Fraternity Manuals

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

From Open Encyclopedia

Image:Current event marker.png This article documents a current event.
Information may change rapidly as the event progresses.

Image:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings.jpg

The Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy began after twelve editorial cartoons depicting the Islamic prophet Muhammad were published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten on September 30 2005. Danish Muslim organisations organised protests. As the controversy has grown, some or all of the cartoons have been reprinted in newspapers in more than 20 other countries.<ref>“World leaders rally round as crisis deepens,” The Times of London, 2006-02-07.</ref>

The publication of the cartoons has led to significant unrest around the world, particularly in Islamic countries.

The drawings, including a depiction of Muhammad with a bomb inside or under his turban, accompanied an article on self-censorship and freedom of speech. Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten, commissioned twelve cartoonists for the project and published the cartoons to highlight the difficulty experienced by Danish writer Kåre Bluitgen in finding artists to illustrate his children's book about Muhammad. Cartoonists previously approached by Bluitgen were reportedly unwilling to work with him for fear of violent attacks by extremist Muslims.

Although Jyllands-Posten maintains that the drawings were an exercise in free speech, some contend that regardless of faith, the depiction of Muhammad as a terrorist is culturally offensive and blasphemous. However, many others view the cartoons as a form of non-violent protest in response to the violent threats and intimidation experienced by those who publicly criticise Islam.

Several death threats have been made against those responsible for the cartoons, reportedly resulting in the cartoonists going into hiding. Reaction from the international community was also swift; the foreign ministries of eleven Islamic countries demanded action from the Danish government, and Libya eventually closed its embassy in Denmark in protest after the government refused to censure the newspaper or apologise. The Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said, "The government refuses to apologize because the government does not control the media or a newspaper outlet; that would be in violation of the freedom of speech".

A large consumer boycott was organised in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other Middle East countries. The foreign ministers of seventeen Islamic countries renewed calls for the Danish government to punish those responsible for the cartoons, and to ensure that such cartoons are not published again. The Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Arab League have demanded that the United Nations impose international sanctions upon Denmark.<ref>“Muslims seek UN resolution over Danish prophet cartoons,” AFP, 2006-01-29.</ref> Numerous protests against the cartoons have taken place, some of them violent. On 4 February, the buildings containing the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Syria were set ablaze, although no one was hurt. In Beirut the Danish General Consulate was set on fire,<ref>“Protesters burn consulate over cartoons,” CNN, 2006-02-05.</ref> resulting in the death of one protestor.<ref>“Protestors killed as global furor over cartoons escalates,” Middle East Times, 2006-02-06.</ref> Deaths have also been reported in riots in Afghanistan.<ref>“Muslim cartoon fury claims lives,” BBC, 2006-02-06.</ref>

Contents

[edit]

The events

Main article: Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
[edit]

Debate about self-censorship

On September 17 2005, the Danish newspaper Politiken ran an article under the headline "Dyb angst for kritik af islam"<ref>(da)“Dyb angst for kritik af islam,” Politiken, 2005-09-17.</ref> ("Deep fear of criticism of Islam"). The article discussed the difficulty encountered by the writer Kåre Bluitgen, who was initially unable to find an illustrator who was prepared to work with Bluitgen on his children's book Koranen og profeten Muhammeds liv ("The Qur'an and the prophet Muhammad's life"). Three artists declined Bluitgen's proposal before an artist agreed to assist anonymously. According to Bluitgen:

One [artist declined], with reference to the murder in Amsterdam of the film director Theo van Gogh, while another [declined, citing the attack on] the lecturer at the Carsten Niebuhr Institute in Copenhagen. In October 2004, a lecturer was assaulted by five assailants who opposed the lecturer's reading of the Qur'an to non-Muslims during a lecture at the Niebuhr institute at the University of Copenhagen<ref>(da)“Overfaldet efter Koran-læsning,” TV 2 (Denmark), 2004-10-09.</ref>.

The refusal of the first three artists to participate was seen as evidence of self-censorship and led to much debate in Denmark, with other examples for similar reasons soon emerging. The comedian Frank Hvam declared that he did not dare satirise the Qur'an on television, while the translators of an essay collection critical of Islam also wished to remain anonymous due to concerns about violent reaction.

[edit]

Publication of the drawings

On September 30 2005, the daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten ("The Jutland Post") published an article titled "Muhammeds ansigt"<ref>'(da)Rose, Flemming: “Muhammeds ansigt”, Jyllands-Posten, 2005-09-30.</ref> ("The face of Muhammad"). The article consisted of 12 cartoons (of which only some depicted Muhammad) and an explanatory text, in which Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Postens culture editor, commented:

The modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech, where you must be ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule. It is certainly not always equally attractive and nice to look at, and it does not mean that religious feelings should be made fun of at any price, but that is less important in this context. [...] we are on our way to a slippery slope where no-one can tell how the self-censorship will end. That is why Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten has invited members of the Danish editorial cartoonists union to draw Muhammad as they see him. [...] <ref>(da)“Jyllands-Posten: Ytringsfrihed: Mohammes ansigt,” AvisNET, 2005-10-30.</ref>

