Muslim protest of cartoons
February 12th, 2006
Filed Under: News
“Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.”
That’s the nutshell version of what I’m about to go off on. In the past week, unless you lived inside of a cave cut-off from the rest of the world, then chances are you’ve heard about some news-rag out in Denmark printing a bunch of images of the Muslim prophet Mohammed, which in the Islamic faith is a major no-no because in their view they don’t want to create & promote an idol to worship as that runs counter to their beliefs. With me so far?
As a direct result of the Danish printing of these cartoons, a massive wave of Muslim protesters around the world have been condeming the racist cartoons for over a week now. And yes, make no mistake they are racist - it’s bad enough to disrespect a faith’s beliefs in the mass media in general but to illustrate an image of the Prophet Mohammed with a bomb in his turban is like begging for a fight with Islamic people. Now, after a week of Muslim outrage you have several other European countries re-printing the same offensive cartoons in an effort to flaunt the virtues of free speech thus protesting the Muslim protests.
I’m just trying to understand one thing here: What the f**k is wrong with people?!
First off all, I’m all for a free press, freedom of speech and the 1st amendment worldwide, but in no way do I believe that that gives me or anyone else the right to knowingly stir the ire of an entire cross section of society. Just like it is taught in U.S. schools, you have the right to free speech within reason, i.e. don’t shout fire in a crowded theater unless it’s true or you are liable for the resulting maythem that may occur as people rush to escape. It’s the same principle here with the printing of these Prophet Mohammed cartoons. Routinely, editors of a publication have to make daily judgements as to why they choose to print one topic over another. So why would you choose to mass produce something knowing that the offending party will not take kindly to it in general, let alone have it be blatantly disrespectful in it’s scope? And afterwards go hide behind a rhetoric of “free speech” and then choose to CONTINUE to publish the same offending item that clearly has stark negative feedback from a community?
WHY!?!?
“Free Speech” my ass, those publishers are acting like spoiled 4-year-olds with insenstivity and disregard towards others… just because they can. How nice is that. Surely if Jesus Christ was depicted in any unsavory or insulting way there would be a backlash against those that produced the offending images, and “Free Speech” wouldn’t be enough to justify that conduct then, now would it?!
On the flip side of all of this I feel for the practitioners of the muslim faith and I empathize with their outrage, which I feel in principal is justified. However, the violence that has ensued during some of these protests is something I do not condone one bit whatsoever. Punto.
But life, as we all know, isn’t so black & white, and I’m certain there are a few parties of vested interest taking advantage of the circumstances and fueling the fire and turning what started out as a civil & earnest condemnation of the Danish press into another battle of “The West vs. Islam” and governments like Iran are not helping matters much by reacting with a commissioned anti-holocaust cartoon — I understand the “tit for tat” aspect of it, but aside from creating more political turmoil in the world (especially in the Middle East) when you approach things with an “eye for an eye” attitude the whole world, sadly, goes blind. Personally, I’d rather we all keep our sight on the real issues here….and that is politics. Islamic special interests groups are trying to stir a frenzy among the protesters to fester more friction between Muslims and the West, while the goverments of Europe are being stubborn in their diplomacy regarding the issue as a whole.
Now you have the United States getting mixed up in it, and by not condemning the actual cartoons but rather some of the resulting violence from the Muslim protests the U.S. is missing yet another golden opportunity to show the Muslim world that the U.S. government does respect those of the Muslim faith. Though I understand that move of focus on the U.S.’s part, because clearly they don’t want to undermine their relationship with Europe, they however are making it all too easy for dissents to conclude that the U.S. doesn’t respect Muslims either. And with the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that distinction of focus doesn’t help to improve the U.S.’s image among Muslims nor help to alleviate their outrage any further.
Bottom line to all of this here is if you break it you buy it. Now Europe, you own this mess and are obilgated to correct it. Meanwhile the U.S. needs to watch itself carefully as surely the slightest spark from these protests are going to try to find it’s way to help tarnish the U.S.’s already questionable reputation overseas.
So, I’ll say this one more time:
“Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.”
