To offend, or not?

Byline: The Register-Guard

It's frightening to witness the mindless fury of a mob. Europeans and Americans have been taken aback by news footage of enraged Muslims firebombing Danish embassies and threatening to behead anyone connected with publication of the infamous cartoon caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad.

The reaction is, by any measure, out of proportion to the insult. But Americans, in particular, need to guard against overreaction to the reaction.

It's obvious that extremists are exploiting and inflaming the situation for reasons that have nothing to do with a so-called "clash of civilizations." Demagogues are using the outrage over the controversial cartoons to advance their political agendas. Such strategies depend on demonizing entire cultures.

Influential Muslim clerics and political leaders have strongly criticized the riots and appealed for calm. They recognize that the violent protests hurt the image of Islam around the world and are particularly damaging to the millions of Muslim immigrants hoping to build new lives in Europe and the United States.

Europeans and Americans see the current conflict as a battle between the liberal, secular West's reverence for freedom of expression and the conservative Islamic world's intolerance of dissent. To a large degree, that's an accurate assessment. And to the extent that the dispute is about protecting freedom of expression - a basic human right - there need be no apology and no retreat.

But millions of Muslims who haven't joined the riots or condoned the violence were outraged and insulted by the cartoons. To dismiss their concerns as having no merit is a form of intolerance unbecoming of a pluralistic society.

A war, after all, is occurring right now in the heart of the Muslim world. American and European soldiers invaded and now occupy a Muslim nation. Tens of thousands of Muslim civilians have been killed.

Never mind the rationales offered by President Bush. In the Muslim world, the invasion of Iraq is more likely to be seen as the fulfilment of Osama bin Laden's prediction that the West, led by the United States, was embarking on a modern Crusade against Islam.

Ever since the Sept. 11 attacks, Muslims have felt stigmatized by association with terrorism. Now come these cartoons, first published in Denmark last September, then republished last week in a number of European newspapers. Not only do the cartoons violate Islam's prohibition against using images of the Prophet Muhammad, but some of them also directly equate Islam's holiest figure with terrorism.

For many Muslims, it was a frontal assault on the most sacred aspect of their faith. Provocateurs easily exploited the ensuing anger to the advantage of jihadists and anti-Western fundamentalists.

The violent expression of that anger has accomplished the extremists' objective: It has widened the divide and inflamed animosity between the Muslim world and the West. The situation has worsened in the past week.

As a result, now is not the time for an in-your-face lesson in Western freedom of expression. Those who are advocating that U.S. newspapers publish the offending cartoons as an act of solidarity with Europe are clearly not interested in reducing tensions or helping Muslims better understand Western values.

The fact that U.S. newspapers are free to publish such cartoons is not lost on the Muslim world, nor is that freedom in jeopardy. Some of the hotheads calling on American newspapers to conduct this lesson in free expression might have second thoughts if the exhibits also included artist Andres Serrano's photograph "Piss Christ" showing a crucifix in a jar of urine. Or Chris Ofili's dung-splashed portrait of the Virgin Mary. Or Renee Cox's "Yo Mama's Last Supper."

Freedom of expression includes the freedom to offend. Freedom of the press includes the freedom to decide when - or if - to offend.