Abu Graib Versus Muhammad's Turban Bomb

DISCLAIMER: The images below are graphic and vile in nature. They were originally published on www.salon.com. I have not posted these photos because I like them. They make me sick. I'm posting them because every day I read the news I have to look at myself and ask, "How much longer will I let my tax dollars pay the salaries of those who paint the walls of Abu Ghraib with Iraqi blood?"

Two controversial news items have been the talk of the town recently: the unified Muslim backlash against Western newspapers for depicting offensive images of the Muslim prophet Muhammad, and the resurfacing of the photos depicting the deplorable activities at the American-run Abu Graib prison in Iraq.

Given America's tenuous position in the global atmosphere, many "concerned Americans" (a.k.a. neo-conservatives) have been declaring that the publication of more Abu Graib photos will only insight further backlash against American troops and civilians internationally, and many American press agencies have refrained from publishing them for fear of further tarnishing America’s reputation. And yet, the drawings of the prophet Muhammad are being republished in American newspapers with no negative address and a moral disregard for the consequences of reprinting them.


The message of hypocrisy this sends is that it’s okay to display negative portrayals of Muhammad and Muslims, but under no circumstances should you print anything that sullies the image of America, even when we are clearly in the wrong.

What’s that smell? It’s propaganda!

It’s funny how, rather than condemning the actions of the American military for torturing prisoners in the first place, the most vocal opinion of the American government is to turn the issue around and call instigators the rare media outlets (i.e. www.salon.com) willing to publish the graphic and ignominious photos.

The collection of Muhammad drawings has been made widely available by dozens of newspapers, websites, and independent college dailies. And the publication of these drawings is being touted as an exercise of "free press." But if “free press” were really the genuine interest of these media outlets, then they should equally exercise their freedom by publishing the newer Abu Graib photos, and they’re not.


While the two sets of images - the Muhammad drawings and the Abu Graib photos - are similar in their polemic nature, there are startling differences between them.

The drawings of Muhammad are an affront to Muslims because (among other reasons) of the negative stereotypes they enforce, namely that all Muslims are terrorists. These drawings are an "artistic" interpretation of Islam’s prophet, and their interpretation as either culturally ignorant or deceptively shrewd is what makes them politically controversial in the first place.


Conversely, the photos from Abu Graib, which show the systematic mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners, many of whom (like the current residents of Guantanamo) will never be charged with any crime, are not politically controversial because they enforce negative stereotypes with questionable veracity; they are politically controversial because their truth is indisputable. Whereas the meaning extracted from the Muhammad drawings is “interpretive,” there is no room for interpretation behind the Abu Graib photos. The harsh reality is that Abu Graib prisoners were tortured and occasionally murdered by employees of the American government.

When Vice President Dick Cheney shoots an innocent man in the face, it makes front page news. The same should happen when other government employees shoot, punch, kick, rape, and murder men whose innocence has not yet been disproved.

The fact that one set of images is "representational" (the Muhammad set) and the others is "factual" (the Abu Graib set) should have a direct impact on the extent of media coverage each respectively receives. However, the intuitive conclusion that the "facts" should be given more coverage than "fictional" or "editorial" images has not followed. In fact, the exact opposite has occurred.

"Freedom of press" advocates have published the Muhammad images shamelessly, touting the reprinting of offensive materials as an "inherent right of the media" While I’m not for legislative censorship, I am in favor of self-censorship, especially when vitriolic reaction (worldwide protests, setting embassies on fire, death) has been provoked by ignorant action (the initial printing of the cartoons). Let me explain further.


It’s true that the Jyllands-Posten - the Dutch newspaper that originally called for and ran the Muhammad cartoons - has the "right" to publish these images, possession of a right does automatically mean that the exercising of that right is unconditionally warranted.

