Drawing Mohammad
Imagine for a moment a hypothetical religion. It is a major one with many millions of followers. One of the tenets of this religion states that wearing red clothing is disallowed, perhaps out of respect to its founder who died the bloody death of a martyr. Many adherents say that the ban on red clothing applies not just to members but to everyone and that for anyone to do so constitutes offensive disrespect towards their religion. A small but vocal minority go further and say that wearing red is punishable by death and regularly offer threats of violence towards those who refuse to respect their religious rule.
Now imagine someone saying, “Well, it’s a major religion and who am I to judge their rules, even if I don’t believe what they believe? I don’t want to offend anyone and religious people deserve respect, so I will stop wearing red and encourage my friends to stop as well. After all, there are many other colors to choose from, so it’s no real sacrifice to give up wearing red. True, it’s still within our legal right to wear red, but no good would come of intentionally offending these people by doing so; it’s best simply to comply for the sake of comity. Of course it’s wrong for anyone to threaten to kill people for wearing red, but they don’t represent the peace-loving majority. Frankly, anyone who would wear red is childish, rude, insensitive, and perhaps even hateful and bigoted.”
This hypothetical situation is, in principle, no different than the issue of creating images that depict Mohammad ibn ‘Abdullah, the founder of Islam. This practice is by many Muslims considered deeply offensive, and a small handful have issued and acted on threats of violence towards those who dare to do so. Even the more moderate Muslims claim that drawing a picture of Mohammad is insulting, hurtful, mocking, and so on.
A few weeks ago, Comedy Central infamously censored a portion of a South Park episode that illustrated Mohammad due, apparently, to a death threat from a handful of Muslims. Since then, various projects have sprung up in answer to this, including several secular/atheist college groups who have been drawing smiling Muhammad stick figures in chalk on campus sidewalks. The project that is starting to get a lot of press is “Everybody Draw Mohammad Day”, started by cartoonist Molly Norris, which is to take place on May the 20th. While Norris has since backed away from the project, it has taken on a life of its own, and naturally there are a lot of passionate responses to it on both sides, for and against.
The initial purpose was to show that we will not be intimidated by threats. Considering that artists have been physically attacked for portraying Mohammad, this is a real issue. It is fundamentally wrong to expect people not to exercise their right of free expression because of threats of violence, and this alone makes “Everybody Draw Mohammad Day” a worthwhile project. But I believe there are deeper reasons as well.
At the heart of all this is the notion that a religion has the moral, if not the legal, right to demand that their own rules should apply to everyone. Just as it is absurd to demand that everyone stop wearing red clothes, it is equally as absurd to demand that everyone avoid drawing a picture of a specific person. The given justification for this demand, given by both Muslims and non-Muslims, is that to do so would be offensive to them. On the surface, this makes sense (just like our hypothetical person above does)—after all, we’re good, tolerant people who respect the right of others to live peacefully; why should we purposefully offend them? Why punish all the moderate Muslims for the actions of a few extremists?
First: I am personally and genuinely offended by the idea that I shouldn’t be allowed to draw Mohammad; why is it okay for me to be offended? It’s okay because people are allowed to express themselves, even at the expense of people being offended! This is because offense is not automatically harmful. Harm implies the undue infliction of pain or the theft of something valuable, such as property, opportunity, or dignity. Painting a swastika on a synagogue sidewalk is harmful because it indicates support of Nazism and the murder of Jews. Drawing a Black man as a monkey is harmful because it perpetuates the idea that one race is inferior to another. But drawing Mohammad is no more harmful to Muslims than drawing Jesus is to Christians or Siddhartha Gautama to Buddhists or L. Ron Hubbard to Scientologists, because doing so (a) is not directly harmful and (b) does not reflect or incite harmful action. Offense in this case does not constitute harm and so is insufficient reason to avoid drawing Mohammad.
Second: the aim of such projects (as I see it) is not to offend but to disempower a sacred cow that has far overreached into secular territory. In fact, a central point is for people not to be offended—it would be wonderful if May 20 came and went without a single word of complaint. But as long as Muslims are treated with kid gloves, they will continue to make oversensitive demands that intrude on basic liberties. If we can resist such unreasonable demands with persistence, humor, and yes, respect for Muslims as people, then the hope is that eventually the taboo will become tolerable.
Yes, many Muslims will be offended on May 20. One answer to this is, “you artists are childish, rude, insensitive, and hateful! See what you did? You offended Muslims!” But I think a better answer is, “We’re sorry you are offended, but we cannot apologize for a drawing that causes you no harm. You are free to believe Mohammad deserves the ‘ultimate respect’ but we are not obligated to agree with you. And that lack of agreement does not necessarily mean disrespect towards you personally; respect does not require compliance or immunity from criticism—it means that we will not demean you, steal from you, deceive you, or injure you. These drawings do none of those things.”
If peaceful Muslims really want to speak out against their extremists, as they often claim they do, they could sacrifice their comfort for one day and actually support the project. I don’t expect this, of course, although it would be an effective gesture. Rather, I expect many will don the robe of the martyr, woefully but courageously enduring the torture being inflicted upon them in the form of hundreds of badly drawn portraits. But people don’t have a right to be protected from offense, especially when the offense is not reflective of real harm—Muslims invented this rule out of thin air, not out of a history of injustice or injury. To cry racism! or hatred! or injustice! in this case is to utterly disrespect the real racism, hatred, and injustice that various peoples have endured through the years.
The fact is I have no real interest in drawing Mohammad. I don’t think I’ve ever drawn any religious leader and I have been an artist (doodler?) all my life. But I do have an interest in freedom of expression and in challenging religious dogma. So, I will be adding my contribution on the 20th.
