Foreign Affairs Dialogue #1: Cartoon Controversies
Just a quick post today, the essay writing machine that is school has me tied up for the next week in a hermit-like existence. During a quick study break I changed my blog's look and I think its rather sharp. Let me know.
To the topic of the hour that has been plaguing news headlines, blogs and conversations of late. The Muhammad Cartoon Controversy. I have to say personally I find the reaction of Muslims and religious clerics around the world, and even in Canada to be a blatant manipulation of an issue and an overreaction by protestors. However I also understand that these cartoons are an insult to the Islamic doctrine that forbids publishing images of the Prophet while to what degree they are to demand this same actions from non-Muslims is not as understanding.
I'm sure everybody is aware of the violent protests that have been occurring throughout the Middle East and around the world in response to some editorial cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad in various disparaging and humorous poses aimed at ridiculing various aspects of Muslim current affairs, including Jihad and women's rights.
Now many Muslims feel personally insulted by these cartoons that have been re-published in newspapers across Europe (they had originated in a Danish newspaper in September, 2005). If you would like to see the cartoons, and read an interesting take on them from another blogger Michelle Malkin go here. Generally the response of the Muslim population has been to attack the Danish people, to boycott buying Danish products and to destroy Danish embassies/other properties in the Middle East as happened today in Beirut. One of the issues that has come up in many articles and opinions on this matter is that the Muslim community have no right to condemn non-Muslims in the international community for publishing images of Muhammad which are forbidden in Islam. The point being is that censorship and freedom of speech are under attack here; if Western people were to give in to the Muslim reaction to the cartoons we would be giving in to the opinions of many Muslim people that the West should be censored in every aspect that concerns Islam.
Another point is that publishing of images of the Prophet is not new. What is it that now with these cartoons is making the reaction so strong and widespread. Today on Diplomatic Immunity, one of the panel, Edward Luttwak described the backlash as being a manipulation of Muslim leaders to attack Western culture and life for its values. So why then when images throughout history have depicted Muhammad have they not received such a violent reaction from the Muslim people. Is it because of the heightened tension between Western and Muslim values? Is it because of Post 9/11 changes in dichotomy? Regardless of the reasons, it does not justify the violent means of protest that are occurring in the Middle East as we speak. Nor would it justify a reaction of violence on the part of the EU and other Western governments. What it does pose is the simple question of whether or not the West has been justified in interfering in Middle Eastern politics and in the politics of other countries in general. It thus proves the injustice of interference in autonomous societies and maybe should serve as a reminder to the leaders in the UN and the superpowers that they must be more careful in how and why we interfere in the lives of others.
To the topic of the hour that has been plaguing news headlines, blogs and conversations of late. The Muhammad Cartoon Controversy. I have to say personally I find the reaction of Muslims and religious clerics around the world, and even in Canada to be a blatant manipulation of an issue and an overreaction by protestors. However I also understand that these cartoons are an insult to the Islamic doctrine that forbids publishing images of the Prophet while to what degree they are to demand this same actions from non-Muslims is not as understanding.
I'm sure everybody is aware of the violent protests that have been occurring throughout the Middle East and around the world in response to some editorial cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad in various disparaging and humorous poses aimed at ridiculing various aspects of Muslim current affairs, including Jihad and women's rights.
Now many Muslims feel personally insulted by these cartoons that have been re-published in newspapers across Europe (they had originated in a Danish newspaper in September, 2005). If you would like to see the cartoons, and read an interesting take on them from another blogger Michelle Malkin go here. Generally the response of the Muslim population has been to attack the Danish people, to boycott buying Danish products and to destroy Danish embassies/other properties in the Middle East as happened today in Beirut. One of the issues that has come up in many articles and opinions on this matter is that the Muslim community have no right to condemn non-Muslims in the international community for publishing images of Muhammad which are forbidden in Islam. The point being is that censorship and freedom of speech are under attack here; if Western people were to give in to the Muslim reaction to the cartoons we would be giving in to the opinions of many Muslim people that the West should be censored in every aspect that concerns Islam. 
Another point is that publishing of images of the Prophet is not new. What is it that now with these cartoons is making the reaction so strong and widespread. Today on Diplomatic Immunity, one of the panel, Edward Luttwak described the backlash as being a manipulation of Muslim leaders to attack Western culture and life for its values. So why then when images throughout history have depicted Muhammad have they not received such a violent reaction from the Muslim people. Is it because of the heightened tension between Western and Muslim values? Is it because of Post 9/11 changes in dichotomy? Regardless of the reasons, it does not justify the violent means of protest that are occurring in the Middle East as we speak. Nor would it justify a reaction of violence on the part of the EU and other Western governments. What it does pose is the simple question of whether or not the West has been justified in interfering in Middle Eastern politics and in the politics of other countries in general. It thus proves the injustice of interference in autonomous societies and maybe should serve as a reminder to the leaders in the UN and the superpowers that they must be more careful in how and why we interfere in the lives of others.
posted by Melanie G at
4:31 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home