I wouldn’t have published the cartoons,
but I wouldn’t have suspended the Daily Illini editors
who did. And I wouldn’t have participated in violent protests
over the cartoons. Neither would have Muhammad. Fellowship of Reconciliation, the peace
group, tells a story from the Hadith (sayings and doings of the
Prophet Muhammad) that Muhammad was with his companions in the
simple mosque of Medina. The mosque had an earthen floor and was
open on all sides. A Bedouin man walked in and began to urinate in
the corner. Muhammad’s companions were incensed, yelling at
him to stop, and threatening to assault him. “No,” the
Prophet told his followers. “Let him be. He does not know any
better.” When the man had finished, Muhammad addressed him
gently: “This place is not meant for urine, but only for
prayer and the remembrance of Allah.” Then he told his
followers to get water to wash the floor. The Prophet Muhammad, who preached repelling
evil with kindness, would not approve of violent protests over cartoons, according to the
Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). “He would have
responded by educating the ignorant.” Which includes most of us when it comes to
the topics of freedom of speech vs. cultural sensitivity and
Islamic relations. We all could use some education in these areas.
Unfortunately, the two student editors of the Daily Illini, independent
student newspaper at the University of Illinois, got a quick
education in corporate hypocrisy and doublespeak when they were
suspended from their jobs for republishing on Feb. 9
the offensive Danish cartoons. The publisher of the newspaper, Mary
Cory of the DI’s parent company, Illini Media, told alumni the
suspension came, not because the cartoons were published, and not
because the editors did not have the right to publish them, but
because they didn’t follow proper procedures by notifying the
executive team and editorial board that they intended to publish
the cartoons. The suspended editor-in-chief, Acton Gorton, says he
has never heard of such a requirement or seen it in writing. He
says he followed normal practice. “All editors present in the
newsroom the night before publication learned of our decision to
publish the cartoons. There were no objections.” Gorton is supposed to find out March 2 whether he
gets reinstated, fired, or brought back on staff at a lower position.
Meanwhile, he tells Illinois Times, he was surprised, after the publication, by the
assumption of his fellow newspaper staff members that publishing the
cartoons would incite violence. “The staff was really angry
because they said I put their lives at risk,” he said. Some
staffers told him they wouldn’t be able to get jobs when it
became known they work for a “hate” publication. The
publisher instituted new security measures at the newspaper office.
Gorton calls these reactions “Islamophobia.” So far there
have been no threats, no violence, only quiet protests and a lot of
discussion. “Just because there is violence in the Middle East
doesn’t mean we can’t handle these things here.” University of Illinois Chancellor Richard
Herman wrote in a letter to the editor that he was
“saddened” by the publication of the cartoons
“that have so offended Muslims around the world.”
Gorton finds it sad that this comes from an official who has been
largely silent about university mascot Chief Illiniwek, who offends
Native Americans and many others. “If there’s any kind
of controversy about insensitivity on campus, it ought to be about
the Chief,” says Gorton. Now back to whether Gorton and his fellow editor, Chuck Prochaska, made the right decision
by publishing the cartoons. Gorton says his readers needed to see the
cartoons in order to understand what the global controversy was all
about. “This is a story about images,” he says. “You
can’t tell the story without the imagery.” Well sure you
can. “We discuss pornography in papers without showing
images,” says Ahmed M. Rehab, of CAIR in Chicago. “We
discuss violent acts of war and terror without showing graphic images
of maimed corpses. We discuss anti-Semitism without reprinting vile
anti-Semitic depictions. So this editor’s argument that we had to
print the racist cartoons just to understand the situation really was
paper-thin, and a lot of people saw straight through it.” The Council on American-Islamic Relations
says garbage from the press wouldn’t faze the Prophet
Muhammad, who responded to his critics with forgiveness and
kindness. They tell the story that every day a woman would throw
garbage in the path of the prophet, to insult him. But one day she
didn’t do it. So the Prophet Muhamad inquired about her
health. He thought she might be sick.
This article appears in Feb 23 – Mar 1, 2006.