Normally, I’m in agreement with you, but I am moved to point out what I see as errors you made in attempting to rationalize your position. While you may or may not have reached a correct decision as a result, I have no doubt that the results of these errors have steered your path.
Either verbal, textual, or graphic forms of expression are harmful or they are not. By making exceptions for stereotypes or propaganda, you defeat your own argument. The answer becomes, “because we don’t value or respect Muslim culture as much as we do Jewish culture, it’s okay to offend them.” This would seem out of character for what I know of you.
Further, you’re missing the point by arguing about why Muslims shun images. Let’s talk instead about one of the Western sacred cows: pornography. I posit that you drawing an image of Mohommed is roughly equivalent to you drawing an pornographic image. If you do it privately in your home, there is no question about your right to do it.
When you broadcast such an image on a public network, you should expect outrage from some and indifference from others. Practically, it’s irrelevant which sacred cow is trespassed upon. As a matter of courtesy, the fact that some people are outraged about something is enough to circumscribe such a thing from public communications: Carlin’s “Seven Words”, is a product of how this played out in American television.
The point, as I understand it, for the Islamic prohibition against graphic images is an entirely practical one, drawn from what had been at the time common knowledge. The Early Medieval Christian state had balkanized, and the use of graphic images was widely used to identify and attract people to reactionary and revolutionary groups. By eliminating the use of graphic propaganda, the Islamic leadership hoped to prevent internal corruption of their state.
Not that they were successful with this, but in any case, the ban against graphic images remains a long-standing and fundamental feature of Islamic identity. I would be shocked to find it could be easily dislodged. If you’re interested in attracting Muslims to your philosophy, maybe you should try to avoid poking at their sacred cows.
Either verbal, textual, or graphic forms of expression are harmful or they are not. By making exceptions for stereotypes or propaganda, you defeat your own argument.
I don’t think I’m making exceptions, I’m drawing a distinction between harm, which has to do with intent and consequence, and simple offense. Drawing a swastika in front of a temple most certainly is based on intent to harm (to cause fear) and has the potential consequence of encouraging discrimination (perhaps by giving implicit permission for others to openly act on their antisemitism). However, I can draw Mohammad without intending harm and, I’m arguing, without actually doing any harm, exactly as I can with Jesus or the Buddha.
Quite simply, being offended is not adequate grounds to claim harm. For example, I think that it is acceptable to draw crude images of Jesus as a way of criticizing Christianity, even tho doing so would offend some Christians. Hollywood makes many movies that offend Christians, but I imagine you enjoyed The Last Temptation of Christ and The Life of Brian. So, I think it’s equally as acceptable to draw even crude images of Mohammad…Muslims don’t get an exception.
Moreover, the issue at hand has nothing to do with judgments about Islam in contrast to other groups. If Jews decided, say, that drawing Abraham was deeply offensive and all people should stop, I would be making the exact same argument.
I posit that you drawing an image of Mohommed is roughly equivalent to you drawing an pornographic image.
I think this metaphor fails on several counts. One, there is no substantial disagreement over what pornography is, only how people should deal with it. Two, pornography is generally accepted as a private form of entertainment, whereas we are talking about an inherently public activity that is a protected and cherished feature of America, that of open expression. Three, an image of Mohammad is of no conceptual difference from a picture of any other religious figure, whereas a pornographic image is substantially different from a non-pornographic image (if someone claims that showing a women’s ankle is pornographic, we ignore or chuckle at him).
That Muslims react to an image of Mohammad as if it were (akin to) porno is their business…but I am not obligated to accept their standards of decency. Said another way, it is not proper for a religious group to enforce their standards on non-believers, especially when those standards are sharply at odds with how all other similar groups are treated.
Practically, it’s irrelevant which sacred cow is trespassed upon.
Unless that sacred cow infringes upon my right of free expression.
As a matter of courtesy, the fact that some people are outraged about something is enough to circumscribe such a thing from public communications: Carlin’s “Seven Words”, is a product of how this played out in American television.
Like pornography, there is no substantial disagreement that those words are “dirty”, only how and where they should be used. Again, those words are of a different caliber than other words, whereas a drawing of Mohammad is not conceptually different than a drawing of L. Ron Hubbard. A better metaphor would be a group saying that the word “hello” is dirty because it contains “hell” in the sound and claims offense whenever they hear it in public…I think you would join me in continuing to use the word.
Now then, on that note, I would not say hello to such a person directly if I knew and had another option. Similarly, I would not give a Muslim a drawing of Mohammad or plaster one up on a billboard across from a mosque. THAT would be needlessly provocative and rude. But putting one up in a general public place or on my website is not.
The Early Medieval Christian state had balkanized, and the use of graphic images was widely used to identify and attract people to reactionary and revolutionary groups.
I didn’t know about this history, so thanks. But then, I feel even less inclined to censure myself based on early medieval politics.
I would be shocked to find it could be easily dislodged. If you’re interested in attracting Muslims to your philosophy, maybe you should try to avoid poking at their sacred cows.
I don’t expect to dislodge it from Muslim culture…I don’t think anyone would. What we might accomplish is to dislodge it from non-Muslim culture (cf. South Park, of all fucking places). I want to challenge this idea that Islam is immune from public criticism or that they get a pass on demanding non-believers conform to rules that are unique to them.
Thanks again for your thoughtful critique of my positions. Always welcome!
As a matter of courtesy, the fact that some people are outraged about something is enough to circumscribe such a thing from public communications
Nonsense.