2006, Los Angeles Times Read More