Dogmatism and Democracy

As it showed in the death threats against author Salman Rushdie and a portion of the murder of director Theo Van Gogh, a portion of the Muslim world has once again demonstrated its intolerance for free speech and democratic pluralism—an intolerance that reiterates the gaping incompatibility between dogmatic religion and democratic dissent.

After the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten ran a cartoon depicting the prophet Mohammed dressed as a suicide bomber, many Muslims rose up in arms, setting embassies in Beirut and Damascus ablaze, storming the European Union (EU) office in Gaza, boycotting Danish products or withdrawing their ambassadors, and desecrating the Danish flag. The cartoon, clearly offensive for its rendition of the prophet as a terrorist, further incensed Muslims, for whom any depiction of Mohammed is sacrilegious.

Despite the odious nature of this and other similar cartoons, however, the response from the Middle East exemplifies its disrespect for such central values of democracy as free speech and press. The rage of many in the Muslim world over the printing and reprinting of these blasphemous cartoons threatens those very freedoms. Regardless of the content of a cartoon, pamphlet, drawing, or any form of expression, citizens must be at liberty to herald their deepest beliefs without fear of reproach or censorship from government. A democracy thrives only with a vibrant marketplace of ideas that allows citizens to frankly discuss their convictions without fear of censorship. Instead, these riots show a widespread refusal to allow socially or religiously unpopular speech, which suggests a deeply ingrained incompatibility toward basic democratic freedoms.

Some moderate Muslims, especially those in Europe, have spoken out against the Middle Eastern violence. Their support for free speech seems to go hand in hand with their religious moderation, indicating that intolerance coincides with extreme religious dogmatism. But until a majority of Middle Eastern Muslims prioritizes freedom over religious dogma, the region cannot sustain stable democratic regimes.

The protesters’ reaction to these cartoons certainly demonstrates that on the international stage a drawing so offensive cannot be printed without consequence. The response has been an atrocious display of violent and misdirected protest, as Muslims in Damascus and Beirut torched embassies and stormed the EU office in Gaza, heightening recurring fears about lawlessness in the region. Their only attempt at civil protest—the boycott of Arla Foods, the Danish-Swedish dairy giant—has been a conflation of all things Danish, as Arla takes the heat for the actions of an independent journal. In this regard, the fallout from the publication of the cartoons has been deplorable and unwarranted.

It is simply hypocritical for these Muslim nations to expect European nations to respect their religious beliefs and simultaneously punish those nations for exercising their most central freedom of speech. Muslim newspapers routinely criticize and offend Jews and Christians in both Israel and America; unlike Jyllands-Posten, which ran the cartoon to spark discussion about self-censorship of Islam, these newspapers often print their anti-Semitic material out of sheer anti-Semitism.

This entire debacle highlights the problems that arise when a movement, bound together by a dogmatic faith, faces the seeming horror of a pluralistic democracy in which everyone has the right to blaspheme, offend, and shock others. To repress speech in the interest of curtailing blasphemy would be to subscribe to a particular religious dogma, which a liberal, secular government ought never do. Before democracy can be established in the Middle East, the violent protesters and conservative governments must demonstrate respect for freedom of speech.



Ramya Parthasarathy ’09, a Crimson editorial editor, lives in Stoughton Hall.