Islamic Society sponsors 'cartoon' dialogue

Author: Lisie Mehlman

Panel members and students alike hotly debated the aftermath of the caricatures of Muhammad during the Islamic Society-sponsored Round Table Discussion held on Tuesday evening in the Robert A. Jones '59 Conference Room. Four speakers shared their perspectives on the publishing of the controversial caricatures as well as on the nature of the Muslim community's response. Following the presentations, the audience had the chance to pose questions to the panelists.

Presiding over the discussion was Assistant Professor of History Febe Armanios, who first provided audience members with a factual narrative of the main events surrounding the Sept. 30, 2005 printing of 12 cartoons depicting Muhammad in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. The caricature was considered immeasurably demeaning and was seen by the Muslim world as a direct and vicious attack on their holy religious figure and in violation of its tradition of forbidding depictions of the prophet. One particular cartoon which portrayed Muhammad with a bomb as his turban was reprinted in Norwegian and other European newspapers throughout the month of January. In early February, Muslim groups began holding protests that turned violent. Protestors first burnt Norwegian and Danish embassies in Damascus and Lebanese demonstrators set fire to the Danish embassy in Beirut. As of Feb. 27, 139 people were killed in protest skirmishes and 823 people were injured.

The first panelist, Visiting Instructor in Religion Justin Stearns, addressed the nature of these protests. He explained that it is difficult to react to th cartoon incident, but that the real question it begs is why the reaction took the form it did and why the Muslim community's response was as violent and intense as it was. He does not believe that the root of the violent response is a religious one, and he maintained that the argument that there exists cultural incompatibility between Muslims and Europeans and Americans is a disingenuous one. Rather, he said that we must "turn from religion to the recent history of power relations between Europe and America on the one hand, and the Muslim world."

Stearns explained that the differences between these groups have more to do with power relations and access to economic influence than with different cultural values. He said that the "cartoons came at exactly the wrong moment," for the current occupation of Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq make the printing of this cartoon a particularly sensitive issue. In order to prevent reactions like this in the future, he explained that the European world must proceed with caution and make it their duty to improve the social conditions of Muslim immigrants.

The next speaker, Assistant Professor of Political Science Quinn Mecham, addressed the organization behind the protests. He explained that these protests were not spontaneously created, but were the result of the careful planning of Islamic political leaders looking to forward their explicitly political agendas. He stressed the diversity of the countries in which protests occurred and the fact that many countries that have large Muslim constituencies were entirely devoid of all protests. He explained that the majority of protests and the places where the protests were most violent are places "where there is ongoing political conflict."

According to Mecham, the dominant audience of these protests is not the European nations that printed the cartoon, but rather, domestic Muslim political rivals and competing religious and political groups within the state. As a result, protests will die out as emotional intensity and media focus on the caricatures wane, although some will surely continue because of the political benefits of protesting.

Following Mecham was the former President of the Islamic Society of Vermont, who wanted to provide a "more spiritual background to the whole matter." He spoke about Muhammad's importance to the Muslim people and explained that "1.3 billion people look to him as the ideal model and as someone whom every Muslim should emulate." The speaker quoted the Quran and explained that the Muslim community saw the publication of the cartoon as a "calculated, racist, intentional distortion of the truth."

He also said that it is the general opinion of Muslim leaders that all Muslims should come forward and protest this act of racism in a peaceful way, but that the burning of embassies and the killing of innocent people is not acceptable." Finally, he added that "freedom of speech should be guided by universal principles otherwise it becomes freedom of racism."

The last panelist, Charles A. Dana Professor of Political Science Murray Dry, spoke about freedom of speech in modern liberal democracies. He spoke about the Heckler's veto and how authorities should protect the speaker and not support the person or group who has taken offense. He made it clear that cartoons are considered satire and are not to be taken seriously. He finished by questioning if the Muslim community really thought that the cartoons did more to diminish its public image than video clips of Muslims holding hostages and stories of suicide bombers attacking during times of celebration.

At the conclusion of the panel discussion, the floor was opened for remarks and questions from the audience.