Open Letter: On Blasphemy, Islamophobia, and the True Enemies of Free Expression Read Online Free
commercial interest. Their contribution to popularizing the term “Islamophobia” has never been motivated by the least impulse to combat racism. On the contrary.
To put it simply, any scandal containing the word “Islam” in its headline sells copy. Ever since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the media have placed a fascinating and frightening character at center stage: the Islamist terrorist. Any terrorist can scare the hell out of us, but if you make him Islamist to boot, we all shit ourselves. Fear sells well. Scary Islam sells well. And scary Islam has become the only Islam there is in the eyes of the public at large.
Because the Islam that the media shovel down consumers’ throats is by necessity radical and bearded. When the mainstream media present a report on Islam it is very often a caricature, yet it provokes little open protest from the pressure groups that track Islamophobia. So long as they’re invited to put in their two cents on the rise of Islamophobia, everybody’s happy.
On the other hand, when a cartoon of so-called radical Islam is presented as a genuine and deliberate caricature, the Islamophobia-busters lose their cool. If you want to thrive in the media ecosystem, it’s far safer to take on a little newspaper like Charlie Hebdo than to attack major television channels and newsmagazines.
Nowadays, when a journalist asks a Muslim to comment on “the rise of Islamophobia,” what he’s really asking for is commentary on something the media themselves have created. In other words, the reporter helps to amplify the problem and then claims to be surprised that the problem exists and endures. The Muslim leader whom the prime-time anchor has called on to express his opinion of this notorious “rise of Islamophobia” should spit in his eye. He is face-to-face with the guy whose very job is to peddle fear of Islam.
The Muhammad Cartoons
Charlie Hebdo published cartoons of Muhammad long before the scandal of the Danish cartoons. 4 Note that, before the so-called Muhammad cartoons affair, the artists of Charlie Hebdo were known as and considered themselves to be journalistic illustrators. Ever since, they have generally been described as cartoonists.
Without denying the utility of cartoons in reporting current events, satiric caricature is but one element of drawing. There’s no shame in it at all, but this one detail highlights the extent to which the cartoons of Muhammad have colored the general public’s view of the work done by the artists of Charlie Hebdo ever since.
As I said, the Muslim prophet had been depicted in Charlie Hebdo long before the aforementioned scandal. No pressure group or reporter had expressed dismay of any kind over these drawings. A few individuals had conveyed their disapproval by letter, nothing more. No demonstrations, no death threats, no attacks. It was only after the denunciation and exploitation of the Danish cartoons by a group of Muslim extremists that caricaturing the prophet of the faithful suddenly became the trigger of media and Islamic hysteria. Media first, Islamic later. In 2006, when Charlie Hebdo reaffirmed an artist’s right to caricature religious terrorism by republishing the Danish cartoons of Muhammad, the media turned their cameras on our satirical paper. Charlie Hebdo became yet another potential target for the wrath of God’s wingnuts. The publication of the cartoons generated a tsunami of publicity, not because they were especially shocking, but because they could only be shocking, given how they were exploited to provoke outrage abroad.
The cartoon showing Muhammad wearing a turban in the form of a bomb is the best known among them. While not everyone interpreted it in the same way, it was at least open to interpretation by all, since it did not include text. Its detractors decided to read it as an insult to all Muslims.
To give the prophet of the faithful a bomb for a hat was to suggest that all his followers were terrorists.
To put it simply, any scandal containing the word “Islam” in its headline sells copy. Ever since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the media have placed a fascinating and frightening character at center stage: the Islamist terrorist. Any terrorist can scare the hell out of us, but if you make him Islamist to boot, we all shit ourselves. Fear sells well. Scary Islam sells well. And scary Islam has become the only Islam there is in the eyes of the public at large.
Because the Islam that the media shovel down consumers’ throats is by necessity radical and bearded. When the mainstream media present a report on Islam it is very often a caricature, yet it provokes little open protest from the pressure groups that track Islamophobia. So long as they’re invited to put in their two cents on the rise of Islamophobia, everybody’s happy.
On the other hand, when a cartoon of so-called radical Islam is presented as a genuine and deliberate caricature, the Islamophobia-busters lose their cool. If you want to thrive in the media ecosystem, it’s far safer to take on a little newspaper like Charlie Hebdo than to attack major television channels and newsmagazines.
Nowadays, when a journalist asks a Muslim to comment on “the rise of Islamophobia,” what he’s really asking for is commentary on something the media themselves have created. In other words, the reporter helps to amplify the problem and then claims to be surprised that the problem exists and endures. The Muslim leader whom the prime-time anchor has called on to express his opinion of this notorious “rise of Islamophobia” should spit in his eye. He is face-to-face with the guy whose very job is to peddle fear of Islam.
The Muhammad Cartoons
Charlie Hebdo published cartoons of Muhammad long before the scandal of the Danish cartoons. 4 Note that, before the so-called Muhammad cartoons affair, the artists of Charlie Hebdo were known as and considered themselves to be journalistic illustrators. Ever since, they have generally been described as cartoonists.
Without denying the utility of cartoons in reporting current events, satiric caricature is but one element of drawing. There’s no shame in it at all, but this one detail highlights the extent to which the cartoons of Muhammad have colored the general public’s view of the work done by the artists of Charlie Hebdo ever since.
As I said, the Muslim prophet had been depicted in Charlie Hebdo long before the aforementioned scandal. No pressure group or reporter had expressed dismay of any kind over these drawings. A few individuals had conveyed their disapproval by letter, nothing more. No demonstrations, no death threats, no attacks. It was only after the denunciation and exploitation of the Danish cartoons by a group of Muslim extremists that caricaturing the prophet of the faithful suddenly became the trigger of media and Islamic hysteria. Media first, Islamic later. In 2006, when Charlie Hebdo reaffirmed an artist’s right to caricature religious terrorism by republishing the Danish cartoons of Muhammad, the media turned their cameras on our satirical paper. Charlie Hebdo became yet another potential target for the wrath of God’s wingnuts. The publication of the cartoons generated a tsunami of publicity, not because they were especially shocking, but because they could only be shocking, given how they were exploited to provoke outrage abroad.
The cartoon showing Muhammad wearing a turban in the form of a bomb is the best known among them. While not everyone interpreted it in the same way, it was at least open to interpretation by all, since it did not include text. Its detractors decided to read it as an insult to all Muslims.
To give the prophet of the faithful a bomb for a hat was to suggest that all his followers were terrorists.
Readers choose
J.S. Luxor
Pierre Boulle
Highland Fling
Joanna Trollope
Judith Laik
Karen Swart
Ian Fleming
Jackie Shemwell
Ray Garton
Joann Fletcher