Anger as papers reprint cartoons of Muhammad

This story has been raging here for over a month and is getting more and more heated and is likely to have very serious consequences for Danes and Denmark. It touches on questions of freedom of speech and expression and religious tolerance etc. I thought it would be interesting to find out people's views here.

In what context where the original cartoons published?

Where they part of a more general religious satire that took the piss out of other faiths?

If not then I'd probably say sure it's freedom of expression but designed to be deliberately provocative and is offensive.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4672642.stm

From the BBC

I'd agree with Dickie. Unless they were in context with satirism of other faiths then these cartoons can only be perceived as deliberately provocative wih intent to cause offence. I mean, what kind of reaction did they expect? What was the point of the exercise?

Of course its freedom of expression, but that doesn't mean free of consequence.

I'm sorry but that's rubbish. By the same logic you guys are using, every time the Pope or Jesus were included in a cartoon you'd also have to do one about Mohammed.

That'd go over really well.

The simple fact is that religious figures are regularly satirised in newspapers and magazines in the western world. I've seen Jesus Christ doing any number of outrageous and repulsive things in cartoons in newspapers in the US and Britain. I've seen the Buddha smoking pot. I've seen the Pope getting up to some rather profane and political things. The Old Testament God is quite regularly humiliated in our press.

The thing is, the Muslims do not actaully object to the bomb thing, from what I've read. It's drawing Mohammed at all that they object to. And I do not see how, with our history of freedom of expression, we can allow ourselves to be blackmailed into saying that Mohammed is exempt from the free flow of debate, creativity and ideas that make our political systems lively and robust.

And, frankly, what outright hypocricy. Western religious figures -- particularly Jewish religious figures -- are regularly caricatured, vilified and insulted in the media in predominately Muslim countries.


There's a good article in today's NY Times about the response from the European media:

The newspapers' actions fed a sharpening debate here over freedom of expression, human rights and what the culture editor of Jyllands-Posten, the paper that first published the cartoons last September, called a "clash of civilizations" between secular Western democracies and Islamic societies.

Indeed, the culture editor, Flemming Rose, said in an interview: "This is a far bigger story than just the question of 12 cartoons in a small Danish newspaper.

"This is about the question of integration and how compatible is the religion of Islam with a modern secular society — how much does an immigrant have to give up and how much does the receiving culture have to compromise."

In recent days, Denmark has become the object of a widespread boycott of its goods in Muslim countries, its diplomats have been summoned to be dressed down in Tehran and Baghdad, and protesters have taken to the streets of Gaza.

While Jyllands-Posten has apologized for giving offense, it has not apologized for publishing the cartoons, one of which depicts the prophet wearing a bomb-shaped turban. Images of Muhammad are regarded as blasphemous by many Muslims.

The Danish prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, has rejected demands by Arab governments for an official apology, saying: "I can't call a newspaper and tell them what to put in it. That's not how our society works."

Mr. Rose called the decision not to apologize for printing the cartoons "a key issue of principle."

Some Muslim leaders in Copenhagen have said they accept the apology from Jyllands-Posten, but Arab and Islamic governments in the Middle East have continued to express outrage.

In support of the Danish position, newspapers in France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and Switzerland reprinted some of the cartoons on Wednesday. A small Norwegian evangelical magazine, Magazinet, also published the cartoons last month.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/02/internat...r=1&oref=slogin

'In Paris, the newspaper France Soir, printed all 12 of the cartoons in question. The newspaper declared, "No religious dogma can impose its view on a democratic and secular society."'


Hear hear!

Nice:

In Germany, the conservative Die Welt printed one image on its front page and declared in an editorial: "The protests from Muslims would be taken more seriously if they were less hypocritical. When Syrian television showed drama documentaries in prime time depicting rabbis as cannibals, the imams were quiet."

Fair point, but I think there's less of an issue when you are satirising a figure of one's own faith (or the predominant faith of one's culture). You can question other faiths sure, but I just think you should be a little more careful with how you do it.

*referring to your first post. You obviously went into a posting frenzy while I was typing this! *

Well, no, actually. I mean, clearly you don't want to vilify any particular faith (as Muslim nations do with Judaism), because that's dangerous. But that doesn't mean when, say, for example, the Catholics go militant. Catholic nations threaten their neighours, violence is reported between Catholic residents of Italy and Protestant, etc., that you cannot then do a cartoon that portrays the pope holding an M16. That would be perfectly understandable, yes? You are basing your political caricature on basic facts, and then, well, caricaturing them. Which is sort of your job if you're a political cartoonist.

So, if you're a hypersensitive religion (as all are), you don't get a Get Out Of Jail Free Card because you've got issues.

As a society, though, we then have to be brave enough to take the backlash.

