I’ve been pretty clear about my view that the publication of Danish cartoons of Mohammed causing all the furor was rude and counter-productive. But I certainly don’t think that such publications should be banned or suppressed or that it’s impossible for the publication of images that some find offensive to have probative value.
For instance here are examples of the publication of images of Mohammed that do have probative value from ¡No Pasarán! and City of Brass, respectively. What’s the value? That there’s been a diversity of opinion within Islam on the use of such pictures and that opinion has evolved over time. We should foster and encourage Muslims to consider their most liberal values rather than their most repressive and illiberal as is being done now under a flood of Saudi and other money.
One further word: a right is not identical to a mandate. We have a right to eat what we please. Does that translate into a mandate to eat everything in sight? Don’t prudence, discretion, and loving kindness play a role?
Amen! A right does not equal a mandate.
While the Danish paper may have intended to make a point about the perceived inability of artists to illustrate a biography of Mohammed, the cartoons were largely offensive. That was beside the point.
Quite right, furthermore given what is known about the incident, the paper’s editors seem to have set out with an agenda of offending to make a point to the immigrant/immigrant-descended community about free speech. This in the context of rising country-wide tensions. Perhaps a necessary point, but an unproductive way to go about the issue, at best.
None of this excuses the deliberate hate-mongering on the part of the Salafiste extremist peddling this incident to further their agenda nor the violence (although as at Aqoul my colleague Raf Bey, and in the FT the esteemed Roula Khalaf make the point the Syrian incident stinks of regime provocation) .
Overall much commentary seems to miss the concept of reinforcing the liberals and not being needlessly alienating. See Christopher Hitchkens. What liberal but devout Muslim wants to be seen on his side?