In the United States, the controversy over cartoon depictions of the Prophet Muhammad has come down to a question of media ethics: whether most of our news outlets were right to not publish the offending images.
In Europe and in the Muslim world, the issue is much larger and its implications more ominous. In an era of globalization, our isolation will be short-lived, and we must understand that this is a watershed in global religious and political relations.
While there are important historical variations and differences between traditions, it is generally accepted by Muslims that the Prophet Muhammad is not to be visually depicted. Of course, he has been, but primarily by non-Muslims.
This is seen as unusual in the West because many of the world’s great religions encourage pictures as objects of instruction or veneration. There is a tradition in Christianity of portraying Jesus, the prophets and even God. Christians are used to such images and do not think the depiction as an abomination in itself.
The long history of Christian images also includes many that comment, criticize and even ridicule the faith, its institutions and its leaders both in private and in public. Some of the images most offensive to Catholics, for example, have been created by Catholics.
There is no equivalent tradition of depiction or commentary using images of Muhammad in Islam. This is obvious when we consider that popular images of Jesus are easily recognizable (even, as I saw in a bazaar in Iran recently, in the Muslim world). But, the images of Muhammad in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten had to be labeled as such so that readers knew what they were seeing.
More importantly, there is no equivalent Muslim tradition of having public “conversations through pictures.” In our media context, where Christianity is still the dominant religion, the readiness of Christians to think about their faith through pictures, paintings, films and other images means that we are used to seeing these things in the media.
Muslims do not, by and large, picture Muhammad in private contexts, much less in public ones. Thus the media has become an unwilling participant in this controversy.But there are a number of other ways that the current frenzy has resulted from an interaction between religion and the media.
To begin with, there is the fact that Muslim prohibitions on visual representations persist in an era where the media are the location of national and international public discourse, and media are more and more visual as we move into the digital age. This is a challenge to all religious leadership, but it is a particular problem for Islam.
There is also the issue of the nearly instantaneous distribution of information about the cartoons and the reaction to them. It is no longer possible to have a private conversation or an isolated incident. Global media means controversies quickly spread globally. The problem is intensified by the long-standing Muslim feeling of alienation from the global media stage. In the popular view, Islam and Muslims have been objects of bias and stereotyping in the Western media. Whether or not it is true is irrelevant.
So, for both sides, the media are now at the center of perceived conflict between Islam and the West. For some of the participants, publicity is its own reward and thus an incentive to continue the protests. And while activist Muslims use the media stage to pursue their protests, European xenophobic and racist groups are seeking a place there, too.
The editors of Jyllands-Posten said they wanted to start an informed global conversation about the extents and limits of freedom of expression. They did so through a publication that was clearly intended to be provocative. Instead of creating that conversation, though, we seem to have learned that the media can act as an accelerant to religious controversy and that religion can be an accelerant to media controversy.
The media and religion come together as a place where we can have a cultural fight. But what purpose does that serve, given that making attempts at understanding would be better for everyone? The media sphere is simply not a neutral arena in which to work these things out. At the same time it is an arena that can connect as well as divide East from West. The task of connection may well be more difficult than the opposite, but it is one we must take up if we are to demonstrate that we can overcome impulses to violence and chaos.
Stewart M. Hoover is a professor in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication and director of the Center for Media, Religion, and Culture at the University of Colorado, Boulder.
