Reflection on Aslan, Ruthven, and Klausen

Numerous interpretations were made of the news on the drawings that appeared in Jyllands-Posten. Different people had different reactions to the cartoons. The essay investigates how I view the three authors. They consist of Jytte Klausen, Malise Ruthven, and Reza Aslan.
Aslan claims that devoted Muslims forbid prints that show the Prophet. In countries with a majority of Muslims, it is possible to locate images of Muslim heroes. Islam forbids the actual representation of the prophet, although there are many wonderful images of him. The images are often used because they show the prophet in a favorable light. The publication of the drawings infuriates Aslan since they do not encourage togetherness. He finds the depiction of the Prophet as offensive, since they promote stereotypes of Muslims. The cartoons depict Mohammed and Muslims as the terrorists, despite terrorism being a shared problem. According to him, the cartoons are evidence of Islamophobia and are meant to provoke the Muslim. Aslan views the crisis as a manifestation of the ethnic and religious tensions, and not a struggle between civilizations. The cartoons are inflammatory, and they tend to humiliate Muslims.

I believe it is hypocritical for Muslims to accept what depicts the prophet in a right way and reject satirical cartoons appearing in Jyllands-Posten. I believe that we should not let our freedom of speech get hijacked by people, who object to satirical cartoons. I concur with Aslan that the violent response to the cartoons by the Muslim community was reaffirming the stereotypes advanced by the cartoons. Also, I think it is wrong to equate Islam with terrorism, as this leads to the marginalization and isolation of the Muslim community. It is wrong for Europeans to prejudice against Islam. Finally, I firmly believe the press should be free to satirize its work. However, this does not mean stereotyping any religion. The press should achieve a proper balance between satire and stereotype and should not avoid satire because of fear of offense.

According to Ruthven, the real issue is the cultural clash between Europe’s culture and Islam culture. Even though Islam is a great religion with a generous and glorious culture, it is not Europe’s religion and culture. This difference arises because most Europeans are religious skeptics, while most Muslims are a religious zealot. For the Europeans, skepticism is an essential part of their outlook as heirs to enlightenment. Ruthven argues that the pluralist secular governments are not comfortable with the mainstream traditions of Islam. He finds it paradoxical that the growing Muslim population in Europe has eroded Europe’s culture, since it is less susceptible to European cultural influence. According to him, it is multiculturalism and political correctness that are responsible for the fading European culture. He concludes that European policies are to blame for failing to assimilate Islam in the society. I agree with Ruthven that Islam can adjust to local conditions and is not a religion that is impervious to change. I think we should not take a culturally sensitive and politically correct approach that impedes the assimilation of Islam in Europe.

In Klausen’s article, the West view Muslims as Iconoclasts, who wish to censor the use of images. The West portrays Muslim as backward-looking and hypocritical, since Muslim artists have produced pictures of the prophet. On the other hand, Muslims view it as blasphemous for Christians to publish pictures defaming Islam and Muslims. Despite these differences, Klausen demonstrates that European Muslims are hostile to extremism; hence, it is not proper to label Islam as extreme. He concludes that Muslims do support democracy and are law abiding citizens.

The readings of Aslan, Ruthven, and Klausen are evidently leading to the firm conclusions to be made. Modern society is still heavily overburdened with stereotypes and prejudices. Even though, most countries are struggling to pass these behind, the recent events in the U.S. prove that there is still so much more to be done. Art should not be censored, neither should it be biased or provoke stereotyping or being prejudgmental – for the purpose uniting, not separating.