Religion Today is contributed by UW’s Religious Studies Program to examine and promote discussion of religious issues

When you get into a fight over a principle, you usually lose when your opponent points out where you fail to adhere to the principle you espouse. This was the case in the more pointed protests by Muslims against the publication in the European press of cartoons ridiculing Muhammad, which was done to trumpet the principles of free speech and free press.

An Iranian newspaper published anti-Semitic holocaust cartoons, knowing the Western media denounce denigrating comments about the holocaust. A young man dressed as a suicide bomber in a London protest later apologized because he realized he had gone beyond the bounds of free expression. In the "free"

West, it seems, society has identified many statements that violate our sense of free speech.

Most protests were not so sophisticated; they were expressions of rage and frustration. Embassies and other outposts of European governments were targeted for protest. The European Union office in Gaza was ransacked. Three embassies were burnt. Threats of murder were uttered not only against the cartoonists and the newspapers' employees, but also against the governments of the countries in which the cartoons were printed. Demands were issued for governments to apologize, and many did.

Rather than showing the importance of free speech and freedom of the press in Western societies, the end result has been to reinforce the Muslim world's perception that Western governments control the press and public speech. Let me explain.

In the Western view of events, the scenario was this. The Dutch paper, Jyllands-Posten, published a series of cartoons last fall critiquing Islam through depictions of Muhammad. This went largely unnoticed, although some Middle Eastern diplomats tried to protest through diplomatic channels. In early February, a Saudi Arabian mullah outed the pictures. When this led to protests and demands for an apology, the paper decided it was a matter of censorship and sounded the cry of freedom of speech. Papers in other European countries soon took up the cry, reprinting the cartoons themselves. In the end, at least one paper in every European country except Great Britain printed the pictures.

This was like pouring oil on fire. Muslims around the world erupted in outrage, with protests continuing for days. Most came off peacefully, although the righteous anger of religious insult led to comparisons with 9/11 and threats of murder and terrorist destruction. A few protests became violent with attacks on embassies and casualties among the protesters.

Most papers held to their principles and did not apologize, although France Soir did so and even fired the editor responsible. In light of the press' refusal, many governments issued high-level apologies in an attempt to calm the situation. Although these statements supported the principle of free speech, they emphasized the importance of thoughtful and respectful speech. In other words, the apologies promoted the very action which the papers were protesting, namely, self-censorship.

The Muslim view of the same events was quite different. This is because few Islamic countries have freedom of speech or the press. (Al-Jazeera perhaps being the exception that proves the rule.) In each nation, the media are controlled by government bodies; there are almost no news outlets where a perspective other than an official one can be printed. So, given this perception, when a Western paper prints cartoons ridiculing Muhammad, this is understood as an indication of government policy. This is why so much Muslim anger was aimed at representatives of western governments.

The proof positive for this interpretation, in Muslim eyes, were the apologies issued by Western governments. When it was the governments that apologized rather than the papers, this was seen by Muslims as the governments owning up to their "own" actions. So rather than demonstrating freedom of the press to the Muslim world, these events have actually reinforced the belief that the Western press, like the press in the Muslim world, is controlled by the government. Since the cartoons were understood as an official statement of Western governmental policy against Islam, then, it is not surprising that the Muslim world erupted in protest.