After an invitation from Jyllands-Posten to around forty different artists to give their interpretation on how Muhammad may have looked, twelve caricaturists chose to respond with a drawing each. Some of these twelve drawings portray Muhammad in different fashions; many also comment on the surrounding self-censorship debate. In the clockwise direction of their position in the page layout:

  • The Islamic star and crescent partially symbolizing the face of Muhammad; his right eye is the star, the crescent surrounds his beard and face.
  • Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, with a lit fuse and the Islamic creed written on the bomb. This drawing is considered the most controversial of the twelve.
  • Muhammad standing in a gentle pose with a halo in the shape of a crescent moon. The middle part of the crescent is obscured, revealing only the edges which resemble horns.
  • An abstract drawing of crescent moons and Stars of David, and a poem on oppression of women "Profet! Med kuk og knald i låget som holder kvinder under åget!". In English the poem could be read as: "Prophet, you crazy bloke! Keeping women under yoke"
  • Muhammad as a simple wanderer, in the desert, at sunset. There is a donkey in the background.
  • A nervous caricaturist, shakily drawing Muhammad while looking over his shoulder.
  • Two angry Muslims charge forward with sabres and bombs, while Muhammad addresses them with: "Rolig, venner, når alt kommer til alt er det jo bare en tegning lavet af en vantro sønderjyde" (loosely, "Relax guys, it's just a drawing made by some infidel South Jutlander". South Jutland as reference would, for a Dane, connote the feeling of something like the middle of nowhere).
  • An Arab-looking boy in front of a blackboard, pointing to the Farsi chalkings, which translate into "The editorial team of Jyllands-Posten is a bunch of reactionary provocateurs". The boy is labelled "Mohammed, Valby school, 7.A", implying that this is a second-generation immigrant to Denmark rather than the founder of Islam. On his shirt is written "Fremtiden" (the future).
  • Another drawing shows Muhammad prepared for battle, with a short sabre in one hand and a black bar censoring his eyes. He is flanked by two women in niqaabs, having only their wide open eyes visible.
  • Muhammad standing on a cloud, greeting dead suicide bombers with "Stop Stop vi er løbet tør for Jomfruer!" ("Stop, stop, we have run out of virgins!"), an allusion to the promised reward to martyrs.
  • Another shows journalist Kåre Bluitgen, wearing a turban with the proverbial orange dropping into it, with the inscription "Publicity stunt". In his hand is a child's stick drawing of Muhammad. The proverb "an orange in the turban" is a Danish expression meaning "a stroke of luck": here, the added publicity for the book.

And in the centre:

  • A police line-up of seven people wearing turbans, with the witness saying: "Hm... jeg kan ikke lige genkende ham" ("Hm... I can't really recognise him"). Not all people in the line-up are immediately identifiable. They are: (1) A generic Hippie, (2) politician Pia Kjærsgaard, (3) possibly Jesus, (4) possibly Buddha, (5) possibly Muhammad, (6) a generic Indian Guru, and (7) journalist Kåre Bluitgen, carrying a sign saying: "Kåres PR, ring og få et tilbud" ("Kåre's public relations, call and get an offer").
[edit]

Police investigation of Jyllands-Posten

A number of Muslim organizations submitted complaints to the Danish police claiming that Jyllands-Posten had committed an offence under section 140 and 266b of the Danish Criminal Code. <ref name="danish_response_to_un_jan"> “Official Response by the Danish Government to the UN Special Rapporteurs,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, 2006-01-24. </ref>

Section 140 of the Criminal Code prohibits any person from publicly ridiculing or insulting the dogmas of worship of any lawfully existing religious community in Denmark. Section 266b criminalises the dissemination of statements or other information by which a group of people are threatened, insulted or degraded on account of their religion. Danish police began their investigation of these complaints on 27 October 2005. <ref name="danish_response_to_un_jan"/>

On 6 January 2006, the Regional Public Prosecutor in Viborg decided to discontinue the investigation as he found no basis for concluding that the cartoons constituted a criminal offence. He stated that, in assessing what constitutes an offence, the right to freedom of speech must be taken into consideration. That while the right to freedom of speech must be exercised with the necessary respect for other human rights, including the right to protection against discrimination, insult and degradation, no apparent violation of the law had occurred. <ref name="danish_response_to_un_jan"/>

[edit]

Jyllands-Posten response

Jyllands-Posten published two open letters on its website, both in Danish and Arabic versions, and the second letter also in an English version.<ref>(ar)Jyllands-Posten's letter in Arabic</ref><ref>Jyllands-Posten's letter in English</ref> The second letter was dated 30 January, and includes the following explanation and apology:

In our opinion, the 12 drawings were sober. They were not intended to be offensive, nor were they at variance with Danish law, but they have indisputably offended many Muslims for which we apologize.
[edit]

Danish Muslim clerics tour the Middle East

Unsatisfied with the reaction of the Danish Government and Jyllands-Posten and feeling provoked additionally in particular by a televised interview with Dutch member of parliament and Islam critic Hirsi Ali, who was received by Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, and by the situation of Muslims in Denmark in general, which they perceived as racist and condescending, a group of Danish Muslim clerics from several organisations set out for a tour of the Middle East to present their case and ask for support.<ref>(en)Alienated Danish Muslims Sought Help from Arabs</ref>

For this purpose a 43-page dossier was created.<ref>(da)Viste pædofil Muhamed</ref>. It consists of several letters from Muslim organisations explaining their case, multiple clippings from Jylland Posten, multiple clippings from Weekend Avisen[2], and some additional images that, according to the dossier's authors, have been sent to Muslims in Denmark, and were indicative of the rejection of Muslims by the Danish<ref>A clash of rights and responsibilities, BBC</ref>.

