(We choose not to use any image for this article, especially the caricatures.)

The recent caricaturing Hz. Muhammed (S.A.V.) has sparked heated and violent debate within the international agenda. Journalists from Denmark and authorities from the Arab Muslim World have rendered their opinions, evaluating the case from different perspectives. On the one hand, Danish journalists have highlighted the importance of freedom of speech, while on the other hand, many within the Muslim world have condemned what they view as an insult to their religion – some Arab authorities have even declared a Jihad (holy war) against those responsible for the caricatures. Much has been said regarding the incident, and many questions asked, but certain issues have yet to be addressed. Without aligning myself with either position in the debate, I will turn to these issues and attempt to speak to them here.

If we look at caricatures by Kurt Wastergaard, Rasmus Sand Hoyer, Annette Carlsen, Peter Bundgaard and Franz Fuchsel, a common point that emerges among them is their portrayal of Hz. Muhammed (Mohammad in English) as an evil deviant identity who is responsible for leading terrorist Muslim groups. In Wastergaard’s caricature, Hz. Muhammed’s turban takes the shape of a bomb, drawn with dark black colors which give the impression that the Muslim World presents a threat. Jens Julius preferred to touch upon moral values and thus depicted Hz. Muhammed as a leader of a sexually deviant group that is searching the world for virgins to rape. 

Looking at these caricatures, I could see no traces of the humor or insight that I normally find in caricatures.  Generally, newspaper caricatures poke fun at political leaders, revealing both the intelligence and the sense of humour of the artist. Although it was unacceptable to traditional moral values, even Mr. Erdogan’s (The Prime Minister Of Turkiye) caricatures offered a touch of humor. It is also possible to see the humor in the caricatures of Arne Sorenson, Bob Katzennelson and Paul Eric Paulsen. But the other caricatures just remind us of hatred, threat, terrorist attacks, and label Muslims as threat to the rest of the world. From where I stand, it is possible to smile when looking at these caricatures.  If we think of a caricature as a gun, these artists have attacked the Muslim World with their weapons. In making generalizations, they have attacked the values and beliefs of all innocent Muslims who give special care and respect to Hz. Muhammed (S.A.V). It is also necessary to consider again that Muslim World do not consist of Arabs only!

Franz Fuchsel’s caricature conveyed the message that because he does not believe in Hz. Muhammed (S.A.V)  or the Muslim faith, he is free to express whatever he thinks and free to portray any figure in any position. But would he be able to draw a caricature of Jesus having homosexual intercourse with the Pope?  If a non-believer in Christianity drew Jesus in this way, or depicted him having intercourse with a ten year-old boy in a way that suggested that Jesus is responsible for all the corruption in Christian churches, would these same people still defend freedom of expression? If this non-believing caricaturist responded by saying that: “I don’t believe in him, so I can draw him as I please?” would that be deemed a valid defense? 

The central issue is thus not one of freedom of speech, but of tolerance and respect for the values and beliefs of other peoples.  Each person is surrounded with a traditional moral sphere in which he or she carries fundamental values for life. An attack on these values is the same as an attack on these people, and it is not the way to promote peace or cross-cultural understanding. 

It was a great surprise that this kind of action could come from Denmark, a developed country, towards Third World countries that are assumed to be undeveloped, with low levels of education. Such an action places the caricaturists listed above in the same basket as terrorists.  Do you think that this behavior is appropriate for European journalists, whose primary responsibility it is to inform people about world news and to create a social agenda, particularly in an era where unity, tolerance and peace are pressing international issues?  Should these journalists not carry some degree of responsibility for common sense? Are these caricaturists not aware of how they have provoked radical Muslims throughout the world? Would they take responsibility for their actions if they resulted in another terrorist attack and the deaths of thousands more?

In carrying the Western European identity, often connoting an open minded, educated and tolerant attitude, could these journalists not develop empathy towards people whose place in world did not provide the same opportunities to develop a similar openness and modern thought?

At this point, it is necessary to raise again the issue of freedom of speech. If it might cause the death of millions of people, should one still insist on the free public expression of one’s personal thoughts? As Thomas Hobbes argued in his Leviathan, does a human being carry all these virtues to act in the right way when unlimited freedom is given to him? Or because the nature of man is rooted in war and chaos, and because his mental and spiritual evolution is incomplete, should there be a limit to his freedom, in order to protect the welfare of the whole society?

These were questions for the West to address. Let us move now to the Eastern world.

Before analyzing the caricature debate from the perspective of the Muslim World, it is helpful to mention that according to the Muslim faith, representing the image of Hz. Muhammed (S.A.V) in body or face is a sin – as a holy person, his image can not be imitated. Looking to the source of this rule, it is possible to see that displaying or drawing the image of Hz. Muhammed (S.A.V) has been forbidden in order to avoid deifying and idolizing Hz. Muhammed (S.A.V). If we look into the history, we see that Hz. Muhammed (S.A.V) made great efforts to help people who were deifying and worshipping handmade idols. Being modest, Hz. Muhammed (S.A.V) discouraged people from starting to worship him instead. He devoted himself to a mission of showing people the way of Islam, in which there are no idols or agents between God and man. But this thought has lost its meaning, as the blindly faithful began to follow religious rules without questioning the meaning behind them. In this sense, doesn’t having radical beliefs and attitudes of this kind mean idolizing Hz. Muhammed (S.A.V) in the same way that he fought so hard to discourage? 

At this point, I want to ask of those who declare Jihad in response to the caricatures, as well as those who kill and engage in terrorist activities on behalf of Muslim religion, are they aware of how they cast the name of Islam into shadow – a name which is rooted in love and unity, a principle of one being one love, as it was expressed by Mevlana Celaledin Rumi. Are they aware of how they destroy the social life and identity of all the innocent Muslim people of the world by creating the impression that all Muslims are barbarians and terrorists?  Are they aware that they are destroying the image of the Muslim religion instead of protecting it? Are they aware that in these ways, they incite fear of Muslim religion and limit the spread of the faith? At this point, would it be rational to conclude that all the stereotypes and reactions against the Muslim world – including the caricatures – are the result of such radical and terrorist movements, taken up on behalf of the faith?

If a peaceful world is what we seek, these questions must be considered by both sides. If we want to create a world of harmony and peace, we must start with harmony and peace within ourselves. Peace begins with the world’s individuals, just as war has.