As though the world did not have enough barriers to cross on its increasingly uncertain journey towards peace, another great chasm has been opened. This time we face another iteration of a familiar issue: the depiction of Islam in the media. In September 2005, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a series of editorial cartoons largely critical of Islam and its figureheads. Most infamous of all the cartoons was a cartoon by Kurt Westergaard depicting the prophet Muhammad with a large bomb embedded in his turban. Another cartoon featured Muhammad at the gates of heaven warning suicide bombers that heaven was running out of virgins.
The initial response was predictably negative, but mostly limited to local Arab representatives. The Danish government was reminded that Islamic tradition regards artistic depiction of the prophet to be disrespectful, to which the government responded that European tradition (and law for that matter) was to respect freedom of the press. The issue seemed ready to fade away until a newspaper in Norway reprinted the cartoons in early January. The controversy erupted once again and this time spread throughout the entire Muslim world:
- Muslims in the middle east called for a boycott of all Danish products
- Saudi Arabia recalled its ambassador to Denmark and has remained defiant against EU threats to go to the World Trade Organization for supporting a Danish boycott
- Violent protests erupted worldwide. Many pictures in circulation show the Danish flag being burned or used as a doormat by angry Muslims.
- Muslim moderates like Hamid Karzai and Hosni Mubarak joined Islamic hardliners in condemning the cartoons and Europe’s apparent acceptance of their propagation
Many observers drew an instant parallel to the Ayatollah Khomeini’s imposed death sentence against British author Salman Rushdie for his supposed blasphemy in “The Satanic Versesâ€. However, Muslim responses to media portrayal have become more extreme since Kohmenini’s unfulfilled edict.
- Nigerian journalist Isioma Daniel took issue with growing Muslim opposition to the 2002 Miss World pageant scheduled to to take place in the African nation. In her article she wrote “What would Mohammed think? He would probably have chosen a wife from one of themâ€. The result was massive riots in the Sharia-dominated northern half of Nigeria, the destruction of newspaper facilities and Daniel’s exile
- In 2004, Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh was killed for producing a documentary about violence against women in the Muslim world
The negative Muslim reaction to the cartoons only encouraged more European newspapers (as well as some blogs) to post the cartoons in defiance. Meanwhile the Christian right took public exception to the refusal of US Media (CNN in particular) to show a cartoon deemed offensive to Muslims while freely offending devout Christians via TV shows (The Book of Daniel), magazine covers (Kanye West on Rolling Stone, depicted as Jesus) and other cartoons (editorials dealing with sexual abuse by Catholic priests).
With an open culture war of Huntington-esque proportions looming, millions of dollars in trade at stake, an increased danger to Western troops in the middle east and the growing threat of erasing what little progress has been made in liberalizing the Muslim world, it is time for all the key players to step back and take an objective look at the situation. A few important questions need to be addressed by angry Muslims and defiant Westerners alike:
Question #1: Are these Cartoons Offensive?
Answer: Yes.
To depict a bomb in the turban of Osama Bin Laden is making a political statement about a group that actually advocates violence. Placing that bomb in the turban of the prophet Muhammad suggests that all Muslims are Osamas waiting to pounce. The bomb cartoon is equivalent to creating a cartoon of Jesus molesting young boys in reference to the Boston sex abuse scandal, which would suggest that all Christians are potential child molesters. This situation is a bit more serious than having a pro-Christian rapper pose on the cover of Rolling Stone in a crown of thorns.
Question #2: Is the Muslim Response Justified?
Answer: No.
Protests have erupted worldwide in response to the cartoons and understandably some people are upset. This does not justify the open threats of terrorism from some angry Muslims, nor should it have encouraged the mass desecration of the Danish flag. Muslim immigrants to Western nations have even less breathing room: when someone migrates to a new nation (s)he has pledged to become a member of that society. Western society happens to favor freedom of the press, meaning that organized religion could be the target of open criticism. If you object to that criticism you are allowed to register a complaint … but death threats, harassment and violence are simply unacceptable. Addressing Muslim concerns about discrimination in Europe and Australia becomes difficult when a simple cartoon can spark such extreme intolerance among Muslims.
Question #3: Are Christians Victims of a Double-Standard?
Answer: No
Those trying to make the comparisons to Christianity’s portrayal in the media are simply throwing fuel on the fire. It was not long ago that Christian reaction to public criticism was no different from what we are seeing Muslims do today. However Christianity has adapted to current Western standards of freedom, meaning it too can be targeted when some adherents choose to misbehave. The fact that Islam has not yet adapted to being “just another institution†in the West does not in any way suggest that Christians are the victims of unfair treatment. Rather, it shows that Islam needs to evolve if it hopes to become a mainstream religion in societies that place high value on individualism and personal freedoms. This evolution will be complete once CNN can show such offensive cartoons like those posted in The Jyllands-Posten without fear of violent retribution.