Among the leadership of the group were Imam Ahmad Abu Laban of the Islamisk Trossamfund and Akhmad Akkari, spokesman of the Danish-based European Committee for Prophet Honouring.<ref>(en)“Danish paper rejected Jesus Cartoons,” Guardian, 2006-02-06.</ref> Danish Sheik Rais Huleyhel was named head of the delegation and signed the petition letters. Among the people the group claims to have met on their visit to Egypt were: The General Secretary of the Arab League Amr Moussa, the Egyptian Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa and the Sheik of Cairo's Al-Azhar university Mohammed Sayed Tantawi and the Egyptian foreign office.

[edit]

Reprinting in other newspapers

Further information: List of newspapers that reprinted Jylland-Posten's Muhammad cartoons

In 2005, the Muhammad cartoons controversy received only minor media attention outside of Denmark. January 2006 saw some of the pictures reprinted first in Scandinavia, then in major newspapers of Denmark's southern neighbors Germany, Belgium and France. Very soon after, as protests grew, there were re-publications around the globe, but mostly in continental Europe.

Notable by their absence were re-publications from major newspapers in the USA<ref>“A media dilemma: The rest of a story,” Philadelphia Inquirer, 2006-02-04.</ref> and Great Britain<ref>“US, British media tread carefully in cartoon furor,” Christian Science Monitor, 2006-02-06.</ref>, where editorials covered the story, but almost unanimously took a stance against re-publication of the Mohammad cartoons.

Several editors were fired for their decision, or even their intention,<ref>“NY Press Kills Cartoons; Staff Walks Out,” The New York Observer, 2006-02-07.</ref> <ref>“Paper withdrawn over cartoon row,” BBC News, 2006-02-07.</ref> to re-publish the cartoons, most prominently the chief editor of France Soir.

Three of the cartoons were reprinted in the Jordanian weekly newspaper al-Shihan<ref name="gunmen_shut_EU_Gaza_office">“Gunmen shut EU Gaza office over cartoons,” CNN, 2006-02-03.</ref>. The editor, Momani, was fired, and the publisher withdrew the newspaper from circulation. Momani issued a public apology, was arrested and charged with insulting religion.<ref>“Embassies burn in cartoon protest,” BBC News, 2006-02-04.</ref> Several of the cartoons were reprinted in the Jordanian newspaper al-Mehwar. The editor Hisham Khalidi was also arrested and charged with insulting religion. Both charges were dropped two days later.<ref>(de)“Brennende Botschaften und Antisemitismus,” Spiegel, 2006-02-05.</ref>

Al-Hurreya newspaper in Yemen was closed down after publishing some images. Owner/Editor Abdul-Karim Sabra was arrested. <ref>“Newspaper shut for printing cartoons,” The Australian, 2006-02-07.</ref>

In Malaysia, Lester Melanyi, an editor of the Sarawak Tribune resigned from his post for allowing the reprinting of a cartoon. The chief editor was summoned to the Internal Security Ministry.<ref>“Sarawak paper prints Prophet cartoon, editor quits,” The Sun (Malaysia), 2006-04-06.</ref>

In South Africa, a Muslim organization obtained an interdict from the Johannesburg High Court against several South African newspapers, preventing them from publishing the cartoons.<ref>“Muslim anger hits SA,” Sunday Tribune (South Africa), 2006-02-05.</ref>

[edit]

International reactions

Main article: International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

What started with the problem of a Danish author trying to find an illustrator for his forthcoming book about Islam has become an international crisis. It has led to violence, arrests, international tensions, and a renewed debate about the scope of free speech and the place of Muslims in the West, and the West in Muslim countries. Many governments, organizations and individuals worldwide have issued statements, trying to define their stance.

[edit]

Conflicting traditions

[edit]

Danish journalistic tradition

Freedom of speech in Denmark was obtained in a new constitution with democracy in 1849 and parliamentarism in 1901 together with other liberties, including freedom of religion. These freedoms have been defended vigorously ever since. Freedom of speech was abandoned temporarily only during the German occupation of Denmark during World War II.