I think if we set Islam aside and say 'This is out of bounds.' We, by default, mark it as different, less intelligent, less sophisticated, less civilised than other religions. I, for one, am not going to do that. They are part of this world -- part of our own countries -- and they are going to be treated like everybody else, one way or another.

Some interesting responses. I think feelings have run high in Denmark specifically because we've become famous for the government's overly tough line on immigration and the media's over-egged focus on immigrants in negative contexts.

Therefore, delegations of radical muslims from Denmark have done the rounds in Islamic countries and have perhaps put wind in the sails of this whole issue internationally. Jyllands-Posten is by and large neo-liberal, right-wing broadsheet and is not usually known for its fairness on these issues and that hasn't helped the situation either.

I've talked to a lot of Danes about this and opinion varies widely but I think the general consensus is that the paper has been deliberately provocative. The drawings, which I've seen, do remind one of the hateful anti-semitic cartoons of Jews in 1930s Germany. The point is clear, that cartoonist doesn't believe that any form of Islam is compatible with Western societies. The paper, by publishing them (which they have every right do it), with no critical commentaries indicates that it also supports the views of the cartoonist.

Mata is correct when she says that devout Muslims would be offended by any drawings of Mohammed, and this has been debated. But I doubt they would have stirred up quite as widespread anger had they been less deliberately offensive to a minority (in Denmark) under constant attack. I thought the point of satire was to attack the strong and powerful. The people targetted by the cartoons are certainly not this.

The point of satire is to attack whoever is in the news.

From THE COLUMBIA ENCYCLOPEDIA.

Satire: From ancient times satirists have shared a common aim: to expose foolishness in all its guises — vanity, hypocrisy, pedantry, idolatry, bigotry, sentimentality — and to effect reform through such exposure. The many diverse forms their statements have taken reflect the origin of the word satire, which is derived from the Latin satura, meaning "dish of mixed fruits," hence a medley.


On the cover of Private Eye this week is a photo of the Lib-Dem's disgraced Oaten with a bubble above his head saying 'We're buggered'.

Oaten's already down, his marriage ruined, his career probably over. So what? That's what satire does. Ridicules the ridiculous.

And there is little more important or ridiculous in modern life than Islamic militantism.

Islamic militants have made themselves into an army of sorts, therefore they can be portrayed like a military. Nobody made a group that shares little except a religion form an international militia of sorts. By doing so, they made their religion wide-open to being treated like any other militant group. If they quit using their religion as a military, it would not be treated as a military. It is an abuse of a religion to arm it and kill.

As ever, Islam needs to look within for a target for its criticism.

My twopenneths worth:

Remember the Benetton ad where the guy with AIDS was meant to be Jesus?

That picture was just horrible, that poor man being used by Bennetton like that...
Olivera Toscani was the photographer I believe...

And how about this one?

Thanks for that background stuff Fred it illustrates the original point that pixie and myself were making that the context is important.

I deeply despise ALL religions and ALL churches. Putting aside the historical atrocities carried out in the name of various gods I also think that 'believers' and 'followers' of religions however deep their conviction are pretty foolish and have been suckered big time. But I accept the right of 'believers' to be foolish suckers in the same way I would expect my atheism to be accepted.

For me religions are fair game when it comes to satire but I don't think the Danish cartoons were satires.



Which leads to this bollocks of perhaps innocently tarring all Muslims with the same brush.



"God told me to do it" Is bollocks when Bush says it and it's bollocks when a terrorist says it.

Really? Why not?

Here's the cartoon in question, and the ancient drawing upon which it is based. A classic use of cartoon satire.

France Soir has done an abrubt about-turn:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4672642.stm

Shame really

Because I think there is a bigger picture or a wider agenda here (on the part of the cartoonist) and the cartoons were designed to provoke rather than lampoon.

I guess those making the death and bomb threats are kind of missing the irony of making bomb threats to show their outrage over being portrayed as bomb-loving....

Satire as we know it was essentially invented by Jonathan Swift with his publication of 'A Modest Proposal' in which he suggested that the English should cook and eat Irish babies, since there were so many of them and they were so poor that they were just going to die anyway. He even recommended recipes.

Satire, by its very nature, from its very birth, was intended to provoke.

If the cartoons provoked, then they were absolutely satire.

There was much international fury, by the way, over Swift's publication. So some things never change.

A little background from today's Washington Post:

The controversy began when the Danish newspaper asked 12 artists to draw caricatures of Muhammad in response to an author who complained that he could not find an artist willing, under his own name, to illustrate a book about the prophet.

Of course you're right about the history of satire but in this case what I am very clumsily trying to say is that he has missed the target of his satire by either deliberately or accidentally (giving him the benefit of the doubt) lampooning all Muslims and not just the terrorists.

