Okay,

So I'm reading up on the whiny, whiny unforgivable sin of a non-muslim publishing a poor quality picture of Mohammad drawn by another non-muslim. How dare they refuse live by the teachings of a religion they don't belong to! They are bad, bad, bad, bad! Time to cut off their heads!

Well, that's the way it comes across in the media. As I see it there are a number of issues at play here. First is the issue of religious tolerance and respect. I don't think that anyone will disagree that at least one picture, that of Mohammad with a bomb turban, was viewed as disrespectful by a number of Muslims. This not only violates a 500 year old tennent of Islam but is also a provocation towards Muslims. I will not post a link to the picture as I have no desire to fuel the controversy but if anyone has seen the picture they will agree the picture is a provocation. That said the pictures are not a directed attack on Islam. They are a result of Islam going main stream. The western press has a history of lampooning religions. There is an entire industry devoted to disrespectful depictions and down right derision of Christianity. If you don't believe me google "religious right". The pictures published in a Danish newspaper are a result of Islam being more widely accepted in western society. I am not excusing the denigration of a faith, I am saying that they are not being singled out.

Second is freedom of the press in a secular society. The west holds the freedom of the press as fundamental to a free society. If the press is not free to expose, comment on, or inform the public hegemony and dictatorship, in its various forms will follow. This freedom can be misused or abused. The press wields tremendous influence society as it is the lens that people use to view their world. The almost comical depictions of religious groups in the press has led to the marginalization of the religious viewpoint as a counterbalance humanistic viewpoint that pervades our society. However, without that fundamental freedom there would be no counterbalance to the political and financial powers that influence our daily lives.

Third is the belief that foreign powers can dictate domestic policy. The protests in Turkey, Palestine, Pakistan, Yemen, Indonesia and other Muslim countries is an attempt to influence domestic policy in Europe. It is a demand that we curtail the freedom of the press and bring it in line with their beliefs. These countries have no more say in the internal affairs of European nations than Europe has in the running of their countries. To think they do is the height of arrogance.

Fourth is the issue of a staged crisis. These pictures were first published in September 2005. They were obtained by Muslims and brought to Egypt in January 2006. The outrage and protests did not start until February 2006. And not only were those protests in Egypt. They were simultaneous and global. Countries as far away as Indonesia were well informed and organized when the crisis emerged. In fact, the only Muslims that seemed to be out of the loop were the ones in the West. They didn't seem to start protesting until after Friday's "call for a day of rage" by Muslim leaders. Why were those pictures brought to Egypt if not to insight people in the Arab world? This was a tempest in a tea pot until someone deliberately tipped the tea pot over. The outrage in the middle east was not spontaneous, it was planned and fueled by people with a political agenda.

So where does that leave us? Well, it leaves us with several questions to answer. First, will we curtail the freedom of the press in order not to offend Islamic beliefs? In order to do this we would need a legal framework in place in order to judge what could be considered offensive material. We would have to decide if this would be applied to all religious groups or only restricted to a few. We would need to ensure that it balances the desires of those religions with the publics right to free speech. Second, will we allow this issue to become a "wedge issue", allowing the beliefs of the Islamic faith dictate what we will allow in the public domain? This would certainly put other faiths at risk and allow powers outside our country and our legal system to dictate how we manage our own affairs. Third, can we find a lesson here? Just because the freedom of the press allows us to thumb our noses at people does that mean we should go ahead and do it? "I did it because I can" is a poor excuse for actual journalism and lessens the quality of the material produced. And fourth and finally do we practice self-censorship when it comes to the Muslim faith? This fiasco has taught us anything it has taught us that we don't know very much about Islam. Will this prevent us from talking about it at all? Can we take a critical look at the Muslim world without offending it or will all commentary by non-muslims end up in an orgy of hate and destruction?