Section 77 of the Constitutional Act of Denmark (1953) reads: “Any person shall be at liberty to publish his ideas in print, in writing, and in speech, subject to his being held responsible in a court of law. Censorship and other preventive measures shall never again be introduced.”<ref>The Danish constitution</ref>

Under international law, freedom of expression in Denmark is also protected by among others the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Section 140 of the Danish Penal Code prohibits blasphemy. However, this law has not been enforced since 1938.<ref>[3]</ref> Section 266b of the Danish Penal Code prohibits expressions that threaten, deride or degrade on the grounds of race, colour, national or ethnic origin, belief or sexual orientation. The Danish public prosecutor determined that the Muhammad cartoons did not constitute blasphemy under Danish law.<ref name="danish_response_to_un_jan"> “Official Response by the Danish Government to the UN Special Rapporteurs,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, 2006-01-24. </ref>

Jesus and other religious figures are often portrayed in Denmark in ways that many other societies would consider illegal blasphemy. In 1984 the artist Jens Jørgen Thorsen was commissioned by a local art club to paint the wall of a railway station. The work displayed a naked Jesus with an erect penis.<ref>[ http://www.interights.org/page.php?dir=Publication&page=wingrove.php Painting by Jens Jørgen Thorsen]</ref> In 1992 Thorsen directed the film Jesus vender tilbage which showed Jesus as sexually active and involved with a terrorist group.<ref>Danish movie Jesus vender tilbage</ref><ref>Jesus vender tilbage plot description in the New York Times</ref> While Thorsen’s work provoked much public debate and his painting was removed from the public building, he was not charged with any legal offence.

Danish newspapers are privately owned and independent from the government. There are no restrictions on the political viewpoints that may be published. There are frequent caricatures of Queen Margrethe II.<ref>Making fun of Queen Margrethe II</ref>

[edit]

Islamic tradition

Main article: Aniconism

The Qur'an, Islam's holiest book, condemns idolatry, but has no direct condemnations of pictorial art. Direct prohibitions of pictorial art, or any depiction of sacred figures, are found in some hadith, or recorded oral traditions.

Views regarding pictorial representation within the Muslim community have varied from group to group, and from time to time. Shi'a Muslims have been generally tolerant of pictorial representation of human figures, Sunni Muslims less so. However, the Sunni Ottomans, the last dynasty to claim the caliphate, were not only tolerant but even patrons of the miniaturists' art. Many Ottoman miniatures depict Muhammad; they usually show Muhammad's face covered with a veil or as a featureless void emanating light (depicted as flames). Pictorial surveys of Islamic religious art can be found on the internet. <ref>http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hi/hi_fimu.htm</ref><ref>http://www.superluminal.com/cookbook/index_flat_gallery.html#</ref><ref>http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive</ref> Note that the last site also contains some extremely and intentionally offensive modern depictions of Muhammad.

Most contemporary Muslims believe that ordinary portraits and photos, films and illustrations, are permissible. Only some Salafi and Islamist interpretations of Sunni Islam still condemn pictorial representations of any kind. Offensive satirical pictures are a somewhat different case — disrespect to Islam or to Muhammad is still widely considered blasphemous or sacrilegious.

According to the BBC "It is the satirical intent of the cartoonists, and the association of the Prophet with terrorism, that is so offensive to the vast majority of Muslims."<ref>{{qif 

 |test={{qif
 |test={{{1|}}}
 |then=
 |else=1

}}}}} 

 |then=Template error: argument title is required.
 |else={{qif
   |test={{boolor
     |1={{{firstname|}}}
     |2={{{lastname|}}}
   }}
   |then={{qif
     |test={{{lastname|}}}
     |then=Abdelhadi, 
     |else=
 }}{{{firstname|}}}, 
   |else={{qif
     |test={{{author|}}}
     |then={{{author|}}}, 
     |else=
 }}
 }}"{{qif
   |test={{{url|}}}
   |then=Cartoon row highlights deep divisions
   |else=Cartoon row highlights deep divisions
 }}"{{qif
   |test={{{org|}}}
   |then=, BBC
   |else=
 }}{{qif
   |test={{{date|}}}
   |then=, 4 February 2006
   |else=
 }}{{qif
   |test={{{pages|}}}
   |then=, pp. {{{pages}}}
   |else={{qif
     |test={{{page|}}}
     |then=, p. {{{page}}}
     |else=
   }}
 }}{{qif
 |test={{{urldate|}}}  
 |then=. URL accessed on [[{{{urldate}}}]]
 }}.

}}</ref> Furthermore, the cartoons were published in a conservative mainstream newspaper in the context of what many Muslims perceive to be a pervasive bias against them in many western countries, exemplified by the French law on religious symbols in schools, the short film Submission, and the 2005 Sydney race riots.

