Everything is ablaze!

The time has come for me to weigh in on the controversy in Europe surrounding the twelve depictions of the Prophet Muhammad in a Danish paper, Jyllands-Posten, the ensuing chaos in the Muslim world, the ensuing publication of another depiction of the Prophet in a French newspaper, France Soir, and the ensuing firing of France Soir's managing editor. For those of you that don't know, depictions of the Prophet are forbidden in Islam. For an account of the situation that will give you an impression both of the seriousness of the offense and the ridiculous overzealousness of elements of the Muslim response, try Al Jazeera's story.

My response is particularly motivated by the hard-line stance voiced here by our friend Jonathan. I believe that his argument is as good an example as any of the orthodox Western position on the primacy of free speech, dare I say the importance of free speech as an intrinsic good, and I am here to challenge that position.

A preface: For me, this is not a question of legality or rights. The legal arguments surrounding free speech itself are obviously more nuanced, and I intend to voice no opinion on the legality of the publication of these cartoons, which, if questioned, I would defend. Much more importantly, though, this is a question of personal responsibility and journalistic integrity, a question of how to use legally protected free speech in a socially responsible manner. The cartoonists and journalists of this scenario have abused their right to free speech. They are the time-honored people crying "fire!" in a crowded theater. The people at Jyllands-Posten incited violence, and the people at France Soir flaunted their intellectual arrogance, doing a disservice not just to the image of their people in the Muslim world but to the image of their publication itself. Thus, my argument is that the firing of France Soir managing editor Jacques Lefranc is entirely justified, as would be punishing the person crying "fire."

Now, to begin, it would make sense to discuss the initial depiction of the Prophet, peace be upon him, that started this mess. Of course, I will not reproduce the images, but you may find them online yourself. Matt Drudge, to whom I refuse to link, posted a particularly high resolution version of the most offensive one, because he is what we like to call an "asshole."

Suffice it to say that, depiction of the Prophet aside, many of the images were quite problematic for other reasons, most notably the fact that the Prophet was depicted with, what else, a BOMB in his turban. It is not as if the West (by which I mean Westerners united by the common bond of public disdain for cultural differences and defending the unnecessary provocation of others) needs another cultural item reinforcing the idea that Islam is an inherently violent religion. Haven't we been over this? Don't we realize that it does us no more good to make that generalization than it does Muslims to make generalizations about us? Free speech or not, does the publication of this cartoon not harm our society, even just internally, by perpetuating our ignorance?

So that is one level on which the publication of the first cartoon was problematic. The next level is far more serious. We, as Westerners, reinforce Muslim world preconceptions of us, bad preconceptions, when we flagrantly offend Islam in the public sphere by being ignorant of its teachings. Our ignorance of Islam is impressive, in its own way, considering the prominence of Islam in the world. There are almost as many Muslims in the world as there are Roman Catholics, and there are nearly four times as many Muslims as there are Protestants. To disregard Islam as obviously and ostentatiously as we do, considering the current geopolitical state Islam and the West are in, is just unconscionable. And sure, many if not most of the public characterizations of the West in the Islamic world are equally problematic, but can we not even try to take the high road? Who in the world started public characterizations of whole groups of people? Who carved up the parts of the world in which Muslims live along artificial, Western-originating, profit-driven lines, grouping together warring peoples and dividing real nations? The point is that when we do things like publish pictures of the Prophet in a newspaper, Muslims see us attacking them yet again! This is not an isolated incident! So of course they are going to be outraged!

Here is where I am obligated to stop, make a line break, and talk about how the most public of the Islamic reactions to the cartoons were utterly ridiculous. It is also time for the Islamic world to learn that Westerners do not respond kindly to ostentatious display of automatic weapons, or even just verbal threats (note the "KILL THOSE WHO INSULT MUHAMMAD!" article). As I obviously should be, I am hesitant to try, especially as a Jew, to prescribe morals for the Muslim world. I would much rather talk it out in an atmosphere of mutual respect at a very low volume. But at the very least, Muslims who take up arms in situations like this are doing a disservice to their people that is exactly identical to the disservice these two newspapers have done to Westerners. The most extreme examples of Muslim saber-rattling have always, especially recently, brought great suffering upon Muslim countries at the hands of Western powers. These days, people can incur such wrath for just looking like Muslims, or being geographically close to Muslims, all because of the modern Western narratives about Islam. So please, put away the Kalashnikovs. There are people out there who will voice your indignation in ways to which Westerners are more likely to listen.

Or some Westerners, I should say. Others plan to burn the Qur'an in public, (story), a pointless gesture of macho dick-waving to prove... what? That Danes can incite worldwide violence if they damned well please? Cool. You go, Danish youths.

No, don't. Where is the lack of computation here? Westerners flout Islam, Muslims go ballistic, and the Western response is to flout Islam even harder?! What good does that do anyone!? Where is the intrinsic good of free speech now? Speech has been made freely, and now people on both sides just want to kill each other more. Where is the good inherent in provocation? Defend the "right" to offend all you want, but how can you defend offending, especially when it makes things undeniably worse for everyone!?

And again, just to belabor the point for people who see free speech as good in and of itself, this is not a question of legal rights, of the protection of some artificial tenet. This is an issue of the responsibility of one human being to another on a personal basis, not an ideological one. What good are ideologies, legal rights, and especially modes of expression if they don't facilitate better personal relationships? Were these tools, these human inventions, not created for the very purpose of ameliorating the human condition? For bringing disconnected individuals together to live better in a society?

Is it not clear from what has happened in this situation that these inventions can and frequently do fail us? Or that we can and frequently do fail them? On one side of this situation, people are thumbing their noses, entrenching their own harmful stereotypes about ONE FIFTH of the world, and threatening the needless destruction of texts that many consider holy and most (with the care to read it) at least consider enlightening. On the other side, we have gun-waving, calls for and threats of murder, and, of course, reinforcing their own harmful stereotypes, setting the stage for the next violent global miscommunication in the name of free speech!

Just because we like the right to free speech in the West does not mean that any instance in which that right is exercised is good. The right is unfortunately necessary for Western purposes because it is better than tyranny, but with that freedom comes the responsibility to use it for the betterment of society rather than the detriment. Journalism is a key institution of a democratic society, and it must, at all times, uphold its responsibility to keep the populace educated and informed. This requires free, unbiased reporting, free of censorship. However, for the exact same reason, it must, at all times, refrain from misinforming the populace as it did by the publication of this first cartoon, which perpetuated an ignorant conception of Islam. The journalists actually failed in their responsibility to keep the public informed by not informing the public that depiction of the Prophet is absolutely forbidden in Islam! This depiction caused great ills for the world, even manifesting themselves as economic consequences for Danish people due to boycotts, and yet more journalists depicted the Prophet again! In short, those responsible are bad citizens and even worse journalists. They brought international disrepute to their publications, which to me sounds like as good an argument for firing an editor as any. So adieu, M. Lefranc, and may your society, which you have wronged, treat you kindly as you search for new employment.

As I said at the commencement of this Everything is ablaze! project, the Buddha's Fire Sermon represents for me a triumph of human growth, a self-evidently righteous act in which he reached out to very different people in order to develop a mutual understanding. He learned their ways, understood their vocabulary, and explained himself to them on their terms, and together they became more at One. If that event was an apex of human understanding, the event of which I write today is a nadir. Don't speak because you can, speak because you must! Speak so that you can be heard and understood! And if what you have to say can't be heard and understood, don't speak. Only in the modern West do we have this irrational aversion to silence. I only write here to help us understand each other, and if I didn't think it could be done, I wouldn't write at all.