Thanks for nothing Denmark.
Popularity: 10%
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.blue22.net/blog/wp/2006/02/12/muslim_protest_of_cartoons/trackback/
12 Responses to “Muslim protest of cartoons”
..:JJP
And don’t get me started with France; with 5+ million muslims in that country the French are a bunch of jerks for reprinting the cartoons.
Alvaro
It’s a very complicated subject… I’ve worked during 7 years in a newspaper and sometimes the director decide to not publish some cartoons that one of the cleverest cartoonists in Sapin produce, Pinto & Chinto are called.
The responsability is in the hands of the director and the editor, after them the justice if somebody ask for it.
What I found really unfortunate is the reprint of the cartoons. Is like put gasoline on fire.
I think it’s not a problem of racism or a war between west and east, I think the situation is really warm and with the minimun movement a big mess is created.
Think about one fact. Yesterday, a British newspaper published the images of some British soldiers hitting Iraqs teenagers during a mission in Basora last year.
This military are going to be investigating and surely judge. Our democratic system of freedoms, like press, has a lot of mistakes, but, do you think that these photos could be published in countries like Syria, Iran, Arabia Saudi or many others?
Of course, I think that the cartoons are really bad taste and also are insulting a lot of people that are like you and me. People need to start thinking about islamics as neighbours, not “that strange people that lives a lot of miles far away…”
P.S. Sorry about my english
vassili
Very interesting.
I would like to ask something.
Fisrt we all know that from the ancient history satire was a mighty weapon.
Denmark was one of the first countries that follow Bush in the Iraq war. They have more than 500 soldiers down there.
US of A that now is against all these cartoons was the country that started a fight between West and East a long time ago.
So do you thing that maybe we should look into another perspective of the subject? The question that I would like to ask is.
Do you believe that these cartoons was the main reason that all these protests started
or
do you thing that the cartoons was the “cherry” at a very long-bloody war and political and social conflict between the West countries and Muslim community?
I would like to say here that I’m not trying in any way to underestimate the power that images and symbols have.
Do you remember what happened with Martin Scorseses film ” The Last Temptaion of Christ” ? In France even a bomb exploited inside a cinema. So we are not talking only for a muslim fanatism.
I’m not getting offented personally with the satire of symbols and gods but I’m trying to respect people that getting offended.
I have to go now. Keep the dialogue!
Dave
The papers were daft to print the cartoon.
However the people who are rioting and burning embassies over a cartoon are equally if not more daft.
I seriously doubt the angry reaction is down purely to the cartoon, its probably just a symptom of the wider anger felt towards the west for the US/UK coalition invasion of Iraq and perceived support of Israel. Also it appears that certain elements were actively trying to make the situation worse than it was, check this quote from the Guardian
“According to Jyllands-Posten, the imams from the organisation Islamisk Trossamfund took three other mysteriously unsourced drawings as well, showing Muhammad with the face of a pig; a dog sodomising a praying Muslim; and Muhammad as a paedophile. “This was pure disinformation. We never published them,” Lund complained. But the campaign worked. Outwardly the row appeared to be calming down. But in Muslim cyber-chatrooms, on blogs, and across the internet, outrage was building fast.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1702091,00.html
Shockingly I find myself aggreeing with France’s foolish bigoted Minister for the interior on the issue he said he preferred “an excess of caricature to an excess of censorship”.
tom thompson
What a bunch of babies. The brick-eaters who published the cartoons, those who tell Europe that their 9-11 is coming, babies all. First off, you can’t foster debate with the undebatable. Depicting the Prophet is going to provoke an irrational emotional response in the believer that cannot be debated. It’s not a question of right or wrong, it is a fact. Could a satirist have fomented debate by presenting the exact same turban-bomb cartoon titled “Mullah” instead of “Muhammed” and not faced reprisals? Probably not. But it would not have played so well to the needs of Islamist propaganda crying for the destructuion of America and Israel (somehow that’s related to those pesky Danes) nor the Fox News crowd who think war with Iran is a great idea. If anything, I know know that religious folks are touchy about their dogma. Wait, Andres Serrano already taught me that. No, maybe it was my grandma when I question the Ark’s measurements vs. animals held…
B!