Which in fact makes it worse for the cartoonist because given the remit what he is saying is that all Muslims are terrorists.

There were actually 12 cartoons. A Danish MP has posted them on his blog.

How is he saying that?

Ok now I've seen them I can categorically say…What's all the fuss about?

As you were.

(How did you find that site btw…My search for Danish cartoons came up with some interesting results but most of them you had to pay for)

I got lucky. I googled for the images, then clicked on one of the images and it was from a media blog that then directed me to the MP's website.

I, too, was amazed by how benign the images are.

And I'm rather concerned that newspapers in Britain and America aren't showing them so that people can see how over-blown this is.

See how beaten they are already?

I think the 'Stop! Stop! We ran out of virgins!' one is the funniest.

I'm inclined to agree with you Mata.

I expect Private Eye will may show them.

Just an additional point, but I remember this story from when it first broke, and some of the claims made then were blatantly untrue - in fact, I know for sure that a picture of Mohammad with the head of a pig was in circulation (I have seen it) with claims it also came from the same collection, which it clearly did not.

There is something sinister going on here. Fires are being deliberately stoked - remember, these picture were originally printed in September...

There are three additional cartoons - they can be found here and it is totally clear that these have been added to stoke up revulsion and hatred.

That is the real story!

They show Mohammad with a pig's head (or snout anyway), Mohammad being sodomized by a dog and Mohammad as a paedophile.

Well, that's a matter of interpretation of course, but I disagree. He is not satirising Muslims, but millitant Muslims. Imagine a cartoon of a crucifix in which the end was sharpened and dripping blood. Would that simply imply that all Christians were murderers? Or would the meaning be more complicated than that?

What I can't understand is the idea that because something is offensive, it is necessarily bad. The cartoon is incredibly effective because it has got the whole world talking. Some don't like it; some do. Others just want to discuss it. In other words, it has made a lot of people think.

And that is never a bad thing.

Oh my god, did you look at those cartoons? They're terrible!

And isn't that nice. Muslim leaders actually trying to cause unrest.

Charming.

Oh the wonder of Google...

Don't you just hate it when you take ages to finish something to find the debate has moved on about a dozen posts in the meantime?

Yes, I did see them - you should all look at them and the actual printed ones to see the huge difference.

These have been exposed as fake now - but the damage has been done - the pictures have been circulated and almost certainly the three faked pictures will have been the ones that offended most.

Today the excuse of a free press and freedom of speech was used to defend the racist action of newspapers.The reprinted caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad have been claimed as an exercise in the European value of free expression. If this were true then the actions of Julius Streicher publisher/editor of a Bavarian tabloid entitled Der Sturmer would also be your hero of free speech and press freedom. I shall now remind you the actions of Julius Streicher during the early-to-mid 1930s, years before the Nazi genocide actually began. In this capacity, he had penned a long series of virulently anti-Semetic editorials and ''news." Stories, usually accompanied by cartoons and other images graphically depicting Jews in extraordinarily derogatory fashion. This, the prosecution asserted, had done much to "dehumanize" the targets of his distortion in the mind of the German public. In turn, such dehumanization had made
it possible or at least easier for average Germans to later indulge in the outright liquidation of Jewish "vermin as his cartoons called them." The Nuremburg tribunal agreed, holding that Streicher was therefore complicit in genocide. The very same racist and now islamophobic
caricatures are once again on the pages of European
newspaper planting seeds of hate and dehumanization of a group of people at a very unstable time for many muslims across Europe. The Them and Us in this case muslims and europeans. And yet it nearly goes unnoticed that European history of xenophobia spilling
onto it newspaper is repeating itself. This is act of abuse of power in which people with
the power of a printing press and media resources can
subjugate a minority community in their respective homelands. This was an exercise of press might over a ethnic/religious minority, who have no voice in our newspaper or our
nations press and media industries. all the roles they play in our media industry is as targets for insult and scaremongering. this deliberate and premeditated act to insult was very idiotic and dangerous. the industry has taken us backwards into the days of Der Sturmer. The subterfuge of claiming this was to open a debate on self-censorship when dealing with Islamic topic falls apart. This was no debate or discourse. This one side hate and insults towards brown people to further excluded from our newspaper and european society.