Question #4: Will this Culture Clash Harm East-West Relations?
Answer: If we let it.
This situation has simply gotten out of hand. The West needs to understand that tarring 1.2 billion people for the extreme actions of those numbering in the thousands is simply irresponsible and should require an apology from those who published the paper. Those attempting to make this a freedom of speech issue are fighting the good war but have chosen the wrong article (Daniel’s column or Van Gogh’s film would have been better choices, as they exemplify honest Western criticism rather than borderline bigotry). Those dragging Christianity into the debate are being opportunistic. Those threatening and executing anti-Danish violence need to understand that the tight control of religious government they advocate or enjoy does not apply everywhere in the world. Everyone needs to take a deep breath and not let a few previously obscure drawings destroy years of progress in closing the gap between East and West.
However, a (if not the) Muslim response is expected. It is generally accepted that people who are otherwise rational would rise up in the name of God. Even the most docile of religious groups have protested when it came to trampling of their beliefs.
Would it have been more palatable if a peaceful muslim protest were lodged? Probably Yes. Would it have made an impact for us to take notice. Very unlikely - until the recent events, the US media did not even mention about the happenings.
We cannot just give the Muslim faith a black eye and go on with our lives. Just because the European nations believe in the freedom of the press does not mean that the press should abuse such rights. Where do you draw the line - just like you have rights, so do others…
In Islam we dont make pictures of any other prophets. We respect all prophets, Jesus, Moses, Abraham. In our religion, even if you made pictures of these prophets, it would be considered a big sin.
We respect all religions, yet why dont the people who drawed what they did respect ours?
Moreover, why not write about our prophet peace be upon him from true sources? if you really learn about this Prophet, you will see what a mercy he was to mankind.
The point of the drawings was as a comment on how sensitive muslims are about their faith — they figured since serious examinations of islam get yelled at, they might as well just go lowbrow about it w/ the pictures. Methinks the moment the Danish embassy in Syria went up in flames a collective “told you so” was said…
They are GOD. ALLAH. They are all powerful. They see into everything, everyone. They are Everything, They are Everyone.
They are the ONE.
Does The ONE need our help? Does the ONE really need us to be offended by an IDEA, on behalf of the ONE?
(God is great. Allah Akbar. yet not so great……because he doesn’t always understand that he is being offended. So we have to do his work for him, kill a few people and be outraged. Otherwise in his ignorance he may overlook the offense.)
Look up into the sky. look at the billions of stars all with their own planets. Can you tell GOD is busy? he really doesn’t really have time for all this crap, on this stinking little planet.
As for a picture. The picture is not the issue. The naming is the issue. Which is why I think the stick drawing of Mohammed is my favourite cartoon. If I scribble anything on a piece of paper and call it God. It’s a comment on my ego more than a comment on God. If you take offense it’s because you’re not praying enough. 5 times a day will have to be upped until you’ve stopped being distracted. God is testing you.
And why is it that Muslims aren’t offended by Muslims who kill themselves and others in the NAME of God? Surely mass-murder/suicide in the Name of God is a greater offense than any cartoon. God is great.
But it’s nice to see that Muslims are protesting using their economic might. Shutting down the production of extremely fattening Danish butter cookies is an important contribution to world health. Thanks!
think outside the dodecahedron
“How come Mohammed and Jesus need so much protection?
They are GOD. ALLAH. They are all powerful. They see into everything, everyone. They are Everything, They are Everyone.
They are the ONE.”
Mohammed isn’t supposed to be God, he’s supposesd to be the Messenger of God.
The christian reaction to such blasphemies has been relatively peaceful (protests, pickets, boycotts and lobbying). The muslim reaction appears to be, according to national news, mass violence and threats of murder. Ironically, the reaction appears to support the image of the offensive cartoons.
That being said– I don’t agree with the publication of religious blasphemy, whether it be blasphemous to christian, jew, muslim, buddhist, taoist, etc. No good has EVER come of it, whether in the name of art, satire, or political gain. The level of reaction may be unjustified, but the inciting acts should not be protected under any law of “free speech.” Let the offenders answer for themselves. They should be given the opportunity to apologize and withdraw. Furthermore, the disciple of a loving God should forgive them.
“Would it have been more palatable if a peaceful muslim protest were lodged? Probably Yes. Would it have made an impact for us to take notice. Very unlikely - until the recent events, the US media did not even mention about the happenings.”
