February 13, 2006 6:36 PM

Editors not asking questions

The flap over the Muhammad cartoons provides an example of editors not doing the basic journalism they would expect of their reporters.

"Muslims believe it is sacrilege to present any image, even those that may seem benign, of the Prophet Muhammad," wrote Dennis Ryerson, editor of the Indianapolis Star.

"Under traditional Islam interpretations, any depiction of the prophet would be offensive," wrote Michael Arrieta-Walden, public editor of The Oregonian in Portland.

The ombudsman of The Boston Globe, Richard Chacon, described the conflict over the cartoons as "a visceral clash between different cultures: Muslims who believe that any image of Mohammed is blasphemous and non-Muslims who believe in freedom of expression."

"The Danish cartoons, which were described in several (Washington) Post stories, angered Muslims in part because Islamic tradition bans the visual depiction of human beings or "graven images," particularly of the prophet Muhammad or any religious figures," wrote Deborah Howell, ombudsman for The Washington Post.

"Our coverage has explored why Muslims generally abhor any depiction of the prophet," Michael Fancher, editor of The Seattle Times, wrote.

I could go on.

Jim Lindsay, associate professor of Medieval Middle East History at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, is teaching a class on the Islamic World to 1500. He is the author of "Daily Life in the Medieval Islamic World." Recently he showed his class "A series of medieval manuscript illuminations of Muhammad (a mini Islamic art presentation of images that illustrated many of the episodes of Muhammad's life we had examined in previous weeks). He told the News' Vincent Carroll that the claim that Islam prohibits any representation of Muhammad is "Absolute baloney. There is no legal prohibition, no Quaranic prohibition."

The Wall Street Journal last week published an insightful op-ed headlined "Bonfire of the Pieties" by Amir Taheri, author of "L'Irak: Le Dessous Des Cartes."

In that piece, Mr. Taheri says the Muslim Brotherhood's position on the cartoons can be summed up as follows: "It is against Islamic principles to represent by imagery not only Muhammad but all the prophets of Islam; and the Muslim world is not used to laughting at religion. Both claims, however, are false.

"There is no Quaranic injunction against images, whether of Muhammad or anyone else."

He then goes on to describe how the belief that there is such a prohibition came to be and asserts, "The issue has never been decided one way or another, and the claim that a ban on images is "an absolute principle of Islam" is purely political.

He also shows how history refutes the claim that there is such a ban.

"Many portraits of Muhammad have been drawn by Muslim artists, often commissioned by Muslim rulers." He then cites examples.

I'm not saying there's no disagreement on the subject. Nor am I casting myself as an expert on Islam. But I am questioning why editors are using this so-called injunction as an explanation for their decision not to publish any examples of the cartoons.

:/

Posted by at 6:36 PM | Comments (0)