To what extent should everyone in society avoid saying or doing anything that might offend the religious sensibilities of others? Most would probably agree that gratuitously impolite behavior should be avoided, but at the same time free speech and democracy require that we be able to make arguments or advance ideas that might offend some.

The Economist explains that there is a serious debate in Denmark over just how far people should go when criticizing Islam:

The latest spat started some months ago when Jyllands-Posten, Denmark’s biggest-selling broadsheet, published a dozen cartoons depicting Muhammad. Visual representations of the prophet are frowned upon by the faithful. And Jyllands-Posten’s cartoons were undeniably strong stuff: one showed Muhammad in a bomb-shaped turban, another depicted him wielding a cutlass and a third had him saying that paradise was running short of virgins for suicide-bombers.

The paper insists that it meant no offence: it was merely protesting against the self-censorship of some cartoonists who had refused to illustrate a children’s book about Muhammad for fear of reprisals. But the result has been a row that has spread far beyond Denmark’s borders.

It’s really not clear to me whether people are upset primarily that Muhammed was depicted at all or whether it’s that he was depicted in a manner that portrays him and Islam in a negative light. Offense in either case is understandable, but why do others have an obligation not to offend here? In the first case, non-Muslims have no prohibitions against depicting Muhammad and he should be considered fair game for images dealing with Islam, including critical ones. In the second case, it’s a simple fact that violent extremists are relying on traditions going back to Muhammad — and that Muhammad was a violent leader.

Louise Arbour, the United Nations human-rights commissioner, said she was “alarmed” by such an “unacceptable disregard for the beliefs of others”.

Why should the paper be sensitive to prohibitions against depicting Muhammad? Why should Muslim sensitivities be treated with greater deference than anyone else’s sensitivities? The real question is, were the images used to make relevant and important points, or were they used for no reason other than to annoy and offend? If there are points being made, even if the point is simply that people get offended too easily, then the cartoons were justified. If they were simply created in order to upset people who are disliked, then that was inappropriate.

 

Read More:

• Islam
• News About Islam
• Islam and Politics
• Islam and the Koran