Five panelists shared their views of the controversy surrounding recent outbreaks of violence over cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammad that were originally published in September 2005 in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten.
Attacks on embassies and riots began in January in response to the cartoons' publication. To date, violence related to the cartoons has resulted in the deaths of 139 people.
Over 60 students and faculty members attended the panel, which opened with Imam Salih Yucel, the Muslim Chaplain at Boston's Brigham and Women's Hospital, discussing his opinion on the dilemma's starting point.
"The newspaper that published these cartoons, they probably didn't know how this would affect the Muslim world," said Yucel. "The violence is un-Islamic, and as a Muslim it was very offensive to me. The Prophet would never act like that."
According to Yucel, the majority of Muslims around the world condemn the violent outbursts. "Only about five percent of Muslims support this," he said. "The vast majority of Muslims are against this type of extremist activity."
Yucel concluded his statements by addressing freedom of speech, asserting that free speech has its boundaries.
"No one can say that we have a right to insult someone else and their faith," said Yucel. "Instead, it is our responsibility not to promote hate but to promote understanding and dialogue."
Next, Taha Abdul-Basser, a lecturer in Arabic at Boston University and a Ph.D. candidate at Harvard, addressed the media's representation of the cartoon controversy.
"There needs to be a greater level of consistency in the ideas the media injects into the discourse," Abdul-Basser said. "What is the level of discourse about Muslims in this country?" he asked, questioning the profundity of coverage currently given to American Muslims.
He went on to talk about the disconnect between Western culture and Eastern cultures. "Everything is open to ridicule in the modern West, but that is not the case everywhere in the world," he said.
Khalid Hasan, a Pakistani correspondent for the Daily Times of Lahore, opened by classifying himself as a "cultural Muslim." He spoke about the context of the cartoons.
"There were cartoons about Dick Cheney shooting somebody, but at least those had a context," he said. "I have never heard of cartoons without a context; why would they commission these cartoons unless they intended to provoke?"
Like Abdul-Basser, Hasan discussed the implications of freedom of expression. "I am sick of this argument 'freedom of speech,'" he said. "A right is not an obligation, and if I see a one-legged man, it is my right to say, 'Hey you, one legged man.' But I don't say it because it is my obligation not to."
Hasan also tried to dispel misconceptions of the Muslim community.
"Arabs are a small part of the Muslim community, and to put them all together as 'dirty Arabs' is racist and horrible," he said.
Neil Miller, an English lecturer at Tufts, addressed the context of the cartoons' publication.
According to Miller, Jyllands-Posten originally praised Mussolini and Nazi actions during World War II and more recently lost an editor over the publication of an untrue story.
"Clearly it was an attempt to provoke the Muslim population in Denmark," Miller said. "Now we have extremists on both sides trying to provoke all of us in the middle."
Miller then discussed what he perceived as the hypocrisy of arguments surrounding the cartoons. "Mockery of religion seems to be fair game in the Arab world," he said. "So there is a lot of offense on both sides."
He concluded by saying journalists have a moral responsibility not to "cry fire in a crowded theater," and he scolded campus newspapers and other publications that have re-printed the cartoons.
One publication that has reprinted the cartoons is Tufts' Primary Source, which ran the controversial images in its Mar. 1 issue. The Philadelphia Inquirer did the same on Feb. 4.
"I would not have published them," Miller said. "They further exacerbate the conflict between the East and the West."
The final panelist to speak was Associate Professor of International Negotiation and Diplomacy at the Fletcher School Adil Najam.
"I am offended by bad and not-funny cartoons," he said. "I am a Seinfeld fan, so when something is not funny, I just don't like it."
Najam also talked about the intent of the cartoons and said that "something is only funny if the person you are making fun of laughs.
"Otherwise," he said, "it is offensive."
He also pointed out that discussion of the cartoon controversy has become centered on free speech rather than hate speech.
"The story has changed to people burning flags and embassies and doing other stupid things, and not about the cartoons themselves," he said.
Najam closed by saying he is most offended by the constant questioning of his level of offense to the cartoons.
"I am most offended by the question of 'Are you offended?'" he said. "If I am, then I am automatically categorized as a fundamentalist."
The discussion was sponsored by Americans for Informed Democracy, Pangea, the International Relations department, the Peace and Justice Studies department, the Muslim Student Association and the Fares Center for Eastern Mediterranean Studies.