[edit]

Opinions

[edit]

Opinions in Denmark

A poll on January 29, from Epinion for Danmarks Radio, the national broadcasting company of Denmark, showed that of 579 Danes asked, 79% believe that the Prime Minister of Denmark should not apologise to the Muslims, with 48% citing that would be political interference with the freedom of press, while 44% thought the Prime Minister should try harder to resolve the controversy. 62% of those asked believed that Jyllands-Posten shouldn't apologise either. 58% felt that while it was the right of Jyllands-Posten to publish the images, they could understand the Muslim criticism.<ref>(da)“Epinion: Ingen skal undskylde Muhammed tegninger,” Danmarks Radio, 2006-01-28.</ref>

On February 3, another poll from Epinion made for Danmarks Radio, had asked 509 people "Considering the events that have occurred in the past week, should Jylland-Posten have published the depictions?". 47% said they shouldn't have been published, 46% said the opposite, while the last 7% did not know which stance to take.<ref>(da)“Delte holdninger til JP's tegninger,” Danmarks Radio, 2006-02-04.</ref>

The question of whether the drawings should have been printed in the first place has been intensively discussed in Denmark from letters to the editors of news publications, to national television, to open debate meetings at high schools and universities. The controversy arises from several sources:

The Islamic Society in Denmark has proposed that a three day celebration of Muhammad should be held in Denmark, putting a focus on Muhammad's life. They further proposed that this be coordinated in part by the Islamic Society, Jyllands-Posten, and at least some of the five universities in Denmark. <ref>“Proposal on three day celebration,” Islamisk Trossamfund, 2006-02-01.</ref> This was declined by the universities, as they do not take part in religious activities.

The editor who originally approved the cartoons, Carsten Juste, later declared that the opponents of free speech had "won" because the furor would almost undoubtedly deter future editors from printing anything similar. He thought it unlikely that anyone would print a caricature of Muhammad within a generation. He also said that, had he known exactly what the consequences would be, that is death threats, boycotts and terror threats, he would not have printed the cartoons. <ref>(da)“Jyllands-Postens redaktør: »De har vundet«,” Politiken, 2006-02-01.</ref>

Many people in Denmark have criticised the government's handling of the affair, particularly the prime-minister's decision not to meet with the Islamic ambassadors in October.

On December 20 twenty-two former Danish ambassadors sent an open letter to the prime-minister criticising his decision not to open a dialogue with the international representatives.<ref>(da)“22 tidligere ambassadører siger fra,” Politiken, 2005-12-20.</ref>

In early February, Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter published an article that focused not on the cartoons but the cartoonists (who were not named). It was based on interviews with a few of the cartoonists, several of whom regretted creating the pictures. (Dagens Nyheter also noted that although the cartoons have received worldwide attention and have been published several times, the cartoonists have only earned the initial few hundred Danish kroner each for their work.)

On February 4 the newspaper Dagbladet Information published twelve Anders Fogh Rasmussen cartoons satirising his handling of the entire affair.

A 2004 report by the immigrant rights lobbyist organisation ENAR claimed that the Danish media devoted an excessive proportion of their time to the problems posed by immigrants, and most often Islamic immigrants, while often ignoring the problems that these immigrants face. Over the 3 month period studied, from September 1 2004 to November 20 2004, 19 out of the 24 Jyllands-Posten's editorials on "ethnic issues" were negative, while 88 out of 120 op. ed. pieces on "ethnics" were negative, and 121 out of 148 letters to the editor on "ethnics" were negative.<ref>ENAR Shadow Report 2004 Denmark</ref> In Denmark, ENAR is represented by Bashy Quraishy, who is a former member of Socialistisk Folkeparti and is known for his apologetic attitude with regards to the 9/11 attacks and for referring to the focus on Islamic fundamentalism during the following investigations as "crusades". The other representative for ENAR in Denmark is Mona Sheikh, who failed to gain a seat in Folketinget representing Radikale Venstre when it was discovered that she was a member of the fundamentalist Minhaj-ul-Quran network.

[edit]

Opinion of the Queen of Denmark

In April 2005 the British newspaper, the Daily Telegraph published an article which quoted Queen Margrethe II of Denmark as saying that the Danes have "to show our opposition to Islam"<ref>“We must show our opposition to Islam, says Danish queen,” Daily Telegraph., 2005-04-15.</ref>. The comment is from the book Margrethe (2005) ISBN 87-567-7027-8. The statement was however somewhat mistranslated and ripped from the following context: [page 197] "There is, as said, something moving about people, whom to this degree surrender to a faith. However there is also something frightening about such a totality, which also is a side of Islam. There must be shown counter-play [interplay of an alternative / sparring], and once in a while you have to run the risk of getting a less flattering label stuck upon you. Because there is certain things before which one should not be tolerant." The passage as it appeared in the Daily Telegraph was re-printed by the pan-Arabic news paper Al-Hayat, as evidence of Islamophobia in Denmark<ref>(da)“Citatfejl bag vrede mod Margrethe,” Politiken, 2006-02-05.</ref>. Queen Margrethe has previously in her annual new year’s speech scolded the Danes for hostility against immigrants.<ref>(da)Dronningens nytårstale 1984</ref>

[edit]

Opinions of Muslims

Image:Arabcartoon.jpg A great many Muslims were angered by the publication of what they considered offensive images. This anger has been expressed in violent and peaceful public protests and newspaper articles in Arabic and Islamic countries. Although the artists have denied representing Mohammed as a terrorist, many Muslims felt that "a bomb in a turban, with a lit fuse and the Islamic creed written on the bomb" suggested a connection between Muhammad and terrorism. There are multiple ways to interpret this particular drawing though, for example that some Muslims are putting violence into the religion by using bombs, or that Islam is a bomb waiting to go off.