Rights need to be exercised appropriately and with a discretionary attitude, and sometimes the exercising of a right for a right's sake is more destructive than not exercising the right at all. For example, the American Constitution guarantees its citizens the right to bear arms. This means that the right to having a gun is protected in our most sacred document. However, there are situations where having a gun is completely inappropriate, i.e. into day cares, into lecture halls, into maternity wards, etc. Sure, the Constitution promises you the right to own a gun, but that doesn’t mean guns are systematically acceptable in all situations. The use of guns should be monitored with a discretionary attitude. This principle can be extrapolated to the press; freedom of press does not mean that every article/drawing, especially those of a close-minded nature, should be published simply because they can be published. Exercising a right for not other reason than to promote that right is, essentially, a form of political blind faith, and is premised on a failure to recognize that having a right does not grant you impunity from the consequences of performing it.


Let's look at another example. If the New York times were to print an editorial running the headline, "Al Sharpton Should Drop His Negro Crutch" or "Thieving Zionist Pigs Should Leave Israel in German Boxcars" the cultural backlash would be enormous. There would be riots in every major city in America (and probably Jerusalem) and people would assuredly get injured, and some may even die in the process of protesting the publication of such narrow views. This is exactly what’s happening in Muslim nations across the world. But because Muslims are looked down upon by Westerners (much like blacks were only a few decades ago) Western leaders claim that the publication of the Muhammad cartoons is protected by a “free press” and therefore should be accepted without question (If the Washington Post were to hold a contest to see who could come up with the funniest black slave cartoon, Americans from all ethnic backgrounds would react just as strongly as Muslims have been reacting in Libya and Afghanistan.) These same leaders also accuse Muslims across the world of overreacting to the West’s injurious attitudes toward them, and in turn all Muslims are typecast as angry, violent, embassy burners. The truth of the matter a great many Muslims are more offended by the West’s persistently unrealistic portrayal of Arabs and Persians as terrorists than they are the actual drawing of Muhammad.

The Abu Graib photos and the Muhammad drawings are similar in that they are both repugnant and abhorrent displays. However, because the Abu Graib photos are real and the Muhammad drawings only enforce questionable stereotypes of ire and ignorance, the Abu Graib photos should be more widely distributed than the Muhammad drawings, and not vice versa. Why? The media’s job is to expose the truth, not to encourage racial profiling.


The bottom line is that the Iraqi detainees at Abu Graib were and are still being psychologically tortured, sexually humiliated, bitten by poisonous snakes, murdered, degraded, attacked by ravenous dogs, beaten and sodomized. The acts at Abu Graib are literal atrocities. Iraqi detainees were literally treated like pieces of detritus. Does Muhammad literally wear a bomb as a hat? Not that I know of. Obviously the more pressing matter at hand is the question of which is of greater concern to the American people: literal or figurative offenses? Unfortunately, this is not the question being asked. The question being asked by the media is: Which story, Abu Graib or the Muhammad drawings, will sell more papers? And of course, nobody is going to buy a newspaper with the headline, “The American Army - Your Army - Is the New Nazi Party.”

And while it may be hard for many Americans to accept that the actions of our military are just as terrorizing as the actions of ethnic peoples too poor to have a structured armed forces (neo-conservative translation: terrorists), the atrocities committed by Americans in the name of America need to be brought to light.
The publication of offensive images and/or language that has no foundation in reality is reprehensible; but not publishing offensive images or language that is grounded in truth is more reprehensible.
Hiding the bankrupt behavior at Abu Graib from the world will not do us any good. In fact, sweeping the issues under the rug will only allow these offenses to continue. If the actions of the American military are made public, then perhaps prison guards will think twice before torturing their next victim. With the threat of exposure looming overhead, our military will act very differently, they will follow the laws instead of breaking them, and this will only support our cause, because the actions of a noble military will be supported both domestically and abroad.


Just as most media sources with 21st century sensitivities would never publish cartoons depicting Africa-Americans in black face and straw skirts, hate materials such as the Muhammad drawings should never have been published in the first place. And their republication should not have occurred. You might say that the photos from Abu Graib are a form of hate material too, and that in republishing them on my site I am committing the same “media crime” as those who republished the Muhammad drawings. I beg to differ. The Abu Graib photos are not hate materials; whereas the Muhammad drawings are depictions of hatred meant to inspire more hatred, the Abu Graib photos are evidence of acts of hatred meant to inspire awareness. This is a difference worth noting.