I don’t agree with printing racist material either, and I think they should have had more insight than to print such inflammatory material. However the cartoons were printed 4 months ago and it wasn’t until Muslim clerics started passing these around their mosques that the controversy went global. Now what the paper did after that was wrong, they should have issued an apology. That wouldn’t have affected free speech since the cartoons had already been printed and it might have calmed the situation. From what I understand they’ve done that and have said they will print cartoons depicting the holocaust to prove their point. Which I think is ridiculous also.
The other papers who have gone ahead and reprinted should be admonished for their behavior. They knew the kind of response they were going to get. That’s not free speech that’s incitement.
cpt
First of all look up free in the dictionary. I totally agree that the printing of the cartoon falls under the proviso of free speech. Everyone has a right to say whatever they want REGUARDLESS of the consequences. If people base what they say off of fear, then it’s imposssible for them to be free. The same right that lets me voice my opinions without fear of being dragged away by the secret police or some such thing, protects the white supremacist to my right when he screams “die nigger die!!!”. I may not like/agree with what jim-bob cousin-fucker has to say, but he has a right as a free person to say whatever he wants to say. It’s called freedom.
And yes he (jim-bob) is ultimatley responsible for what he says. But it’s up to the audience to be responsible in they’re reaction to statements/images/ideas etc…
I feel the real issues we need to examine here are these:
The inherently destructive nature of the fanatic/extremist.
The herd mentality of the uneducated.
Fanatic/extremists are the single mosst destructive force known to man. History is full of examples (crusades, the conquest of america, the bush family) of how the F/E is dangerous to a world as heterogenious as ours. Whether religeous, political, sports, whatever… An F/E is rarely aware if at all capable of being aware of the how the “other side” thinks, acts, feels. They are fundamentally incapable of empathizing with any one outside of they’re group and therfore see all “outsiders” as enemies. When you posses such a narrow minded view of the world and life, everything becomes threatening.
The herd mentality of the uneducated is just as dangerous. They are willing to follow the popular tide suggested by the educated minority (this pattern is never more obvious than in religious/political heirarchies). How do you think George W. won!? B! elluded to this in his/her blog post.
So you combine the justified outrage of the political/religious fanatic minority with the lemming type behavior of the uneducated uninformed majority, add a pinch of pot stirring (the clerics passing out the cartoons) and you have a sittuation quickly spinning out of control.
The subsequent reprinting was undeniably irresponsible. They saw the effect the cartoon had the first time and probably did it to further stir the pot.
I realize that I’m using broad strokes here, but really all I’m saying is people have a right to speak they’re minds. It’s up to us to act for ourselves, be informed and make up our own minds. Don’t follow the herd!
Mike
First, I don´t agree with the reprinting of an inciteful image - especially once people start to die because of it.
Second, If a protest of this internatonal level can break out of a cartoon - someone must be fueling the fire - or we have some serious cultural misunderstandings that need to be dealt with. Like a popular myth in the arab world that the holocaust didn´t happen - I am not the only one who saw that picket sign on BBC - I hope.
Third, I find it really difficult to discuss much of anything without being able to see the original document. So I looked for the well-discussed image of Muhammed with a bomb fo a turban - so I could make a response. Lucky for me, WorldNetDaily just republished the images in an article tonight! I am not putting the link to the article here although I seriously debated it.
From my western conspiracy theorist perspective, I tried to imagine why it would be against a law to put a face on a holy figure of Islam.
1- It is easier to control a diverse population of followers when they can individually identify themselves with the idea. Once that belief has a specific face, then it could start to divide the followers into fractions.
(Oddly enough - it reminded me of how America is run for the people and by the people. I hope you catch my drift on this.)
The image has no humor whatsoever. A caricature is one thing, but there is no intelligent joke here whatsoever. It merely supports a variety of stereotypes.
1- Muhammed must look like an Arab.
2- Arabs use bombs.
3- Turbans could be filled with something other than hair.
What other possible implications could there be?