Other Arabs and Muslims have expressed their condemnation of the cartoons: "In [the West] it is considered freedom of speech if they insult Islam and Muslims," columnist Mohammed al-Shaibani wrote in Kuwait's Al-Qabas daily on January 30. "But such freedom becomes racism and a breach of human rights and anti-Semitism if Arabs and Muslims criticize their religion and religious laws."

A number of Muslim commentators, including Ehsan Ahrari of the Asia Times, have pointed at laws in Germany, France, Austria and seven other countries in Europe which explicitly regard the denial of the Holocaust as a crime, free speech considerations notwithstanding. They maintain that offensive imagery regarding the Jewish religion and the Jewish people is largely prohibited in the media in post-Holocaust Europe. The media in general practices self-restraint in this matter; nonetheless, Muslims allege that a different set of standards seem to apply for the Islamic faith.

In a BBC news programme, Asghar Bukhari of the British Muslim organization MPACUK and Roger Koeppel, editor of Die Welt, the German newspaper that published the cartoons, debated the issue. Bukhari suggested to Koeppel that a German paper would be particularly mindful of the effect of such imagery, considering the lengthy history of anti-Semitic propaganda and demonization of Jews in German media prior to the Holocaust, when caricatures of Jews as rich financiers or evil Bolsheviks were commonplace. Koeppel replied that he did not consider the caricatures of Muhammad in the same vein.

The public anger was accompanied by a condemnation from Arabic and Islamic governments. The Muslim World League (MWL) called on UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to activate international laws against insolence toward religion.<ref>freepublic.com</ref>

Image:Dm product.jpgThe Justice and Islamic Affairs Minister of the United Arab Emirates, Mohammed Al Dhaheri, called it "cultural terrorism, not freedom of expression," according to the official WAM news agency. "The repercussions of such irresponsible acts will have adverse impact on international relations." In Tunisia, Abdulaziz Othman Altwaijri, president of the Islamic Organization for Education, Science and Culture (the Islamic world's counterpart to UNESCO) called the drawings "a form of racism and discrimination that one must counter by all available means." He said, "It's regrettable to state today, as we are calling for dialogue, that other parties feed animosity and hate and attack sacred symbols of Muslims and of their prophet," said also Jordan's largest circulation daily, government-run Al-Rai, said the Danish government must apologize.<ref>“Outrage builds over Muhammad cartoons,” Crisscross, 2006-01-31.</ref>

The condemnations have also come from the General Secretariat of the Organization of Islamic Conference, saying:

It is evident that the intention of Jylland Posten was motivated to incite hatred and violence against Muslims. By exposing the level of understanding of Islamic religion and its symbols the dailies have seriously damaged their credibility in the eyes of Muslim world and harmed democracy, freedom of the press, violated decency and civilized norms.<ref>“OIC condemns publication of cartoons of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH),” Islamic Republic News Agency, 2006-02-05.</ref>

Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on February 6th, 2006, that a "Zionist conspiracy" was to blame for the row over the cartoons, in his first reaction to the controversy: "The reason for the Zionist action is because of the loss they suffered by Hamas winning". Khamenai was referring to Hamas victory in the Palestinian legislative election, which took place in January 2006, several months after the publication of the cartoons.

However, not all Muslims placed blame entirely on the West. In Iraq, the country's top Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, decried the drawings but did not call for protests. Al-Sistani suggested that militant Muslims were partly to blame for distorting Islam's image.<ref>“Thousands Protest 'Offensive' Cartoons in Gaza,” FOX News, 2006-02-03.</ref> In the United Arab Emirates, the periodical Al-Ittihad published an opinion piece which argued that

the world has come to believe that Islam is what is practiced by Bin Laden, Zawahiri, Zarqawi, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Salafis, and others who have presented a distorted image of Islam. We must be honest with ourselves and admit that we are the reason for these drawings.<ref>“Something's Rotten in the State of Denmark,” Slate, 2006-02-03.</ref>

Some Muslims, mainly in Europe, have supported the re-publication of the images so that individual Muslims can make up their own minds and welcomed the debate on the issues that that cartoons have raised.<ref name="BBC_QA">“Q&A: The Muhammad cartoons row,” BBC News, 2006-02-03.</ref> It has also been pointed out that cartoons in the Arab and Islamic press "demonising" Jews and Israelis are common. <ref name="BBC_QA"/>

Iran's largest newspaper has announced that it will be holding a "international cartoon contest about the Holocaust" in reaction to the images. Says the papers graphics editor: "The Western papers printed these sacrilegious cartoons on the pretext of freedom of expression, so let's see if they mean what they say and also print these Holocaust cartoons". [4]

[edit]

International opinion

Some commentators have remarked on the polarisation of the issue, and the vested interests involved in that polarisation. For example, Tariq Ramadan, a member of Tony Blair's committee to combat Islamic extremism, claims to see an "unholy alliance" between the anti-immigrant right wing in Europe and the dictatorial regimes in the Middle East. As the reasoning goes, some seek to portray Muslims as enemies of Western values and incapable of integration in European society. At the same time various dictatorial regimes in the Islamic world seek to unite their populations behind them by creating external enemies, which they claim are attacking Islam. By polarising the issue these two groups have increased the division between Islamic and Western society. <ref>(da)“En uhellig alliance har bragt konflikten om det hellige ud af kontrol«,” Information, 2006-02-01.</ref> British newspapers took an unusually similar editorial line on the issue, agreeing with the government's assessment of the issue. Even those considered on the 'right' criticised the intellectual justifications given by Continental titles.<ref>“How UK press shapes up to cartoon row,” BBC News, 2006-02-03.</ref>.