the publishing of the caricatures of Mohammad were published not for a debate on Islam, terrorism, free speech or comedic satire of religious hypocrisies (which have been done about islam in cartoon form in The Simpsons to Ameican Dad and tons of cartoon editorials across the globle) or to have a discourse on self censorship by a so called expert and author on Islam. If he was truly an expert on Islam, then it would be blatantly obvious to him on the probation of images and iconography within Islam. But this was used to insult and further dehumanize a minority in countries around Europe in the guise of a pseudo debate on freedom of speech . No intellectual or academic attempt was made into the belief structure of Islam or its laws on images and iconography. Thatd because it was never meant to. It was to show them mooslims as violent reactionarys to free speech, they are book burners (Rushdie Affair') and incalculable of understanding western values of free speech, press fredom and many observers have claimed that Muslims are offended by these factors of the cartoons because they do not understand or appreciate the conventions of satire; that they are in fact at war with post-modernist technique of critique. As a Mooslims (surprise surprise ) who is far far far way from staunch authoritarianism, violence and narrow-minded views of Ayatollah Khomeini's nut job clones. I do understand and appreciate the conventions of satire and these caricatures were used to insult:

“Mass culture has granted to contemporary man, in his constant need to visualise the reality about him, the means of feeding on his own problems without having to encounter all the difficulties of form and content presented by the…elite” Dorfman, Ariel 1991 p25

It is important to establish that there was already a well established anti-Islamic tradition in the West. Anti-Islamic literature created a version of Islam that was far removed from the real Islam, but there was a purpose behind this misrepresentation, as N. A. Daniel observes in Islam and the West: The Making of an Image:
[the] West formed a more or less invariable canon of beliefs about Islam; it decided for itself what Islam was, and formed a view materially different from anything Muslims would recognise ... The important thing was it suited the West. It corresponded to need ... it gave Christendom self-respect in dealing with a civilisation in many ways its superior. (p.270)


… who fights against the Turks [Muslims] … should consider that he

is fighting an enemy of God and a blasphemer of Christ, indeed, the

devil himself…

Martin Luther (1483-1546)

E. Grislis, 'Luther and the Turks', The Muslim World, Vol.LXIV, No.3 (July, 1974), p.183.



Muslim society looks profoundly repulsive … It looks repulsive

because it is repulsive … A Westerner who claims to admire Muslim

society, while still adhering to Western values, is either a hypocrite

or an ignoramus, or a bit of both … Arab and Muslim society is sick,

and has been sick for a long time.

Connor Cruise O'Brian, The Times (London), May 1989

“all Muslims, like dogs, share characteristics" Will Cummins Sunday Telegraph July 2004

Goodness!

What a long post.

Anyway.

If you haven't done it yet, I recommend going to the link BarmyRob gave earlier to the fake cartoons, and scrolling down to read the comments on the forum. It's fascinating and very depressing. Lots of Muslims threatening to kill us all, and few Americans arguing in favour of the nuclear response.

Cartoons.

They are cartoons.

its not about the fake cartoons. cartoon and illustration have used before to as criticism many aspects of of islam. this was premeditated to cause all whats happeaning. who are they this lot of Muslims threatening to kill us all? As for Americans arguing in favour of the nuclear response. well its your contribution to the english language "Nuke em"

right-wing MP called Geert Wilders

From looking at them.It seems most were meant to be thought provoking rather than humourous.

This one was probably the exception.

Click to view attachment

I can understand why some Muslims would find them offensive.Personally i don't see anything more ofensive in the cartoons,than was posted previously by other posters on here about the Christian religion.Most of them seemed a lot less offensive and controversial than those.

I think you'll find that we also introduced the phrase 'Kiss my ass' to the English lexicon.

And "have a nice day"

I just don't buy that. Premeditated? By whom?

I was watching a replay of Arsenal v West Ham last night, and I was thinking of this subject and how the BB Forum would cover it. I thought to my self: "All those
people (in the crowd) have to understand this right, or they are racists."
People burning the Danish flag in Hebron, protesting in Yeman, (and probably England too), will be on the tv, and there is very little room for maneuver, as far as having acceptable views on this, goes.
I (kind of) understood where Lee H O was coming from in his long post. But to expect everyone to, is asking (demanding) too much.

i was not talking about the fake cartoons. you could tell the were copy cat after the facts, anyone could could of done them. i was refering to "Magazinet" the Norwegia evangelical christian newspaper magazine.

According to Radio 4's Today programme this am, protesters outside the BBC last night carried placards threatening to 'Slay the British' if they do not respect Mohammed, and saying 'Respect Allah or Die'.

So allow me to summarize what's happened here. Muslims around the world are threatening to kill people for drawing cartoons that imply that Muslims are violent.

I wonder how that 'Muslims, they're really Ok!' campaign is going...

Sometimes I love France.

Still, Europeans showed no signs of backing down. Le Monde ran a sketch of a man, presumably Muhammad, made of sentences reading, "I must not draw Muhammad."

when will religious nuts ever learn:
A.) God has a sense of humour
B.) If you are upset by something printed, pay no attention to it and it'll be used to wrap tomorrow's fries in...

Now those cartoons are everywhere...

Edited because I don't want point B to wear shades..

Too right - just look at giraffes