1- The use of violent force can turn back on yourself. (based on the lit fuse burning down to his head + stereotype 2 from the previous list))
Chad
I thought they weren’t funny except for the running out of virgins one. But as one can attest from this site, a lot of non-funny things get published.
Jim Turner
I am surprised, JJP, that somebody I have considered to be “liberally minded” has come down on this side of the “cartoon issue”.
Were the cartoons in bad taste? Yes, very likely.
Is it against Muslim law to depict the prophet Mohammed in picture? No, not specifically, but it is how some Muslim scholars have interpreted the passages about idolatry.
Was the printing racist? No, not unless you consider Muslim to be a race. It is no more a race than Judaism or Christianity is. They are both religions that bind certain groups of people. There are Asian muslims, African muslims, European muslims…where is the race in that?
Were the cartoons an attack against Islam as a religion? I think probably not. I don’t think the cartoonist sat down and thought, “Gee, how can I say something really bad about Islam and really piss off a huge group of people?” I think, more likely it was the cartoonist’s backlash agains the radical extremists that claim to be killing large groups of people in the name of Mohammed. They are the real blasphemers, not the cartoonist. Perhaps that is what the cartoonist was trying to say…c’mon folks, think out of the box…literary interpretation, ya’ know.
Are the cartoonists to blame for the reaction of throngs of Muslims of late? To believe that is to believe that the Christian extremists who blow up abortion clinics are not really to blame, but that it is the fault of the doctors who dare to do something that upsets the Christian sensibilities of right to life.
And, this is really the crux of the matter, not whether the cartoons should have been printed. The cartoonist was expressing an opinion. Others have expressed opinions about topics that were considered sacred or a people’s belief systems. Yet, when the Ku Klux Klan burned crosses and killed Civil Rights workers to protest the U.S. government’s intrusion on their way of life, it was not the FBI that was blamed, but the klansmen, and rightly so.
The actions of a small group of Muslims of late are wrong, regardless of how much the f**ked up foreign policies of the world’s superpowers contributed to their culture of destruction. When do we distribute responsibility and stop making excuses. You don’t like the cartoons? Don’t look at them. Protest with signs and picket lines. Write Op Ed pieces. Take out full page ads in the New York Times. Don’t burn buildings and threaten to kill people. What? Just because they are Muslims, we are giving them the OK because, “what else did you expect?” Now that is a comment that generalizes and places a group of people with a common basis of belief in a not too complimentary light.
It’s not about Freedom of Speech. It’s about responsibility.
Was it responsible for the cartoonists to draw the cartoons? Depends on what they meant to say in the drawing of them.
Was it responsible for the newspaper to print them? It would have been less responsble for them not to on the basis that it might “offend somebody”.
Was the reaction by a handfull of Muslims backed by extremist organizations months after the printing responsible? No, it was destructive and a red herring…a justification to continue their anarchistic reign of terror.
Just commentary from your local, insenitive, polytheistic, secular white boy.
JT
PS TBT disavows all knowledge of anything and everything said here and claims that she had no knowledge of these beliefs and opinions before marrying me.
PPS And then TBT said, “WHAT…YOU’RE WHITE?!?!?”
Monkey Nutz
Forgive me for my lack of time placed into my initial response.
I cannot speak on what the Danes printed without knowing how their laws (i.e. Free speech) are arranged and written, and can only comment from my limited knowledge of U.S. Free speech (which has been brutally circumvented by the current administration and it’s proponents).
And I ask everyone to take that into consideration.
Tia
After reading all of the above entries I have to say I find this exchange interesting and thoughtful. However, my personal reaction to this entire situation is, much more on an emotional level. It truly saddens me to know that people of supposedly good conscience on all sides try so hard to over-intellectualize this, and similar world situations, to the point where they forget that real people are involved and are getting hurt on a daily basis, simply because many are unable or unwilling to empathize with their fellow human beings. I fear for the collective soul of our planet if we continue on such a destructive path as this, but I suppose it is of some comfort to know that some, such as the contributors to this blog, are trying to help make some sense of it all.
Leave a Reply