According to at least one analyst, the controversy over the cartoons has resulted in bridging some of the divides that both sides of the "West vs Jihadist" conflict have historically exploited: The rift between the United States and Europe on one side, and the rift between Sunnis and Shiites on the other side. According to this view, the reaction of the Muslims to the cartoons unifies the factions on either side of the global conflict.

Irshad Manji wrote that Muslims should learn to mock themselves, and accept mockery. Also that the focus on Muhammad was inappropriate, given that it was a monotheistic religion. <ref>“Combustible Cartoons,” Wall Street Journal News, 2006-02-04.</ref>

[edit]

Criticism of Muslim reactions

Commentators that characterize the Muslim reaction as hypocritical[[5]] point to anti-Semitic and anti-Christian publications in Arab media. [6][7] One website, Filibuster Cartoons pointed out this criticism in a political cartoon [8]. Syria, where demonstrations are tightly controlled, has been accused of allowing violent riots as a distraction away from the current Hariri investigation. [9][10] Also, aniconism is not limited to Islam, yet violent outcry like this seems to be more frequent in Muslim society. Furthermore, they believe it is odd that cartoons are considered blasphemous when terrorist attacks in the name of Islam are not equally condemned by Muslims.[11][12]

Some Westerners are puzzled that Muslims would threaten all members of a given nationality as a result of the actions of a few of its members or that of a small, private company. According to that logic, not only would the entire Western world be held "hostage" to the strictures of Islam, but the entire Western world (or at least all Scandanavians) would bear the consquences for the actions of individuals they cannot control (George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 7, 2006). This view leads to the unfortunate conclusion that violent conflict between the West and jihadist elements is both inevitable and uncontrollable. Others prefer to view the massively disproportionate Muslim response as simply a form of "arm flexing" or intimidation by violent Muslim factions [13]. According to this view, the violence is not so much inevitable as much as it is opportunistic.

Some Westerners associated with the political Right view the Muslim reaction to the cartoons, be it the violence, or the non-violent justification for the violence, as evidence of a so-called Clash of Civilizations.

Daniel Pipes expresses a common Western viewpoint when he claims that the pattern of events shows Muslim hypocrisy and supremacism: "...will Westerners accede to a double standard by which Muslims are free to insult Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism, while Muhammad, Islam and Muslims enjoy immunity from insults? Muslims routinely publish cartoons far more offensive than the Danish ones... .... .... The deeper issue here, however, is not Muslim hypocrisy but Islamic supremacism." [14]

According to some on the political Left, the widespread Muslim reaction proves that greater sensitivity is required in dealing with the Muslim world, and that neither side benefits from incitement to violence, including the perceived incitement that comes in the form of cartoons. [citation needed]

[edit]

Rumours and misinformation

[edit]

Burning the Qur'an

On February 4 2006 rumours that Danes would burn the Qur'an circulated in the Arab world<ref>(da) “Politi: Ingen afbrændinger af Koranen,” Politiken, 2005-12-21.</ref>. The probable source of the rumor is an SMS spread by Danish right wing extremists, which indeed told people to buy and burn the Qu'ran at a demonstration on February 4 in central Copenhagen<ref>(da) “Sms: Brænd koranen af på Rådhuspladsen,” Politiken, 2006-02-01.</ref>. This did not take place.<ref>“PRESS STATEMENT BY THE DANISH FOREIGN MINISTER, DR. PER STIG MØLLER, 5 FEBRUARY, 2006,” Danish Foreign Ministry, 2006-02-05.</ref> Approximately 40 right wingers did demonstrate in Hillerød instead. Neither Qur'ans nor other sacred items were burned.<ref>(da) “Masseanholdelser og uro i Hillerød,” Politiken, 2006-02-04.</ref>.

[edit]

Bounty on cartoonists

On December 2 2005, Danish newspaper Berlingske Tidende reported that the Pakistani religious party Jamaat-e-Islami had put a widely published bounty of $10,000 on any of the cartoonists. This turned out to be an exaggeration.<ref>(da) “Dusøren, der forsvandt,” Journalisten, 2005-12-21.</ref>

[edit]

Claims of double standard of Jyllands-Posten

In 2003, Jyllands-Posten refused a cartoon of the resurrection of Jesus<ref>Submitted Jesus Christ cartoons to Jyllands-Posten in 2003</ref><ref>[15]</ref>, because it would "provoke an outcry"<ref>[16]</ref>. Later, the paper said the cartoon was uncommissioned<ref>(da)“Jyllands-Posten afviste Jesus-tegninger,” B.T., 2006-02-04.</ref>.