Since when does a religion teach that violence is spiffy if it causes expanded media coverage? Religion is about a personal set of beliefs that lead one to live a life of value and meaning, in service of a greater good, and perhaps a reward in the life to come. Religion is not about how to have an effective media impact. Measuring one’s actions against ‘media effectiveness’ is absurd, no matter what culture you are from.
You answer for your beliefs, and how you behave because of them, whether a camera is rolling or not. Whether you are seen or not.
Whether anyone at all knows what you believe, or what you do, is irrelevant.
Follow the link under question #3 to see an accusation of double standards. Many bloggers have been making this charge, though not many in the mainstream media.
Point made. I see I have misunderstood your interpretation of the double-standard and possibly have only reinforced your point in my response. Thank you for pointing out the link and for the clarification.
Furthermore, I have, indeed, seen the “double-standard” brought up in other blogs, as you accurately point out. Like you and so many others have noted, the real double-standard is in how seriously the media is taking “blasphemy” in this case. I don’t seriously, in retrospect, expect the mainstream media to address this double-standard which is so obvious to the rest of us, since it will only serve to weaken the media’s self-perception of ethics and credibility.
It was a nice article. I am a Muslim and Iranian but not protest. Actually I believe that the thing which happened in Islamic countries was owe full and we are sorry for that kind of violence especially in political view.
But let me say something on behalf of Muslims, we respect freedom and we like it but in my point of view, there is some limitation in this regard. Let me give you an example you think about some one (some journalist for example) would like to write some articles about your sex habits and imagine that you are president of your country. What would you do and what is your reaction to this matter?
These are the same… freedom meaning freedom until you do not go to the border of others freedom.
Thank you for your attention and again thank you for your article
Form Matin Foomani
A Muslim…
P.S. By an accident I found your website. And I use to come here!
________
How come Mohammed and Jesus need so much protection?
They are GOD. ALLAH. They are all powerful. They see into everything, everyone. They are Everything, They are Everyone.
They are the ONE……(and whatever you wrote………….)
______________________
You spent so much time writing the above message, but sadly what you wrote is nothing but ‘crap’. I think it would have been better if you had used this time to read something on Islam, rather than what the western media tells you, which is again ‘crap’ .
You started in a wrong way and ended in a foolish way. So one thing I would even like to bring to your attention, Muhammad (SW) is not the GOD of muslims. We dont have HUMAN beings as GOD, or our GOD does not die on a cross, nor our GOD has a mother, who should sensibly be more superior to GOd considering she gave birth to a GOD. For us GOD is ALLAH, the creator and sustainer of Muhammad (The last mesenger and servant of Allah), and Jesus Christ (one of the PROPHETS of Allah, and a son of Marry, for whom we have enormous respect).
And Allah is not busy making the gallaxy bigger or Jupiter hotter, and not paying attention to this world, that is wrong. He has his eye on everything and everyone, even if it be a mountain, and stone on that mountain, and a plant on to of that stone and an ant living in that plant. He feeds that ant, and billions of ants around the world, and birds, reptiles and every single thing you can think of. Nothing is unnoticed to Him, He has an eye on everything.
Hope this helps your basics get right, I wont shed light on the cartoons because you wont understand it, till you know the basics. So it is better to do some research before you come with your intitution, which is purely based on what western media ‘makes you think of Islam’ and Muhammad(SW).
Thanks for reading it, and it was not intend to offend you, if you were than accept my sincere apologies.
Yousi
I have read the Qu´ran and I know the Muhammad´s biography. I would like to respect Islam and the Prophet but that thing it´s very difficult for me.Can be a moral example a man who: led an army, behead his captives (like at Badr), torturing a man(like at Khaibar), executed all men of a tribe(like BanuQuasi jews), enslaved women and children, approve the killing of his critics (as Ashma bin Marwan of Medina, mother of five children,one of them only a baby), make love to a nine years old girl (Aisha) or get the wife of his son (adoptive) because she is pretty enough?. Have any muslim an answer?Do that man deserves any respect, really?.Do you muslims know the deeds of your prophet? What do you think about this things?
Sincerely yours
A spaniard
Thanks for the response. No offence taken. I liked your story about the ant.
Is your God separate from the ant? If so how is he ONE? There must be something bigger that sustains them both.
Thanks for the info about your main man. I didn’t realize that Muhammad was Allahs ’servant’. What’s the big deal about the cartoons if he’s just a servant? I’m sure god has many servants. Why the hang up on this one? You guys are so sentimental.
good times.
Please do not take offence at my comments they are not directed at you or your prophet personally. If you do however take offence, I appologize sincerely as well.
boogieshoes