Instinctually, most Westerners are outraged by the Muslim world’s violent response to the mere printing of cartoons in a Danish newspaper. Fierce protests, burning of embassies and the loss of life hardly seem an appropriate response for words and pictures. Citing this ‘overreaction’ on the part of the Muslim world, Western critics have described this disparity as a “clash of civilizations,” an example of an ever-widening gap between the secular Western/European and theistic Islamic world. However, closer analysis of this specific situation indicates that the two worlds are not necessarily diametrically opposed in their thoughts and responses.
The problems began with the publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad last September by a Danish newspaper called Jyllands-Posten.

The 12 cartoons portrayed the Prophet In a variety of different poses; one showed him as a Bedouin flanked by two women in burqas, and another with a bomb in his turban. The initial reaction to the cartoons was muted with peaceful protests and boycotts continuing into late January. In February, nearly three months after the publication of the cartoons, tensions exploded as hundreds of thousands took to the streets, setting fire to the Danish embassies in Damascus, Beirut, Tehran, and Austria; leaving 2 dead in Afghanistan; and giving the perception of a hopelessly deep fissure between the West and Islam.

Rather than exemplifying the Muslim world’s inability to understand the Western world and its treasured privilege of free speech, the caricatures appear to have been designed in a way that would inflame, offend and upset any audience, Western or Muslim. The cartoons were produced in response to the call of the Jyllands-Posten’s culture editor, Flemming Rose, for 40 caricatures of the Prophet to stimulate a debate about what Rose called “the stifling of coverage of issues related to islam and Denmark’s 200,000 Muslim residents.” Despite warnings that Muslims might take offense at the images, the paper published 12 caricatures it received anyway in an effort to promote this dialogue.

However, from their very conception, these cartoons destroyed healthy dialogue instead of fostering it. The call for caricatures exclusively of the Prophet indicates a desire to be particularly inflammatory by appropriating a cherished religious symbol, using it to voice criticisms against the religion. The caricatures also did nothing to address the situation of Muslims within Danish society. Instead, they simply reinforced and propagated false stereotypes of Mohammad and Islam as unequivocally and unjustifiably violent and womanizing. One might argue that these cartoons were simply satirizing stereotypes of Muslims within Danish society, but the context of their publication and the response effectively dispels that theory. Though factions of Islam are associated with terrorism and oppression of women, that characterization certainly does not hold true for all Muslims, and the identification of those stereotypes with the Prophet, a figure that is commonly cherished by all Muslims, imposes that association on all members of the Islamic faith.

Jyllands-Posten defended its publication and promotion of these stereotypes under the assertion that their cartoons are an example of freedom of speech. However, the same paper had earlier rejected cartoons of Christ, explaining that they “might provoke an outcry.” This acknowledgement indicates that free speech is not the issue; the paper had practiced self-censorship in the past. Rather, the cartoons were a deliberately inflammatory attempt to offend and rouse a public outcry.

If the cartoons were the sole factor inciting violence, the Jyllands-Posten may well have a point. However, the violence is in response to the much larger problem of perceived social alienation of Muslims in Western and particularly European countries. The initial reaction to the cartoons was fairly muted. Nearly two weeks after their appearance, Muslim leaders organized a peaceful demonstration in Copenhagen of 3,500 people, merely asking that the paper issue an apology for the drawings. However, it was not until the Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen refused to meet with the ambassadors of 11 Muslim countries to discuss the cartoon flap that Muslim activists embarked on their own campaign to publicize the issue in the Middle East.

Western proponents of the ‘cultural chasm’ theory acknowledge the offensiveness of the cartoons, but condemn the Islamic world’s violent response, arguing that the rioters fundamentally fail to recognize that the West doesn’t allow specific groups to force it to agree in self-censorship. Which, put plainly, is just not true.
The boundaries of free speech and press are contested vigorously throughout the Western world. For example, most media sources engage in self-censorship in order to avoid offending and losing audiences, and most importantly, corporate advertising sponsors. Even in daily speech, Americans today make a concentrated effort to be ‘politically correct,’ and not inadvertently offend someone.

The difference in America specifically is that we usually take sensitivities into account naturally. When we don’t, authority figures are usually willing to acknowledge mistakes and apologize for them when concerns are expressed. For example, when the infamous Tsunami song was released, the radio station and all of its sponsors went out of their way to make amends. This type of self-censorship does not happen out of fear of violent retribution. Rather, it is an expression of respect.

The fact that we are willing to engage in self-censorship for most groups almost naturally in Western society and not for the Islamic world’s sensitivities explains exactly why Muslims are so angry. It implies a total lack of respect and understanding in Western society for Muslim faith and ideals. Obviously, violence, arson, and murder are not exactly respectful forms of expression either. However, it is hypocritical of Western countries to expect that kind of respect while not giving it in return. The problem is not an irreconcilable ‘clash of civilizations’; rather, it is just a desperate need for two worlds to give each other the respect they both desire.