[edit]

Additional images

A Muslim religious organisation in Denmark, Islamisk Trossamfund, played a large part in bringing attention to the cartoons to Muslims of the Middle East during a recent tour. According to some sources they also added three additional images to the group and claimed that they had been published in Jyllands-Posten as well<ref>(da)Viste pædofil Muhamed</ref> <ref>“Scandinavian Update: Israeli Boycott, Muslim Cartoons,” The Brussels Journal, 2006-01-14.</ref>. These three images are all considerably more obscene than the published cartoons, and none of them had previously been published by Jyllands-Posten or any other mainstream media outlet. On February 1 BBC World aired a story showing one of these three images, and incorrectly claimed that it had been published in Jyllands-Posten. <ref>(da)“Imam viste falske billeder,” Jyllands-Posten, 2006-01-30.</ref>

Akhmad Akkari, spokesman of the Danish-based European Committee for Prophet Honouring<ref>(en)“Danish paper rejected Jesus Cartoons,” Guardian, 2006-02-06.</ref> which co-organised the tour, claimed to be unaware of the origin of the three pictures and said that they had been sent by unknown persons to Muslims in Denmark. Arkkari explained the use of the three drawings as providing "insight in how hateful the atmosphere in Denmark is towards Muslims." However, when Akkari was asked if the Muslims who had received these pictures could be interviewed, Akkari refused to reveal their identities.<ref>(da)“Viste pædofil Muhamed,” Ekstra Bladet, 2006-01-12.</ref>

One of the pictures shows a contestant in the French Pig-Squealing Contest[17][18].

[edit]

Membership of Islamisk Trossamfund

The organisation claimed to represent 21 Danish Muslim organisations, with 200,000 members. However, its actual membership is believed to be fewer than 15,000, <ref>(da)“Abu Laban opfinder vrede muslimer,” Ekstra Bladet, 2006-01-29.</ref> and about 500 to 1,000 people attend their Friday prayer gathering.<ref>(da)“Vil isolere imamer i den politiske debat,” Danmarks Radio, 2005-06-13.</ref>

[edit]

Statements by Imam Ahmad Abu Laban

Despite informing Danish media that he would try to stop the boycotts, the leader of the organisation, Imam Ahmad Abu Laban, went on to state during an interview with Al Jazeera that "If the Muslim countries decide to boycott and if the Muslim citizens feel it's their duty to defend the prophet, then it is something we can be happy about".<ref>(da)“Abu Laban taler med to tunger,” Danmarks Radio, 2006-02-01.</ref>. In a press release dated February 2 2006, Abu Laban said that during the interview he was referring to Muslim respect for Muhammad, not the boycotts. <ref>(da)“Abu Laban: Jeg støtter ikke selve boykotten,” Politiken, 2006-02-02.</ref>. According to Abu Laban, the cartoon controversy has helped his mosque to vastly increase its membership: "I thank the (Danish) government very much for its stubbornness."<ref>(de)“Allah und der Humor,” Die Zeit, 2006-02-01.</ref> Ahmad Abu Laban has previously been declared officially unwelcome in several Arab states.

In response to Danish Muslims who criticised Denmark in Arab territories, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said, "I am speechless that those people, whom we have given the right to live in Denmark and where they freely have chosen to stay, are now touring Arab countries and inciting antipathy towards Denmark and the Danish people"<ref>(da)“Fogh forbløffet over muslimers rundrejse,” Jyllands-Posten, 2006-01-10.</ref>.

[edit]

Comparable incidents

Main article: Freedom of speech versus blasphemy

Believers from a multitude of faiths have called for boycott, arrest, censorship or even murder of critics, artists and commentators whose works they considered blasphemous. Some have been jailed, censored or shot, others walked free.

These incidents have seen frequent mention in connection with the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy:

[edit]

See also

[edit]

References

<references />

[edit]

External links

[edit]

Official correspondence

[edit]

Islamic views

[edit]

News sites

[edit]

Support for Denmark and Jyllands-Posten

[edit]

Images

[edit]

Academic analysis

[edit]

Mixed Viewpoints

cs:Kauza karikatur proroka Mohameda da:Muhammed-tegningerne de:Das Gesicht Mohammeds es:Caricaturas de Mahoma del periódico Jyllands-Posten fi:Muhammad-pilapiirrosjupakka fr:Caricatures de Mahomet du journal Jyllands-Posten he:פרשת ציורי מוחמד id:Karikatur Nabi Muhammad Jyllands-Posten it:Caricature di Maometto sul Jyllands-Posten ja:ムハンマド風刺漫画掲載問題 la:Jyllands-Posten ob illustrationes Mochameti (Muhammedi) controversia lb:Mohammed-Karikature vu Jyllands-Posten nl:Cartoons van Mohammed no:Muhammed-karikaturene pl:Karykatury Mahometa ru:Карикатуры на Мухаммеда sr:Карикатуре Мухамеда sv:Muhammedbilderna i Jyllands-Posten zh:日德蘭郵報穆罕默德漫畫事件

Retrieved from "http://www.openencyclopedia.net/index.php/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy"